[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
Hi Patrick, Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there will be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023. As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide some answers to the questions I asked earlier? https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H4FGTRCTKKCLJXFQVWFOCHMZCOFE2KBM/ For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed – – To blog about what happens on Wikipedia? – To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government on- and off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits? – To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or subverting Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent Christian Rosa case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g. https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)? – To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been committed or is about to be committed? Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment of fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions be subject to blocks and bans? I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent correctly. Best, Andreas On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close and the > ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being revised by > the Drafting Committee. Detailed information of the policy text review > will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published for > comment and ratification. The review will likely follow established policy > update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1] > > Patrick > > [1] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> Hi Patrick, >> >> Thanks. You say, >> >> >> *The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a >> policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and >> complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, and >> there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the close >> and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at enforcement >> pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.* >> >> If the policy was ratified last February, and "there will be a full >> review and update of the text one year after the close and ratification", >> does that mean there will be some sort of review of the policy text in >> February 2022? >> >> Or did you mean something else? And where will that review take place? >> >> Thanking you in advance for your clarification. >> >> Best, >> Andreas >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM Patrick Earley >> wrote: >> >>> Hello, all. >>> >>> In reply to these questions and a few received via direct email: >>> >>> Questions about the content of the Universal Code of Conduct policy >>> itself are very legitimate, but unrelated to the current process under >>> review with the Board. The policy was ratified by the Board last >>> February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is put >>> into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be >>> adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one year >>> after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at >>> enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time. Figuring >>> out how to manage some areas of policy is challenging. Doxxing is a very >>> difficult area to form policy around, and I know the Drafting Committee >>> from Phase 1 worked hard to reflect best practices around the movement in >>> this area. >>> >>> To clarify, Nosebagbear: Youngjin was reminding folks to get their last >>> thoughts in for the current work the Drafting Committee is doing on >>> revising the text. It wasn’t meant to imply that there will be no more >>> discussion on the Guidelines before a ratification process takes place. The >>> revisions to the draft Guidelines will be published on Meta for comment and >>> discussion as soon as the committee feels they have incorporated the input >>> received over the last few months. This message was just meant as a >>> reminder to anyone who might not have been aware of the draft review. >>> >>> In terms of what we’re reviewing with the Board, it is a process for >>> ratification in response to a request from the global arbitration >>> committees. They are not being asked to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines >>> at this time. As to how and when ratification of the guidelines will take >>> place, thoughts and opinions from the Drafting Committee, community members >>> and functionaries, and the Board of Trustees will
[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
Hi Andreas, The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close and the ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being revised by the Drafting Committee. Detailed information of the policy text review will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published for comment and ratification. The review will likely follow established policy update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1] Patrick [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > Thanks. You say, > > > *The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] That said, a > policy must be adapted over time as it is put into practice and > complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be adaptable, and > there will be a full review and update of the text one year after the close > and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at enforcement > pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time.* > > If the policy was ratified last February, and "there will be a full review > and update of the text one year after the close and ratification", does > that mean there will be some sort of review of the policy text in February > 2022? > > Or did you mean something else? And where will that review take place? > > Thanking you in advance for your clarification. > > Best, > Andreas > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:05 PM Patrick Earley > wrote: > >> Hello, all. >> >> In reply to these questions and a few received via direct email: >> >> Questions about the content of the Universal Code of Conduct policy >> itself are very legitimate, but unrelated to the current process under >> review with the Board. The policy was ratified by the Board last >> February.[1] That said, a policy must be adapted over time as it is put >> into practice and complications arise. The main text of the UCoC must be >> adaptable, and there will be a full review and update of the text one year >> after the close and ratification of the current phase, which is looking at >> enforcement pathways.[2] We fully expect refinements at that time. Figuring >> out how to manage some areas of policy is challenging. Doxxing is a very >> difficult area to form policy around, and I know the Drafting Committee >> from Phase 1 worked hard to reflect best practices around the movement in >> this area. >> >> To clarify, Nosebagbear: Youngjin was reminding folks to get their last >> thoughts in for the current work the Drafting Committee is doing on >> revising the text. It wasn’t meant to imply that there will be no more >> discussion on the Guidelines before a ratification process takes place. The >> revisions to the draft Guidelines will be published on Meta for comment and >> discussion as soon as the committee feels they have incorporated the input >> received over the last few months. This message was just meant as a >> reminder to anyone who might not have been aware of the draft review. >> >> In terms of what we’re reviewing with the Board, it is a process for >> ratification in response to a request from the global arbitration >> committees. They are not being asked to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines >> at this time. As to how and when ratification of the guidelines will take >> place, thoughts and opinions from the Drafting Committee, community members >> and functionaries, and the Board of Trustees will inform the details. >> We’ll communicate a full ratification plan after the Board meets in >> mid-December and considers the input received so far on what would make a >> fair and practical process. >> >> Patrick >> >> [1] >> https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg35984.html >> >> [2] >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Periodic_reviews >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:37 PM Peter Southwood < >> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: >> >>> Fair comment. >>> P >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: nosebagb...@gmail.com [mailto:nosebagb...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: 27 November 2021 13:04 >>> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: Closing the comment period >>> for >>> the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I would make a couple of notes here: >>> >>> One is that when you say "comment period will end", that can't be of the >>> process. >>> >>> There are numerous open questions that we have yet to see any draft >>> policy >>> text on - they can't go into the final document without chance for open >>> review and further revision. >>> >>> While I've heard bits about how they will be discussed, we've seen >>> nothing >>> formal and nothing in writing. >>> >>> Please let me know BEFORE the 29th how that will be handled to the >>> community's expectations. As the inherently most controversial bits >>> (that's >>> why they were open questions!) the actual next needs M
[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Auction at Christie's
Cue extended rant by somebody that the board, Foundation comms and/or legal staff have no authority and/or are not competent to advise on this in 1, 2, 3 ... Cheers, P -Original Message- From: Andy Mabbett [mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk] Sent: 06 December 2021 15:35 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Marketing Mail] [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Auction at Christie's On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 07:36, Peter Southwood wrote: > > Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Quite. As Jimmy notes in the WP:AN discussion which has already been linked to: I was instructed to inform the community by the Board of the WMF and advised by the Foundation comms and legal staff that a post to wikimedia-l and to my talk page would be the right way to do it... I can equally imagine that if I had defied the board and refused to communicate with the community about it, someone would be getting inflamed over that. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RFWB4IYYPDXNSU7HHSXAILXWG325IGST/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JZZMIRA3LKZ2ZLS7MRIOZI2AELVVHPC3/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Auction at Christie's
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 13:34, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > Jimmy As an aside, it would be good if Jimmy, or someone in contact with Christie's on his behalf, could ask them to correctly attribute the open-licensed images they've used. "Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons" doesn't cut it. https://www.christies.com/features/First-Wikipedia-edit-to-be-sold-as-NFT-11983-1.aspx Maybe they could release their images of the iMac under open licence, too, in the spirit of the subject matter. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IMTSEHDK5LNNTGOTPUOONFLATQO6JELU/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Auction at Christie's
Hi all, As regards the use of the proceeds from this auction, Jimmy Wales posted the following rather non-committal statement on his English Wikipedia talk page:[1] "I'm planning to donate a significant portion and use a significant portion for wt.social. I haven't made any final decisions. I offered to pledge to donate to the WMF, but they (the board) preferred that I not do that." The way this is phrased could mean 95% for WT.Social and 5% for charity, or vice versa. WT.Social (current Alexa rank around 120,000) is Jimmy Wales' commercial enterprise and the successor to the failed Wikitribune site established in April 2017. Wikitribune Ltd.'s filing history (incl. financial statements), as linked on WT.Social's "About" page, is here: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10713170/filing-history Reading the above pledge, I was reminded of a previous pledge Jimmy Wales had made to support worthy causes. When he and Berners-Lee (who, incidentally, also auctioned an NFT recently) shared a controversial[2] $1M award from the United Arab Emirates (each receiving $500K) in 2014, he told the Daily Dot that he "never planned to keep the money and will use the funds to start his own foundation dedicated to furthering human rights."[3] Could Jimmy Wales or the WMF board provide further information, beyond what is below, on what became of this promise? And in the meantime, could readers help me with a crowdsourcing effort to survey what publicly available information there is on how this money was used, and whether its use matched the public pledge? Looking at this over the weekend, I found that a Twitter account for the Jimmy Wales Foundation (@JWalesF) was set up in January 2015, soon after the Daily Dot report. Two-and-a-half years later, in September 2017, Jimmy Wales incorporated a "Jimmy Wales Foundation". Its filing history is here: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/1095/filing-history According to its certificate of incorporation, available in the filing history, the "Jimmy Wales Foundation" is a "private company limited by guarantee". This is quite different from the sort of charitable foundation the Wikimedia Foundation is. A search of the UK Register of Charities for the Jimmy Wales Foundation accordingly draws a blank: https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/results/page/1/delta/20/keywords/Jimmy+Wales+Foundation Section 24 of the certificate of incorporation states that the Jimmy Wales Foundation's "directors are entitled to such remuneration as the directors determine". This remuneration may "take any form." Jimmy Wales is the only director listed in the document. The foundation's first financial statement after incorporation lists assets of £25,319 (around $30,000). More recent statements show a negative balance. I am left wondering: Where did the other $470,000 go? Looking into what the Jimmy Wales Foundation has achieved since its inception, I found that it had made 1,267 tweets, with the last one of these occurring in February 2019. A Google News search finds 9 mentions of the Jimmy Wales Foundation in the media. A number of these are mentions of Orit Kopel, the co-founder of WT.Social, who also describes herself as the Ex-CEO of the Jimmy Wales Foundation on Twitter.[4] Given the size of the original award, this seems on the face of it remarkably modest value for money in terms of the fight for human rights. As the Daily Dot[3] reported, Wales promised that "every penny of the money will be used to combat human rights abuses worldwide with a specific focus on the Middle East and with a specific focus of freedom of speech/access to knowledge issues." Of course – and I hope this is the case – there may have been other activities consistent with this pledge that I am unaware of. Any information shedding light on this would be very welcome. Best, Andreas [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=1058450267&oldid=1058449512 – see also statement on proceeds at https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/birth-wikipedia/jimmy-wales-b-1966-2001/141268 [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20191107063546/https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20150624-uae-grants-belie-free-speech-activism-return-them-now/ [3] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/jimmy-wales-uae-prize-money/ [4] https://archive.md/wip/C2rxY On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 12:56 PM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > When Jimmy wants to sell his pc, he can. When he sells something > intangible like the "first edit of Wikipedia" even that has nothing to do > with us. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 13:49, Lane Chance wrote: > >> I don't understand how a Wikimedia trustee using Wikimedia websites, >> Wikimedia branding, and this Wikimedia supported email list to promote a >> funding event for their own commercial project, i.e. "WT:Social", fits with >> the bylaws which include: >>
[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Auction at Christie's
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 07:36, Peter Southwood wrote: > > Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Quite. As Jimmy notes in the WP:AN discussion which has already been linked to: I was instructed to inform the community by the Board of the WMF and advised by the Foundation comms and legal staff that a post to wikimedia-l and to my talk page would be the right way to do it... I can equally imagine that if I had defied the board and refused to communicate with the community about it, someone would be getting inflamed over that. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RFWB4IYYPDXNSU7HHSXAILXWG325IGST/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Auction at Christie's
Hoi, When Jimmy wants to sell his pc, he can. When he sells something intangible like the "first edit of Wikipedia" even that has nothing to do with us. Thanks, GerardM On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 13:49, Lane Chance wrote: > I don't understand how a Wikimedia trustee using Wikimedia websites, > Wikimedia branding, and this Wikimedia supported email list to promote a > funding event for their own commercial project, i.e. "WT:Social", fits with > the bylaws which include: > "The property of this Foundation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable > purposes and no part of the net income or assets of this Foundation shall > ever inure to the benefit of any Trustee or officer thereof or to the > benefit of any private individual other than compensation in a reasonable > amount to its officers, employees, and contractors for services rendered." > https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws > > Could someone explain why the Wikimedia Foundation gave permission to one > of their trustees to do this in contravention of their own bylaws? > > Hopefully asking questions does not automatically get you branded as an > "idealogue" or "attention-seeker". > > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 00:20, Nathan wrote: > >> I too expected a stronger reaction from the rigid idealogues and the >> attention-seekers (although I see that did indeed occur on-wiki, courtesy >> of the same old grandstanding admins), and thought the minimal response was >> perhaps a sign of progress! >> >> Might just be disinterest and the ever-shrinking profile of Wikimedia-L. >> > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PDGVF6Q3FN7RNCZNUCKBAMUHVF24WHPI/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UKCV47OYN7K2W4HABNNDY3SQYFNIKJAJ/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Auction at Christie's
I don't understand how a Wikimedia trustee using Wikimedia websites, Wikimedia branding, and this Wikimedia supported email list to promote a funding event for their own commercial project, i.e. "WT:Social", fits with the bylaws which include: "The property of this Foundation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and no part of the net income or assets of this Foundation shall ever inure to the benefit of any Trustee or officer thereof or to the benefit of any private individual other than compensation in a reasonable amount to its officers, employees, and contractors for services rendered." https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws Could someone explain why the Wikimedia Foundation gave permission to one of their trustees to do this in contravention of their own bylaws? Hopefully asking questions does not automatically get you branded as an "idealogue" or "attention-seeker". On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 00:20, Nathan wrote: > I too expected a stronger reaction from the rigid idealogues and the > attention-seekers (although I see that did indeed occur on-wiki, courtesy > of the same old grandstanding admins), and thought the minimal response was > perhaps a sign of progress! > > Might just be disinterest and the ever-shrinking profile of Wikimedia-L. > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PDGVF6Q3FN7RNCZNUCKBAMUHVF24WHPI/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
