Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Education] Video tutorial regarding creating Wikipedia references with VisualEditor

[Pine W]

Hi Bekriah,

Thanks for sharing the Arabic and Hebrew resources. Would you please add
the those resources to this catalog of tutorials
?
My impression from my brief look is that the Hebrew tutorials use
JavaScript instead of video, but the goal is similar to instructional
videos, so I think that adding those tutorials to the catalog would be
good. There is a section in the catalog for tutorials which are in
development and not finished. I added a column to the tables to indicate
whether a tutorial is a video, interactive, or both.

Below are some additional comments that I have regarding the possibility of
adapting the video that I am producing for diverse language editions of
Wikipedia.

For the video that I am currently developing regarding referencing with
VisualEditor, I am keeping translatability and accessibility in mind. I am
hoping that the subtitles can be translated into non-English languages, or
at least languages which Google Translate understands well, with relative
ease.

The images and animations in each language edition of the video would
ideally be in the same language as the subtitles. Changing images and
animations will likely require more time than translating the subtitles. My
current pilot project in English will almost certainly finish this month.
After the end of this pilot project, I might request funding for a full
adaptation of the video into a non-English language, and if that goes well
then I could request additional funding for additional adaptations.

I know enough Spanish that I could probably adapt English Wikipedia videos
for Spanish Wikipedia with a relatively modest level of help from native
Spanish speakers, but I would need more support for languages which I don't
know well such as Romanian or French, and even more help for languages
which are written in diverse alphabets and which Google Translate
translates poorly or not at all. I would like to help with adaptations for
diverse Wikipedia language communities.

I am mindful that an issue when adapting instructional videos for diverse
Wikipedia language editions is that there may be variations in policies and
workflows. I would want to account for those variations when creating
adaptations of videos.

At this time I can't promise that this English language video will be
adapted for additional language editions of Wikipedia to use, but I think
that there is a good possibility that if the English version of this video
is well accepted and used by the English Wikipedia community, then the
video may be adapted for more language editions of Wikipedia. :)

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] [Wikimedia Education] Video tutorial regarding creating Wikipedia references with VisualEditor

[Bekriah Mawasi]

It's fascinating how diverse these tutorials are, especially that they
serve a similar purpose, thank you very much for sharing!

At Wikimedia Israel we have been developing an instructional website in
Arabic called Wiki Warsha ويكي ورشة ("wiki workshop"). The tutorials
consist of multimedia elements (video, text, images), and are divided into
13 chapters taking into account the particularities of Arabic Wikipedia.
The tutorials provide self-learners and new comers with basic information
on the following: Wikipedia homepage structure, About Wikipedia
articles, Creating
an account, Signing with a registered account, Creating a userpage, Writing
a new article, Editing an article, Formatting the article, Adding image, Adding
internal and external links, Adding references, Adding categories, Request
edits approval on Arabic Wikipedia.
The choice to make video, text and image tutorials in a website format was
made in order ensure access on different devices including smartphones and
tablets, and to make the web content accessible to people with disabilities
too.

Attaching in the link a sample draft of one of the videos we are working
on, Adding images:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zV1CrIpoENpPd1OR4rRgy0QncR-NE1O8/view


In the past, the chapter has developed an interactive courseware in Hebrew
which has proved to be successful. The courseware is divided into four
chapters: 1) The interface 2) Editing article and userpage 3) Talk and
community 4) Adding images. For example, Link: Editing interface

(Hebrew)



*Bekriah*



On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:35 AM Pine W  wrote:

> Thanks very much for the information regarding these videos in Swedish,
> Basque, and Spanish. I'm impressed by the quality of the recent videos in
> Basque and Spanish that I watched, to the extent that I understand them. In
> the past two to three years have I also learned about recently produced
> instructional videos through publications such as affiliates' reports and
> *This
> Month in Education* .
>
> To the extent that I understand the video in Spanish that Dennis linked
> <
> https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tutoriales_WMCL_-_Agregar_referencias.webm
> >,
> I think that it is very good, so I'm now thinking that I will suggest to
> WMF that I not create a Spanish version of the video that I am producing,
> but in the future if there is interest in having instructional videos in
> Spanish regarding different subjects that are not already covered by
> existing videos then I may propose creating Spanish versions of videos that
> I plan for English Wikipedia, Commons, or other projects.
>
> As far as I know, there is no easily accessible catalog of what Wikimedia
> instructional videos exist. Finding some instructional videos is possible
> using the Commons category tree and by searching for file names on Commons,
> but not all videos are easy to find using those methods, and several
> instructional videos that I found on Commons are outdated. I boldly created
> a page here
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation_of_educational_video_and_website_series/Catalog_of_Wikimedia_instructional_videos
> >
> for cataloging Wikimedia instructional videos, and I would like to invite
> people to expand that list, especially for videos which contain current
> information and have good production quality. Hopefully having a common
> catalog will help those of us who produce videos to get ideas from watching
> others' videos, and to consider whether to translate or reuse portions of
> existing videos. If someone thinks that they have a better idea for
> cataloging existing Wikimedia instructional videos, or if there is a
> catalog that already exists, please reply to this thread or contact me off
> list.
>
> Regarding documenting my process, I am placing notes
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation_of_educational_video_and_website_series/Notes
> >
> on Meta that are in addition to the grant proposal, the talk page for the
> grant proposal, and the scripts.
>
> Thanks again for sharing information.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Education mailing list
> educat...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
>


-- 
*بكريّة مواسي*
*منسّقة المشاريع التّربويّة*
*Bekriah Mawasi*


*Arabic Education Coordinator*
___
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] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

I don't understand in which possible world anyone thought this was a good
idea.

The MfD, that is. It, and the entire discussion in favour, reads as some
sort of caricature of the worst SJW-type excesses.

M.



On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 16:41, Fæ  wrote:

> As the last second repost had the same format error, I am trying for a
> final time. How embarrassing!
>
> 
>
> I would like to apologise to SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS), and more
> generally to the Wikipedia community, for any possible implication
> given in my previous email to this list, that authors of the
> problematic Signpost "Pronouns beware" essay, might in any way be
> thought to be transphobic. This was an important matter to word
> precisely and accurately. I take responsibility and apologise, it was
> stupid of me to fail to ensure that there could be no way that my
> words might appear to be intended as an attack on the person, rather
> than criticism of the judgement used when writing this essay, and the
> choice to publish it on Wikipedia.
>
> I refrained from correcting this email previously, as it was thought
> to be better to avoid stirring up any further drama, however this was
> being interpreted by one of the authors as deliberately avoiding
> making any correction.[1] I apologise for that misjudgement, and my
> failure to understand how a delay would appear. My thanks go to
> SMcCandlish for raising their complaint that a correction was needed.
>
> The rest of this email runs on the long side, if you have been
> following the deletion discussion, there is probably nothing new here.
> :-)
>
> My action in acting transparently as a whistleblower, was to criticise
> the editorial judgement of creating an essay which made jokes about
> pronoun usage which would, and has, been read as making a bad joke
> that mocks genderqueer and transgender people. This problem of how the
> article could be read, was raised by others before publication.
> Overwhelmingly the deletion discussion created for the essay has had
> feedback from many long term and experienced Wikipedians who were
> alarmed and upset that the article was published without this problem
> being acted on, and either halting publication, or ensuring a
> resubmission so there could be no confusion that the article appeared
> abusive or a failure to respect genderqueer and nonbinary people.[0]
> Many deletion comments have called the article "transphobic". Nobody
> as far as I have seen, has mistakenly called the authors transphobes.
> There is a good faith presumption that cause is an error of judgement.
> It has been explained several times by myself and others in related
> Wikipedia discussions that objecting to a published joke being
> offensive to a minority group, in no way implies or presumes that the
> author(s) deliberately intended to cause offense to that minority
> group.Thanks,
>
> Thankfully the Signpost essay has been hidden from view while the
> deletion discussion continues, an action that resolves the immediate
> issue, and removes any need for me to be involved.
>
> I have not made a complaint to the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct
> Committee, and decided to let a thread on meta stay closed with regard
> to use of a unpaid volunteer WMF related title that requires
> compliance with the Code of Conduct.
>
> I sent a friendly confidential email to the Wikimedia Wiki Education
> project for comment, as Barbara chose to publish the essay using the
> unpaid volunteer account that specifically represented Wiki Education,
> though again, this was not a formal complaint. I had one informal
> reply back saying they were looking into it. I have not emailed anyone
> else with regard to the authors or their actions. Explicitly, I have
> not contacted anyone's employer nor anyone else not directly part of
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> Barbara has thoughtfully stated in a personal email to me, and on her
> Wikipedia talk page, that she is preparing a formal apology as one of
> the coauthors.
>
> Thankfully SMcCandlish has agreed with the article being hidden from
> view, and continues to debate the article deletion. They chose to
> raised an ANI request against me for "canvassing and
> incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes", which was closed
> without action toThanks,day.[3] At the time of writing this email, there
> are
> claims by SMcCandlish that they are "accused of being a transphobe",
> it is unclear who is doing this.[4]
>
> The WMF have taken the unusual step of refusing an email promoting the
> Signpost on the announcements list, due to "multiple reports of
> concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019
> edition of the Signpost". I made no formal email complaint to the WMF
> about Signpost, or anything else. The multiple reports were from other
> concerned people that are unknown to me. Sadly the immediate personal
> response to the WMF by the Signpost Production Manager has been "I
> find your rejection of my email to be an empty 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

[Fæ]

As the last second repost had the same format error, I am trying for a
final time. How embarrassing!



I would like to apologise to SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS), and more
generally to the Wikipedia community, for any possible implication
given in my previous email to this list, that authors of the
problematic Signpost "Pronouns beware" essay, might in any way be
thought to be transphobic. This was an important matter to word
precisely and accurately. I take responsibility and apologise, it was
stupid of me to fail to ensure that there could be no way that my
words might appear to be intended as an attack on the person, rather
than criticism of the judgement used when writing this essay, and the
choice to publish it on Wikipedia.

I refrained from correcting this email previously, as it was thought
to be better to avoid stirring up any further drama, however this was
being interpreted by one of the authors as deliberately avoiding
making any correction.[1] I apologise for that misjudgement, and my
failure to understand how a delay would appear. My thanks go to
SMcCandlish for raising their complaint that a correction was needed.

The rest of this email runs on the long side, if you have been
following the deletion discussion, there is probably nothing new here.
:-)

My action in acting transparently as a whistleblower, was to criticise
the editorial judgement of creating an essay which made jokes about
pronoun usage which would, and has, been read as making a bad joke
that mocks genderqueer and transgender people. This problem of how the
article could be read, was raised by others before publication.
Overwhelmingly the deletion discussion created for the essay has had
feedback from many long term and experienced Wikipedians who were
alarmed and upset that the article was published without this problem
being acted on, and either halting publication, or ensuring a
resubmission so there could be no confusion that the article appeared
abusive or a failure to respect genderqueer and nonbinary people.[0]
Many deletion comments have called the article "transphobic". Nobody
as far as I have seen, has mistakenly called the authors transphobes.
There is a good faith presumption that cause is an error of judgement.
It has been explained several times by myself and others in related
Wikipedia discussions that objecting to a published joke being
offensive to a minority group, in no way implies or presumes that the
author(s) deliberately intended to cause offense to that minority
group.Thanks,

Thankfully the Signpost essay has been hidden from view while the
deletion discussion continues, an action that resolves the immediate
issue, and removes any need for me to be involved.

I have not made a complaint to the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct
Committee, and decided to let a thread on meta stay closed with regard
to use of a unpaid volunteer WMF related title that requires
compliance with the Code of Conduct.

I sent a friendly confidential email to the Wikimedia Wiki Education
project for comment, as Barbara chose to publish the essay using the
unpaid volunteer account that specifically represented Wiki Education,
though again, this was not a formal complaint. I had one informal
reply back saying they were looking into it. I have not emailed anyone
else with regard to the authors or their actions. Explicitly, I have
not contacted anyone's employer nor anyone else not directly part of
Wikimedia projects.

Barbara has thoughtfully stated in a personal email to me, and on her
Wikipedia talk page, that she is preparing a formal apology as one of
the coauthors.

Thankfully SMcCandlish has agreed with the article being hidden from
view, and continues to debate the article deletion. They chose to
raised an ANI request against me for "canvassing and
incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes", which was closed
without action toThanks,day.[3] At the time of writing this email, there are
claims by SMcCandlish that they are "accused of being a transphobe",
it is unclear who is doing this.[4]

The WMF have taken the unusual step of refusing an email promoting the
Signpost on the announcements list, due to "multiple reports of
concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019
edition of the Signpost". I made no formal email complaint to the WMF
about Signpost, or anything else. The multiple reports were from other
concerned people that are unknown to me. Sadly the immediate personal
response to the WMF by the Signpost Production Manager has been "I
find your rejection of my email to be an empty political gesture
bowing to political pressure from braying sheeple."[5] No other
Signpost contributor has made any other reply, either personally or on
behalf of Signpost. I have seen no plans or proposals to change or
improve the review process or policies for the Signpost.

Thank you for those sending private messages of encouragement, support
and information. Should anything similar happen on Wikipedia in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

[Fæ]

As the last post had a format error, I am reposting the body of the
email again to avoid confusion!



I would like to apologise to SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS), and more
generally to the Wikipedia community, for any possible implication
given in my previous email to this list, that authors of the
problematic Signpost "Pronouns beware" essay, might in any way be
thought to be transphobic. This was an important matter to word
precisely and accurately. I take responsibility and apologise, it was
stupid of me to fail to ensure that there could be no way that my
words might appear to be intended as an attack on the person, rather
than criticism of the judgement used when writing this essay, and the
choice to publish it on Wikipedia.

I refrained from correcting this email previously, as it was thought
to be better to avoid stirring up any further drama, however this was
being interpreted by one of the authors as deliberately avoiding
making any correction.[1] I apologise for that misjudgement, and my
failure to understand how a delay would appear. My thanks go to
SMcCandlish for raising their complaint that a correction was needed.

The rest of this email runs on the long side, if you have been
following the deletion discussion, there is probably nothing new here.
:-)

My action in acting transparently as a whistleblower, was to criticise
the editorial judgement of creating an essay which made jokes about
pronoun usage which would, and has, been read as making a bad joke
that mocks genderqueer and transgender people. This problem of how the
article could be read, was raised by others before publication.
Overwhelmingly the deletion discussion created for the essay has had
feedback from many long term and experienced Wikipedians who were
alarmed and upset that the article was published without this problem
being acted on, and either halting publication, or ensuring a
resubmission so there could be no confusion that the article appeared
abusive or a failure to respect genderqueer and nonbinary people.[0]
Many deletion comments have called the article "transphobic". Nobody
as far as I have seen, has mistakenly called the authors transphobes.
There is a good faith presumption that cause is an error of judgement.
It has been explained several times by myself and others in related
Wikipedia discussions that objecting to a published joke being
offensive to a minority group, in no way implies or presumes that the
author(s) deliberately intended to cause offense to that minority
group.

Thankfully the Signpost essay has been hidden from view while the
deletion discussion continues, an action that resolves the immediate
issue, and removes any need for me to be involved.

I have not made a complaint to the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct
Committee, and decided to let a thread on meta stay closed with regard
to use of a unpaid volunteer WMF related title that requires
compliance with the Code of Conduct.

I sent a friendly confidential email to the Wikimedia Wiki Education
project for comment, as Barbara chose to publish the essay using the
unpaid volunteer account that specifically represented Wiki Education,
though again, this was not a formal complaint. I had one informal
reply back saying they were looking into it. I have not emailed anyone
else with regard to the authors or their actions. Explicitly, I have
not contacted anyone's employer nor anyone else not directly part of
Wikimedia projects.

Barbara has thoughtfully stated in a personal email to me, and on her
Wikipedia talk page, that she is preparing a formal apology as one of
the coauthors.

Thankfully SMcCandlish has agreed with the article being hidden from
view, and continues to debate the article deletion. They chose to
raised an ANI request against me for "canvassing and
incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes", which was closed
without action today.[3] At the time of writing this email, there are
claims by SMcCandlish that they are "accused of being a transphobe",
it is unclear who is doing this.[4]

The WMF have taken the unusual step of refusing an email promoting the
Signpost on the announcements list, due to "multiple reports of
concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019
edition of the Signpost". I made no formal email complaint to the WMF
about Signpost, or anything else. The multiple reports were from other
concerned people that are unknown to me. Sadly the immediate personal
response to the WMF by the Signpost Production Manager has been "I
find your rejection of my email to be an empty political gesture
bowing to political pressure from braying sheeple."[5] No other
Signpost contributor has made any other reply, either personally or on
behalf of Signpost. I have seen no plans or proposals to change or
improve the review process or policies for the Signpost.

Thank you for those sending private messages of encouragement, support
and information. Should anything similar happen on Wikipedia in the
future, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

[Fæ]

I would like to apologise to SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS), and more
generally to the Wikipedia community, for any possible implication
given in my previous email to this list, that authors of the
problematic Signpost "Pronouns beware" essay, might in any way be
thought to be transphobic. This was an important matter to word
precisely and accurately. I take responsibility and apologise, it was
stupid of me to fail to ensure that there could be no way that my
words might appear to be intended as an attack on the person, rather
than criticism of the judgement used when writing this essay, and the
choice to publish it on Wikipedia.

I refrained from correcting this email previously, as it was thought
to be better to avoid stirring up any further drama, however this was
being interpreted by one of the authors as deliberately avoiding
making any correction.[1] I apologise for that misjudgement, and my
failure to understand how a delay would appear. My thanks go to
SMcCandlish for raising their complaint that a correction was needed.

The rest of this email runs on the long side, if you have been
following the deletion discussion, there is probably nothing new here.
:-)

My action in acting transparently as a whistleblower, was to criticise
the editorial judgement of creating an essay which made jokes about
pronoun usage which would, and has, been read as making a bad joke
that mocks genderqueer and transgender people. This problem of how the
article could be read, was raised by others before publication.
Overwhelmingly the deletion discussion created for the essay has had
feedback from many long term and experienced Wikipedians who were
alarmed and upset that the article was published without this problem
being acted on, and either halting publication, or ensuring a
resubmission so there could be no confusion that the article appeared
abusive or a failure to respect genderqueer and nonbinary people.[0]
Many deletion comments have called the article "transphobic". Nobody
as far as I have seen, has mistakenly called the authors transphobes.
There is a good faith presumption that cause is an error of judgement.
It has been explained several times by myself and others in related
Wikipedia discussions that objecting to a published joke being
offensive to a minority group, in no way implies or presumes that the
author(s) deliberately intended to cause offense to that minority
group.

Thankfully the Signpost essay has been hidden from view while the
deletion discussion continues, an action that resolves the immediate
issue, and removes any need for me to be involved.

I have not made a complaint to the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct
Committee, and decided to let a thread on meta stay closed with regard
to use of a unpaid volunteer WMF related title that requires
compliance with the Code of Conduct.

I sent a friendly confidential email to the Wikimedia Wiki Education
project for comment, as Barbara chose to publish the essay using the
unpaid volunteer account that specifically represented Wiki Education,
though again, this was not a formal complaint. I had one informal
reply back saying they were looking into it. I have not emailed anyone
else with regard to the authors or their actions. Explicitly, I have
not contacted anyone's employer nor anyone else not directly part of
Wikimedia projects.

Barbara has thoughtfully stated in a personal email to me, and on her
Wikipedia talk page, that she is preparing a formal apology as one of
the coauthors.

Thankfully SMcCandlish has agreed with the article being hidden from
view, and continues to debate the article deletion. They chose to
raised an ANI request against me for "canvassing and
incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes", which was closed
without action today.[3] At the time of writing this email, there are
claims by SMcCandlish that they are "accused of being a transphobe",
it is unclear who is doing this.[4]

The WMF have taken the unusual step of refusing an email promoting the
Signpost on the announcements list, due to "multiple reports of
concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019
edition of the Signpost". I made no formal email complaint to the WMF
about Signpost, or anything else. The multiple reports were from other
concerned people that are unknown to me. Sadly the immediate personal
response to the WMF by the Signpost Production Manager has been "I
find your rejection of my email to be an empty political gesture
bowing to political pressure from braying sheeple."[5] No other
Signpost contributor has made any other reply, either personally or on
behalf of Signpost. I have seen no plans or proposals to change or
improve the review process or policies for the Signpost.

Thank you for those sending private messages of encouragement, support
and information. Should anything similar happen on Wikipedia in the
future, this experience has taught me to run as fast as possible in
the opposite direction, rather than putting my