Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-16 Thread Asaf Bartov
(posting in my volunteer capacity)

Echoing Andrew's, SJ's, and Ziko's comments, I will add that perhaps all it
would take is some collective energy to endorse these long-standing
observations, and signal to WMF that we no longer have to pretend Wikinews
is a worthwhile model (as SJ, Paulo, and Andrew spell out, *to the extent*
we can do news (which is far from 100%, being mostly news-synthesis and
contextualizing), we do a far better job through and in Wikipedia).  I
think no action has been taken because it is neither an urgent problem, nor
an important one to most contributors, so if WMF were to "sunset" Wikinews,
it would upset the few die-hard Wikinewsies[1], and please almost no-one.

If a significant number of people were to see the *opportunity cost* we pay
due to this confusion and branding issue (ably described by SJ in his
anecdote about the fact-checker event), and express their concern (e.g. via
an RFC), perhaps there would be found more appetite to provide the formal
nod to shutter (not delete) Wikinews, and avoid misleading new volunteers
and outsiders into believing Wikinews can work.

I have tried to contribute toward this goal with a session at the Wikimedia
Conference 2013 (in Milan)[2] focused on *the cost* of keeping up the
appearance of Wikinews (and Wikiversity, and Wikipedias in languages with
~2000 speakers) as worthwhile endeavors.  While there were some who agreed,
I mostly managed to upset some people, and there was no appetite at WMF (at
the time) to take up that cause.

So we are probably doomed to have these conversations periodically (indeed,
that itself is one of the costs I listed), until such time as some critical
mass is reached and enough people want to be rid of this historical
baggage.  I would like to see us do so, but as a staff member, I think it
is not for me to start an RFC.

   A.

[1] Some years ago a Wikinewsie user group was created.  It failed to
sustain enough interest to meet the single user group duty of submitting an
annual activity report, and exist beyond its inaugural year.
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2013/Documentation/Day_3#Wikinews,_Wikiversity,_Rapa_Nui_and_other_lost_causes
seems to be the best (though not very good) documentation of that session.
Oh wait, there's also this, uh, Prezi:
https://prezi.com/gg3wadct9fec/wikinews-wikiversity-rapa-nui-and-other-lost-causes/

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:04 AM Andrew Lih  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Andrew
> >
> > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> that
> > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia
> is
> > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.
>
>
> As Wikimedians we are secondary source news summarizers rather than primary
> source news gatherers. That’s where the difference lies primarily.
>
> I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews with
> notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a direct
> news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
>
> [1]
> https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
>
>
> > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is
> to
> > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
>
>
> Fold Wikinews altogether so it doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
> editors are already doing a stellar job.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > > seems
> > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> its
> > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> should
> > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer,
> > >
> > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> properties.
> > >
> > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > given
> > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> > make
> > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > >
> > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > >
> > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> > and
> > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-16 Thread Andrew Lih
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andrew
>
> It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies that
> make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia is
> a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.


As Wikimedians we are secondary source news summarizers rather than primary
source news gatherers. That’s where the difference lies primarily.

I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews with
notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a direct
news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.

[1]
https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel


> However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is to
> fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?


Fold Wikinews altogether so it doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
editors are already doing a stellar job.

Andrew


> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > seems
> > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > >
> >
> > Jennifer,
> >
> > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental properties.
> >
> > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> given
> > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> make
> > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> >
> > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> >
> > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> and
> > realize it is a poor fit.
> >
> > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> celebrate
> > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute to
> > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we know
> > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality – the
> > Wikipedia article.
> >
> > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > [2]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> >
> > -Andrew
> > ___
> > 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,
> 

-- 
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
---
Email: and...@andrewlih.com
WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
___
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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-16 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,
Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
from time to time.
But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
Kind regards
Ziko



Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:

> Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image and
> internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding issue
> ;)
> * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about topical
> subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the major
> language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
>
> We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
>  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to date
> of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did exactly
> what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> with them...
>
> This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> functional tools of alignment.
>
> SJ
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Andrew
> >
> > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> that
> > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia
> is
> > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.
> > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is
> to
> > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> >
> > JPS
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > > seems
> > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> its
> > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> should
> > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer,
> > >
> > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> properties.
> > >
> > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > given
> > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> > make
> > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > >
> > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > >
> > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> > and
> > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > >
> > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > celebrate
> > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute
> to
> > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we
> know
> > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality –
> the
> > > Wikipedia article.
> > >
> > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-16 Thread Samuel Klein
Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image and
internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding issue
;)
* On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about topical
subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the major
language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
* On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').

We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
 I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to date
of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did exactly
what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
with them...

This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
functional tools of alignment.

SJ

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andrew
>
> It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies that
> make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia is
> a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.
> However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is to
> fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
>
> JPS
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > seems
> > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > >
> >
> > Jennifer,
> >
> > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental properties.
> >
> > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> given
> > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> make
> > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> >
> > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> >
> > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> and
> > realize it is a poor fit.
> >
> > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> celebrate
> > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute to
> > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we know
> > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality – the
> > Wikipedia article.
> >
> > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > [2]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> >
> > -Andrew
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-16 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Andrew

It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies that
make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia is
a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.
However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is to
fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?

JPS

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> seems
> > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> > sort out the demarcation issues.
> >
>
> Jennifer,
>
> This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental properties.
>
> News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth given
> the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that make
> Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
>
> Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
>
> Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch and
> realize it is a poor fit.
>
> However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should celebrate
> the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute to
> minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we know
> it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality – the
> Wikipedia article.
>
> If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> [2]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
>
> -Andrew
> ___
> 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-16 Thread Andrew Lih
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
> to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> sort out the demarcation issues.
>

Jennifer,

This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental properties.

News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth given
the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that make
Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:

Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
Wikipedia:V - verifiability
Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism

Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch and
realize it is a poor fit.

However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should celebrate
the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute to
minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we know
it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality – the
Wikipedia article.

If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
[2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html

-Andrew
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Pharos
I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or
15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now.

One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product
would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the
leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".

That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and
perhaps others.  But I don't think that just because we have more money
now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate
rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this
stage in the evolution of our movement.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet
> another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it was
> just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any)
> proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged with
> one of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked
> back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to
> congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the Portuguese
> version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that
> was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the
> thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that project
> at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire
> yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic
> article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is made
> in WikiNews.
>
> Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one head,
> WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another head,
> some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As
> many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia,
> but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that thrives
> there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely
> for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I
> would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia
> umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can
> continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway)
>
> On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it.
> Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee
> how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is
> solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between
> Wikipedia and the other sister projects.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
>
> Jennifer Pryor-Summers  escreveu no dia
> terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> >
> > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> the
> > WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> > questions it should be asking itself.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Eduardo Testart
Hi all,

I'll try to be brief. At an intuitive level I'm against implementing this
particular proposal: Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather
than Wikimedia. After reading this thread and having conversations related
to the subject with others this are my thoughts around it:

- Timing for reaching proposals: The proposals seems like things that
should arise from a strategy and not things that shape or embed on a
strategy. Taking this decision, or any decision as a matter of fact, before
a strategy is defined seems odd to me, independently of the strategy result
itself. To others in this thread, it also seems like an outdated proposal.
Shouldn't the strategy shed light onto these matters, and not the proposals
shed light upon the strategy?

- Implications: It seems that the subject of awareness is approached from a
linear perspective, just the perception of a brand (If I'm wrong I
apologize beforehand). Again, at an intuitive level, the costs and risks of
such an implementation seem huge: Some raised legal concerns, in some
particular countries or regions, some people could be more exposed, even
put in danger, being directly associated with Wikipedia, while under the
Wikimedia umbrella, those people might have some degree of separation that
also brings a layer of protection; Some raised costs concerns: Rebranding
could carry thousands of hours of work from volunteers, maybe a lot of the
material provided might need to be re-written, re-adjusted. Most of this
work seems that it would need to be carried out by volunteers; Will a
decision like this undermine the morale of the movement as a whole? And on
top of it, if we add a layer of financial costs, like changing agreements,
domains, banners, cards, printed material, videos, etc., a modification
based on this proposal seems like it has to be well thought out, and
definitely not improvise, before is taken into consideration, and again,
the same question than before comes to mind, that a decision like this, in
this particular moment, should come from the strategy and not the opposite.

- Coordination: To me, the lunch of the proposal also seems more like an
independent approach than a coordinated effort towards a higher goal, since
a strategy for the whole movement is being discussed at the same time, and
the proposals seem to entangle the discussion at some level, as proved at
least by this particular thread. I'm not trying to underestimate the
difficulties of coordination but to highlight that we should try our best
to be as coordinated as possible, our limited energy will be driven more
effectively, and if we do so, hopefully, we might generate a bigger impact
as a whole.

I believe that some proposals from the study are very valuable, I just
really don't think this is the right timing for proposing changes, that
timing has to do, at least at some level, with coordination (which should
never be underestimated as a difficult and consuming task), and that some
changes need to be analyzed from a multi-layered, and multi-location
perspective, to be able to make a decision as informed as we could be, and
risk or not into implementing changes based on that information.

If could make a suggestion, is to embrace all the information that came
from the study to enrich the discussion about strategy at large, but
refrain to implement any proposals until a wider strategy is defined.


Cheers,

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:37 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis
> of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that
> all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are
> incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come
> back in a week and continue. A new item for Wikinews should be written
> quickly - one day old news are not really news - and published in a form
> which is digestable from the very beginning. It is not incremental, and
> there is very little room for collaborative writing.
>
> And competition for news items is of course way stronger than for wikipedia
> articles.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> >
> > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> the
> > WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> > questions it should be asking itself.
> >
> > JPS
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-16 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
The WMF should not sort out any demarcation issues. In fact, it should not
sort out anything at all in the Movement. The WMF is administered by the
Movement, and it's main purpose and mission is to serve it, not do dictate
anything there. That is a boundary that should never be crossed.

Best
Paulo

Jennifer Pryor-Summers  escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 19:27:

> Dan
>
> Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
> to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> sort out the demarcation issues.
>
> JPS
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
> > Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is
> not
> > > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> > the
> > > WMF do to revive it?
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> > and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into
> trying
> > to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> > project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> > bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that?
> For
> > me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> > isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
> >
> > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> things
> > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > down,
> > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > >
> >
> > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages
> to
> > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> might
> > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> project.
> > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> yes,
> > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> >
> > Dan
> > ___
> > 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-16 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
Why is it not consistent? If the event is encyclopedic, it can (and should)
be treated by Wikipedia, same way as any other subject.
I confess I've never understood the mantra of "Wikipedia is not a source of
news", when it may be, indeed, and with great advantage, as it provides
*context*, a timeline, a sum/resume of the published news, hopefully the
state of the art of them - something you very seldom have in regular news
sources (and our context is WAY better than theirs, as we can use the whole
encyclopedia, while when they link to context at all, they tend to be
limited to their own newspieces on that specific subject).

Best,
Paulo

Jennifer Pryor-Summers  escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 19:27:

> Dan
>
> Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
> to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> sort out the demarcation issues.
>
> JPS
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
> > Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is
> not
> > > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> > the
> > > WMF do to revive it?
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> > and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into
> trying
> > to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> > project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> > bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that?
> For
> > me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> > isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
> >
> > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> things
> > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > down,
> > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > >
> >
> > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages
> to
> > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> might
> > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> project.
> > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> yes,
> > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> >
> > Dan
> > ___
> > 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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Jim


>  I would like to comment on the search and requirement
> criteria. In particular, I'd like to know [...] I would love to know any of
> this far more than anything about branding.
>

Yes, but what would you *do* with the answers to all those questions?
You're not on the search committee, so it seems that what you want is for
the WMF to answer questions from the 36 million or so account holders, and
get 36 million comments.   That's useless to them and to us.  I think what
you really mean is that you want (1) for yourself as opposed to the
movement in general to be personally involved in the decision-making
process, probably so that you can (2) promote your pet notions about
privacy, back-doors in hardware and other opinons.  Perhaps you should try
standing for election to a community seat on the Board?

JPS
___
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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-16 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Dan

Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
sort out the demarcation issues.

JPS

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> the
> > WMF do to revive it?
>
>
> In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into trying
> to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the Wikimedia
> Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that? For
> me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
>
> Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer things
> but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> reflects that it is trying to do so.
>
>
> > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> >
>
> I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages to
> solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it might
> take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead project.
> I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things... yes,
> I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
>
> Dan
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet
another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it was
just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any)
proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged with
one of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked
back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to
congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the Portuguese
version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that
was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the
thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that project
at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire
yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic
article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is made
in WikiNews.

Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one head,
WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another head,
some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As
many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia,
but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that thrives
there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely
for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I
would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia
umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can
continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway)

On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it.
Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee
how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is
solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between
Wikipedia and the other sister projects.

Best,
Paulo


Jennifer Pryor-Summers  escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
>
> Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
> WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> questions it should be asking itself.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Annual Report 2018: Wikimedia Community User Group Turkey

2019-04-16 Thread Isaac Olatunde
Wow! That you and your team continue to do some amazing works despite the
issues in Turkey is something I really appreciate.

Thank you so much for this report.

Regards,

Isaac.

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 1:25 PM Eileen Hershenov  #WeMissTurkey -- so much.
>
>
> Eileen B. Hershenov
> Of Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> <
> https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Montgomery+Street,+Suite+1600+%0D+San+Francisco,+CA+94104=gmail=g
> >
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> <
> https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Montgomery+Street,+Suite+1600+%0D+San+Francisco,+CA+94104=gmail=g
> >
> Registered In-House Counsel, State Bar of CA
> Licensed in NY State
> ehershe...@wikimedia.org
> (US) 415-483-6676
>
> *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical
> reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> .*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 1:09 PM Basak  wrote:
>
> > This message is not encrypted but sent from a verified user on the dmail
> > blockchain 
> > Dear All,
> >
> > After a delay, I am happy to share the annual report of the Wikimedia
> > Community User Group Turkey.
> >
> > -Basak
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Turkey/Reports/2018
> > ___
> > 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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread James Salsman
Jennifer, I would like to comment on the search and requirement
criteria. In particular, I'd like to know whether the Foundation is
interested in reinforcing their privacy infrastructure, and whether
that is more or less important than being able to provide personally
identifiable information to the several researchers worldwide under
nondisclosure agreements. And whether some kind of a fuzzing middle
ground is interesting to the Foundation? I'd like to know whether the
Foundation wants to stay with PHP long term, or explore alternatives
before deciding whether they do. What is our technical strategy to
combat censorship in Turkey and China? Are we ever going to support
IPFS with more than just dumps? What is the status of the
Encrypted-SNI project and how many headcount do we think we need and
what kind of budget is there for it?

I'd like to know what kind of commitment the Foundation wants to open
source hardware, e.g. www.opencompute.org servers, or if we're just
going to stay with closed source proprietary technology forever? I'd
like to know what the technology goals are. Plenty of Foundation
technology projects look like they are close to wrapping up or have
already transitioned into support mode. Is the Community Wishlist the
sole source of new technology efforts? What is the future of the Tool
Labs? Are any of the tools that have fallen into disrepair (e.g.,
Categorder which sorts the WP:BACKLOG categories by pageviews on
enwiki) ever going to be fixed? Is Wikiversity going to get a Course
Management System? Is Wiktionary going to get a pronunciation tutor?

What is the Foundation looking for in a CTO to address these issues?
How are they looking for them? Is there a short list? Will the
community get a chance to comment on the candidates? Who is performing
the search? What criteria are they using? How much money is being
offered? Are we competitive with other top-ten website CTO
compensation? Is the Foundation still committed to paying competitive
SF-livable salaries for all employees? I would love to know any of
this far more than anything about branding.

Best regards,
Jim

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:55 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers
 wrote:
>
> Jim
>
> You ask that "the CTO search team please publish their search and
> requirement criteria" -- what would you, or the public at large, do with
> that information?
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Annual Report 2018: Wikimedia Community User Group Turkey

2019-04-16 Thread Shani Evenstein
Basak,

Congrats on your achievements in an almost impossible situation!
We all appreciate your efforts and continued persistence regardless of
circumstances.
Waiting for the moment when you'll be freed <3

Best to all of you,
Shani.

---
*Shani Evenstein Sigalov*
* Lecturer, Tel Aviv University.
* EdTech Innovation Strategist, NY/American Medical Program, Sackler School
of Medicine, Tel Aviv University.
* PhD Candidate, School of Education, Tel Aviv University.
* OER & Emerging Technologies Coordinator, UNESCO Chair
 on Technology, Internationalization
and Education, School of Education, Tel Aviv University
.
* Chairperson, WikiProject Medicine Foundation
.
* Chairperson, Wikipedia & Education User Group
.
* Chairperson, The Hebrew Literature Digitization Society
.
* Chief Editor, Project Ben-Yehuda .
+972-525640648


On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:25 PM Eileen Hershenov 
wrote:

> #WeMissTurkey -- so much.
>
>
> Eileen B. Hershenov
> Of Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> <
> https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Montgomery+Street,+Suite+1600+%0D+San+Francisco,+CA+94104=gmail=g
> >
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> <
> https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Montgomery+Street,+Suite+1600+%0D+San+Francisco,+CA+94104=gmail=g
> >
> Registered In-House Counsel, State Bar of CA
> Licensed in NY State
> ehershe...@wikimedia.org
> (US) 415-483-6676
>
> *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical
> reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> .*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 1:09 PM Basak  wrote:
>
> > This message is not encrypted but sent from a verified user on the dmail
> > blockchain 
> > Dear All,
> >
> > After a delay, I am happy to share the annual report of the Wikimedia
> > Community User Group Turkey.
> >
> > -Basak
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Turkey/Reports/2018
> > ___
> > 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] Annual Report 2018: Wikimedia Community User Group Turkey

2019-04-16 Thread Eileen Hershenov
#WeMissTurkey -- so much.


Eileen B. Hershenov
Of Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600

San Francisco, CA 94104

Registered In-House Counsel, State Bar of CA
Licensed in NY State
ehershe...@wikimedia.org
(US) 415-483-6676

*NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical
reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
.*



On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 1:09 PM Basak  wrote:

> This message is not encrypted but sent from a verified user on the dmail
> blockchain 
> Dear All,
>
> After a delay, I am happy to share the annual report of the Wikimedia
> Community User Group Turkey.
>
> -Basak
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Turkey/Reports/2018
> ___
> 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] Annual Report 2018: Wikimedia Community User Group Turkey

2019-04-16 Thread camelia boban
Well done Basak, thank you for all this group work. #WeMissTurkey

Hugs,
Camelia


--
*Camelia Boban*

*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545
camelia.bo...@gmail.com
*Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
 *|* *LinkedIn
*
*Wikipedia  **| **WikiDonne
UG * | *WikiDonne Project*











Il giorno mar 16 apr 2019 alle ore 13:23 Asaf Bartov 
ha scritto:

> Thank you, Basak and the rest of the group!
>
> You have been doing good work under unfortunate and difficult
> circumstances.  Keep it up, and we continue to hope for the lifting of the
> ban.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Asaf
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:09 PM Basak  wrote:
>
> > This message is not encrypted but sent from a verified user on the dmail
> > blockchain 
> > Dear All,
> >
> > After a delay, I am happy to share the annual report of the Wikimedia
> > Community User Group Turkey.
> >
> > -Basak
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Turkey/Reports/2018
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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] Annual Report 2018: Wikimedia Community User Group Turkey

2019-04-16 Thread Asaf Bartov
Thank you, Basak and the rest of the group!

You have been doing good work under unfortunate and difficult
circumstances.  Keep it up, and we continue to hope for the lifting of the
ban.

Cheers,

Asaf

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:09 PM Basak  wrote:

> This message is not encrypted but sent from a verified user on the dmail
> blockchain 
> Dear All,
>
> After a delay, I am happy to share the annual report of the Wikimedia
> Community User Group Turkey.
>
> -Basak
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Turkey/Reports/2018
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Joseph Seddon
** correction - New readers (audiences and global partnerships) are working
in North Africa, Middle East, South America and India at the moment.



On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:15 PM Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> You keep mentioning this Anglo-Centric / Wikipedia centric focus of the
> WMF.
>
> WMDE receives substantial monetary support from WMF for Wikidata. Only two
> years ago dedicated grant funded work was made specific for Wikidata on
> Commons for both WMF and WMDE. New Editors are working with the Korea and
> Czech Wikipedias first and foremost. New Readers are first and foremost
> working in India and South America. The majority of FDC grant funding does
> not go to English speaking countries. The global partnerships team have an
> almost entirely non-European / non-Anglo centric focus. The Public Policy
> team (staff and volunteer) along with staff across the organisation have
> been working over the past year actively fighting the EU copyright proposal
> which now has an increasingly non-English centric focus thanks to Brexit.
>
> The WMF staff have been becoming more diverse in ethnicity, native country
> and native language year on year.
>
> What makes me laugh is you say the WMF designs for the English Wikipedia
> and yet so many engineers I speak to say that it's impossible to design and
> build for the English Wikipedia and port elsewhere and that it's better to
> design for non-English wiki's and apply to English.
>
> More change is needed but please recognise that things are changing.
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:15 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Thank you for your sense of superiority.. the views on this list are "easy
>> to have"and "not the big, difficult questions".
>>
>> These are some big difficult questions I can come up with:
>>
>>- how will we deal with the existing bias that is Anglo-American..
>>- how will we deal with the existing bias that is articles in
>> Wikipedia,
>>our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge..
>>- how will we deal with the 6% error rates that is in Wikipedia lists
>>
>> There are more issues but, hey you should not overload one email and deal
>> with multiple issues.. So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
>> difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
>> > conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
>> > questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
>> > questions.
>> >
>> > (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group
>> email
>> > lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
>> > because that's where we're at)
>> >
>> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman,  wrote:
>> >
>> > > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
>> > > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
>> > > like to have a more substantive discussion:
>> > >
>> > > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
>> > > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
>> > > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
>> > > or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
>> > >
>> > > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several
>> people
>> > > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
>> > > at length for additional participation (e.g.
>> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=23m and
>> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=30m et seq.) To be
>> > > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
>> > > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
>> > > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
>> > > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
>> > > people use off-list emails instead?
>> > >
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > Jim
>> > >
>> > > ___
>> > > 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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Joseph Seddon
You keep mentioning this Anglo-Centric / Wikipedia centric focus of the
WMF.

WMDE receives substantial monetary support from WMF for Wikidata. Only two
years ago dedicated grant funded work was made specific for Wikidata on
Commons for both WMF and WMDE. New Editors are working with the Korea and
Czech Wikipedias first and foremost. New Readers are first and foremost
working in India and South America. The majority of FDC grant funding does
not go to English speaking countries. The global partnerships team have an
almost entirely non-European / non-Anglo centric focus. The Public Policy
team (staff and volunteer) along with staff across the organisation have
been working over the past year actively fighting the EU copyright proposal
which now has an increasingly non-English centric focus thanks to Brexit.

The WMF staff have been becoming more diverse in ethnicity, native country
and native language year on year.

What makes me laugh is you say the WMF designs for the English Wikipedia
and yet so many engineers I speak to say that it's impossible to design and
build for the English Wikipedia and port elsewhere and that it's better to
design for non-English wiki's and apply to English.

More change is needed but please recognise that things are changing.

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:15 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Thank you for your sense of superiority.. the views on this list are "easy
> to have"and "not the big, difficult questions".
>
> These are some big difficult questions I can come up with:
>
>- how will we deal with the existing bias that is Anglo-American..
>- how will we deal with the existing bias that is articles in Wikipedia,
>our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge..
>- how will we deal with the 6% error rates that is in Wikipedia lists
>
> There are more issues but, hey you should not overload one email and deal
> with multiple issues.. So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
> difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
> > conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
> > questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
> > questions.
> >
> > (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group
> email
> > lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
> > because that's where we're at)
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman,  wrote:
> >
> > > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> > > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> > > like to have a more substantive discussion:
> > >
> > > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> > > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> > > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> > > or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
> > >
> > > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> > > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> > > at length for additional participation (e.g.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=23m and
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=30m et seq.) To be
> > > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> > > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> > > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> > > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> > > people use off-list emails instead?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Gerard,


> So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
> difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
>

Well, there is a list of about 90 scoping questions from the movement
strategy process. Many of these questions in fact overlap or are
alternative ways of asking the same thing, but still there are plenty! :)

In particular, your questions about avoiding Anglo-American bias relates to
questions 3, 4 and 5 from the Diversity working group (1), and question 9
from Roles and Responsibilities. There doesn't seem to be anything from
Product & Technology along similar lines (though one could ask why not)

It would be absolutely great if there was as much thoughtful discussion of
these really broad issues as there has been about the proposal to basically
change one letter in the Wikimedia Foundation's name. The reason there
hasn't been is because big, broad issues are difficult to engage with,
while specific issues are easier to engage with. That's not a criticism,
more an invitation for more people to invest the time and energy to engage
with the big issue questions as well.

Chris

(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Diversity
(2)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities



> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
> > conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
> > questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
> > questions.
> >
> > (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group
> email
> > lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
> > because that's where we're at)
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman,  wrote:
> >
> > > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> > > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> > > like to have a more substantive discussion:
> > >
> > > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> > > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> > > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> > > or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
> > >
> > > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> > > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> > > at length for additional participation (e.g.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=23m and
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=30m et seq.) To be
> > > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> > > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> > > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> > > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> > > people use off-list emails instead?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-16 Thread Dan Garry (Deskana)
Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
> WMF do to revive it?


In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into trying
to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the Wikimedia
Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that? For
me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.

Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer things
but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
reflects that it is trying to do so.


> Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
>

I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages to
solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it might
take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead project.
I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things... yes,
I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)

Dan
___
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Fine. Obviously we disagree on what we read in the same text. Now what
would be the "correct way" to address a perceived sense of superiority ?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 11:24, Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:14, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for your sense of superiority..
>
>
> It's not helpful to sarcastically "thank" someone like this. I don't find
> Chris to have had a sense of superiority in his email, but even if he had,
> this is not the correct way to address it.
>
> Dan
> ___
> 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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Dan Garry (Deskana)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 21:09, James Salsman  wrote:

> I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> like to have a more substantive discussion:
>
> (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
>

Much of this is contained the job description
,
which is posted publicly on the Wikimedia Foundation website
.

Is there something specific you think is missing?

Dan
___
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Dan Garry (Deskana)
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:14, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Thank you for your sense of superiority..


It's not helpful to sarcastically "thank" someone like this. I don't find
Chris to have had a sense of superiority in his email, but even if he had,
this is not the correct way to address it.

Dan
___
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Thank you for your sense of superiority.. the views on this list are "easy
to have"and "not the big, difficult questions".

These are some big difficult questions I can come up with:

   - how will we deal with the existing bias that is Anglo-American..
   - how will we deal with the existing bias that is articles in Wikipedia,
   our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge..
   - how will we deal with the 6% error rates that is in Wikipedia lists

There are more issues but, hey you should not overload one email and deal
with multiple issues.. So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
> conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
> questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
> questions.
>
> (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group email
> lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
> because that's where we're at)
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman,  wrote:
>
> > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> > like to have a more substantive discussion:
> >
> > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> > or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
> >
> > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> > at length for additional participation (e.g.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=23m and
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=30m et seq.) To be
> > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> > people use off-list emails instead?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim
> >
> > ___
> > 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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Chris Keating
In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
questions.

(Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group email
lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
because that's where we're at)

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman,  wrote:

> I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> like to have a more substantive discussion:
>
> (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
>
> (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> at length for additional participation (e.g.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=23m and
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=30m et seq.) To be
> honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> people use off-list emails instead?
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis
of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that
all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are
incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come
back in a week and continue. A new item for Wikinews should be written
quickly - one day old news are not really news - and published in a form
which is digestable from the very beginning. It is not incremental, and
there is very little room for collaborative writing.

And competition for news items is of course way stronger than for wikipedia
articles.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
>
> Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
> WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> questions it should be asking itself.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Jim

You ask that "the CTO search team please publish their search and
requirement criteria" -- what would you, or the public at large, do with
that information?

JPS
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Jennifer Pryor-Summers
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
>
> Paulo
>

Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
questions it should be asking itself.

JPS
___
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,