[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikimedia Research Showcase] Online Learning

[Janna Layton]

Just a reminder that the Research Showcase will be this Wednesday.

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 4:06 PM Janna Layton  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> The next Wikimedia Research Showcase will be held Wednesday, December 15
> at 17:30 UTC (9:30 PT / 12:30 ET / 18:30 CET).
>
> You can view the livestream here: https://youtu.be/HKODaHgmQWw
> 
>
> The Showcase will feature the following talks:
>
> *Latin American Youth and their Information Ecosystem: Finding,
> Evaluation, Creating, and  Sharing Content Online*
> The increased importance the Internet plays as a core source of
> information in youth's lives, now underscored by the pandemic, gives new
> urgency to the need to better understand young people’s information habits
> and attitudes. Answers to questions like where young people go to look for
> information, what information they decide to trust and how they share the
> information they find, hold important implications for the knowledge they
> obtain, the beliefs they form and the actions they take in areas ranging
> from personal health, professional employment or their educational training.
>
> In this research showcase, we will be summarizing insights from focus
> group interviews in Latin America that offer a window into the experiences
> of young people themselves. Taken together, these perspectives might help
> us to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how young people in
> Latin America use the Internet in general and interact with information
> from online sources in particular.
>
>
> Speakers: Lionel Brossi and Ana María Castillo. Artificial Intelligence
> and Society Hub at University of Chile.
>
> --
>
> Characterizing the Online Learning Landscape: What and How People Learn
> Online
>
> Hundreds of millions of people learn something new online every day.
> Simultaneously, the study of online education has blossomed with new
> systems, experiments, and observations creating and exploring previously
> undiscovered online learning environments. In this talk I will discuss our
> study, in which we endeavor to characterize this entire landscape of online
> learning experiences using a national survey of 2260 US adults who are
> balanced to match the demographics of the U.S. We examine the online
> learning resources that they consult, and we analyze the subjects that they
> pursue using those resources. Furthermore, we compare both formal and
> informal online learning experiences on a larger scale than has ever been
> done before, to our knowledge, to better understand which subjects people
> are seeking for intensive study. We find that there is a core set of online
> learning experiences that are central to other experiences and these are
> shared among the majority of people who learn online.
>
>
> Speaker: Sean Kross, University of California San Diego
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase
>
> --
> Janna Layton (she/her)
> Administrative Associate - Product & Technology
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>


-- 
Janna Layton (she/her)
Administrative Associate - Product & Technology
Wikimedia Foundation 
___
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/KCQX2UGS26W7OOQ25K7YIWSNQ7NETBPP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 3

[Nosebagbear]

Quoth its own page, the BOT's remit is " The Wikimedia Foundation *Board of
Trustees* oversees the Wikimedia Foundation and its work", not the
Movement.

If the BOT wants to act as an actual representative body (which it doesn't
claim to be) then it would need significant rework and a clear statement
that that's what voters were voting for.

As to the issue raised by another on meta-rfcs being dominated by en-wiki
(although the stats I've seen on recent ones don't show a wild disparity
compared to the large plurality of all editors), I actually raised a
proposal specifically to factor that in for the actual UCOC ratification,
but the selection of that method (to avoid a "turtles all the way down"
issue) would inherently need to be something pre-standing - UCOC drafting
committee would certainly be fine there.

The WMF was heavily opposed to proposals to do a much more distributed
approach to avoid that specific issue, in the last ratification meeting
hosted.
That meeting in general, unlike its predecessor, was significantly more
fractious.

In general, a good demonstration on why ratification methodologies are a
good thing to specify before every side has had a chance to become highly
invested in an actual draft language.


*Richard (Nosebagbear)*

Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
of the MCDC.


On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 13:09, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1 (Gerard Meijssen)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:08:26 +0100
> From: Gerard Meijssen 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Message-ID:
> <
> cao53wxumgy3do3aqej4fdakv6ho6oezaa7pxbprjygdgcbj...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="58672505d306c5f4"
>
> Hoi,
> The community as such does not have any standing. They are represented by
> some members in the board. People may volunteer to be part of all kinds of
> committees. When they do they do not represent anything but themselves. The
> committees play a role because they have been giving standing by the board.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 13:08, Nosebagbear  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I don't believe I stated it had a remit under the law - indeed, I'm
> pretty
> > confident I did not.
> >
> > Almost none of our bodies have legal personae, so that would have been an
> > odd thing for me to say, so I'm somewhat confused on why you indicate I
> > did.
> >
> > But we are a project that is built on our internally agreed
> > responsibilities and relations - which includes our remits (the BOT, to
> the
> > degree that even it has a legal remit, is fairly narrow). As an example,
> > the UCOC drafting committee has a very clear remit, but not one that's
> > enshrined in law.
> >
> > p.s. Mea culpa on forgetting to change the title - didn't want to change
> > this one *now* as I don't know if that would split the thread. Happy for
> > someone to change to an appropriate title.
> >
> > *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
> >
> > Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter
> viewpoints
> > expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
> > of the MCDC.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
> >>
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
> >>
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> >>
> >> Today's Topics:
> >>
> >>1. Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3 (Gerard Meijssen)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Message: 1
> >> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:56:51 +0100
> >> From: Gerard Meijssen 
> >> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3
> >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> >> Message-ID:
> >>  >> aa-27gauajxy3yrj25ajbkpkrytk2-jjtsv...@mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> >> boundary="56b3ac05d305c5c3"
> >>
> >> Hoi,
> >> Why is it that you consid

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The community as such does not have any standing. They are represented by
some members in the board. People may volunteer to be part of all kinds of
committees. When they do they do not represent anything but themselves. The
committees play a role because they have been giving standing by the board.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 13:08, Nosebagbear  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I don't believe I stated it had a remit under the law - indeed, I'm pretty
> confident I did not.
>
> Almost none of our bodies have legal personae, so that would have been an
> odd thing for me to say, so I'm somewhat confused on why you indicate I
> did.
>
> But we are a project that is built on our internally agreed
> responsibilities and relations - which includes our remits (the BOT, to the
> degree that even it has a legal remit, is fairly narrow). As an example,
> the UCOC drafting committee has a very clear remit, but not one that's
> enshrined in law.
>
> p.s. Mea culpa on forgetting to change the title - didn't want to change
> this one *now* as I don't know if that would split the thread. Happy for
> someone to change to an appropriate title.
>
> *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
>
> Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
> expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
> of the MCDC.
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, 
> wrote:
>
>> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3 (Gerard Meijssen)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:56:51 +0100
>> From: Gerard Meijssen 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Message-ID:
>> > aa-27gauajxy3yrj25ajbkpkrytk2-jjtsv...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="56b3ac05d305c5c3"
>>
>> Hoi,
>> Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a remit
>> under the law for anything? It is not and it has not.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear  wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Patrick,
>> >
>> > Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S
>> policy,
>> > directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all
>> the
>> > way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for
>> ratification
>> > far before the ArbCom letter.
>> >
>> > Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a
>> need
>> > for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made,
>> or
>> > that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?
>> >
>> > Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the
>> > input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process."
>> -
>> > there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the
>> > nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC
>> > drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole,
>> > probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
>> >
>> > *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
>> >
>> > Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter
>> viewpoints
>> > expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate
>> judgement
>> > of the MCDC.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>> >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>
>> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>> >>
>> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> >> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>
>> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> >> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>> >>
>> >> Today's Topics:
>> >>
>> >>1. Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
>> >> Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
>> >>   (Andreas Kolbe)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Message: 1
>> >> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +
>> >> From: Andreas Kolbe 
>> >> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment
>> >> period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft
>> >> Guidelines
>> >> and next step
>> >> To: Patrick 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3

[Philip Kopetzky]

A meta-RfC would also be dominated by English Wikipedia, which of course is
in the interest of en.wp, but hardly anyone else. So thanks for that idea,
but no thanks.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a remit
> under the law for anything? It is not and it has not.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear  wrote:
>
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S
>> policy, directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others"
>> all the way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for
>> ratification far before the ArbCom letter.
>>
>> Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a
>> need for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was
>> made, or that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that
>> point?
>>
>> Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the
>> input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." -
>> there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the
>> nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC
>> drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole,
>> probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
>>
>> *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
>>
>> Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter
>> viewpoints expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the
>> aggregate judgement of the MCDC.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>>>
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>1. Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
>>> Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
>>>   (Andreas Kolbe)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +
>>> From: Andreas Kolbe 
>>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment
>>> period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft
>>> Guidelines
>>> and next step
>>> To: Patrick Earley 
>>> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <
>>> cahrttw9h69ewso1v3m6hzgn4emuglb0gvx9bkd+q0hi6t_f...@mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>> boundary="55427605d280b9bb"
>>>
>>> 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
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1

[Nosebagbear]

Hello,

I don't believe I stated it had a remit under the law - indeed, I'm pretty
confident I did not.

Almost none of our bodies have legal personae, so that would have been an
odd thing for me to say, so I'm somewhat confused on why you indicate I
did.

But we are a project that is built on our internally agreed
responsibilities and relations - which includes our remits (the BOT, to the
degree that even it has a legal remit, is fairly narrow). As an example,
the UCOC drafting committee has a very clear remit, but not one that's
enshrined in law.

p.s. Mea culpa on forgetting to change the title - didn't want to change
this one *now* as I don't know if that would split the thread. Happy for
someone to change to an appropriate title.

*Richard (Nosebagbear)*

Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
of the MCDC.


On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3 (Gerard Meijssen)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:56:51 +0100
> From: Gerard Meijssen 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Message-ID:
>  aa-27gauajxy3yrj25ajbkpkrytk2-jjtsv...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="56b3ac05d305c5c3"
>
> Hoi,
> Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a remit
> under the law for anything? It is not and it has not.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear  wrote:
>
> > Dear Patrick,
> >
> > Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S
> policy,
> > directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the
> > way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for
> ratification
> > far before the ArbCom letter.
> >
> > Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a
> need
> > for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made,
> or
> > that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?
> >
> > Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the
> > input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." -
> > there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the
> > nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC
> > drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole,
> > probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
> >
> > *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
> >
> > Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter
> viewpoints
> > expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
> > of the MCDC.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
> >>
> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
> >>
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> >>
> >> Today's Topics:
> >>
> >>1. Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
> >> Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
> >>   (Andreas Kolbe)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Message: 1
> >> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +
> >> From: Andreas Kolbe 
> >> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment
> >> period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft
> >> Guidelines
> >> and next step
> >> To: Patrick Earley 
> >> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> >> Message-ID:
> >> <
> >> cahrttw9h69ewso1v3m6hzgn4emuglb0gvx9bkd+q0hi6t_f...@mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> >> boundary="55427605d280b9bb"
> >>
> >> 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?
>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a remit
under the law for anything? It is not and it has not.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear  wrote:

> Dear Patrick,
>
> Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S policy,
> directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the
> way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for ratification
> far before the ArbCom letter.
>
> Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a need
> for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made, or
> that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?
>
> Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the
> input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." -
> there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the
> nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC
> drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole,
> probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
>
> *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
>
> Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
> expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
> of the MCDC.
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, 
> wrote:
>
>> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
>> Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
>>   (Andreas Kolbe)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +
>> From: Andreas Kolbe 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment
>> period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft
>> Guidelines
>> and next step
>> To: Patrick Earley 
>> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> cahrttw9h69ewso1v3m6hzgn4emuglb0gvx9bkd+q0hi6t_f...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="55427605d280b9bb"
>>
>> 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

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3

[Nosebagbear]

Dear Patrick,

Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T&S policy,
directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the
way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for ratification
far before the ArbCom letter.

Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a need
for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made, or
that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?

Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the
input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." -
there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the
nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC
drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole,
probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.

*Richard (Nosebagbear)*

Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
of the MCDC.


On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, 
wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
> Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
>   (Andreas Kolbe)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +
> From: Andreas Kolbe 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment
> period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft
> Guidelines
> and next step
> To: Patrick Earley 
> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Message-ID:
> <
> cahrttw9h69ewso1v3m6hzgn4emuglb0gvx9bkd+q0hi6t_f...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="55427605d280b9bb"
>
> 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