[Wikimedia-l] Re: Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is coming. Help us and prepare

[Gnangarra]

of course the Community tech team cant fix 900 existing issues, nor can it
make a new team.  The whole point about the wishlist is to focus on tools
the community needs.  The current reality is that instead of making new
tools the Community really needs the tools made during previous wishlsts
being fixed, upgraded, or if necessary the plug gets pulled on them.

One of the inherent problems with the wishlist is that the limited
resources keep getting thrown at making new gadgets, but it never looks
back at what its created. Many of the gadgets that get created are to work
around an existing problem rather than fixing the underlying problem.

Moving an issue from being listed as Commons related, to Larger Suggestions
is removing it from where the audience can see it, a close look many of the
other "wishes" on the commons list could be granted by way of fixing small
parts of the larger problems.

Wishlist as in its current form has an equity issue, a wish for Wikisource
compared to a wish for Wikipedia is never going to garner the same amount
of support. There is a significant size difference between the two, and
with that there is a lack of understanding of how much impact a tool will
have.  Commons gains some in being multilingual yet loses out
against a Wikipedia wish because of the same imbalance. An added bonus that
upgrading the multimedia capacity on Commons means we need all the other
projects being able to incorporate those gains, voila its too hard, its too
big, its outside of scope.  If your wish is for a tool to help a language
other than the top 10 forget the wishlist altogether.

We end up with it haven taken 6 months to create the virtual Wikimania
2021, its now six months after Wikimania 2021 yet we still havent been able
to upload all sessions to Commons because of underlying issues problems
with the video uploading process. We didnt even have streaming capacity to
actually present directly through Commons we had to use Youtube and
continue to hold all the videos on Youtube even though everything is freely
licensed. All because the wishlist process if flawed it looks only at the
small ideas, the easy ideas, current needs there is no reason why the
Community team cant take on a large idea and work collaboratively like the
whole community does.  There is nothing stopping the volunteers and
Community tech team from applying for funding through a rapid grant to work
on something larger or something that addresses the lack of equity being
created by the Wishlist.



On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 04:39, MusikAnimal  wrote:

> > Perhaps we can also have community discussion and !voting on the larger
> suggestions, to help Wikimedia at large to prioritize (or reflect on why
> tackling a popular set of challenges is hard to focus on).  This seems like
> a useful enough list to want to come out with a rough ordering of the
> "larger" list as well as the traditional ordering of smaller wishes.
>
> That's exactly what it is for. See the lead at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Larger_suggestions
> . The wish about Commons maintenance was never "removed", it was *moved*
> to Larger suggestions, because as Szymon explained better than I did, we
> (Community Tech) cannot provide indefinite support for Commons and tackle
> 900+ bugs. Moving it to Larger suggestions recognizes the proposal is an
> important problem that deserves broader attention. Apologies this wasn't
> clear.
>
> ~ MA
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:31 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we can also have community discussion and !voting on the larger
>> suggestions, to help Wikimedia at large to prioritize (or reflect on why
>> tackling a popular set of challenges is hard to focus on).  This seems like
>> a useful enough list to want to come out with a rough ordering of the
>> "larger" list as well as the traditional ordering of smaller wishes.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:51 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>>> Kaya
>>>
>>> As was said we should put forward wishes to the list even if they can't
>>> be fulfilled by the team, by removing the issue from the wishlist you have
>>> taken away the communities ability to express that they wish the issues to
>>> be addressed.
>>>
>>> Calling it out of scope and removing it is exactly what we were told was
>>> not going happen this year. I'll go back to my original response the
>>> Wishlist is broken and doesnt serve the communities needs
>>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 15:12, Szymon Grabarczuk <
>>> sgrabarc...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Dear Gnangarra and everyone who feels misinformed,

 Please take into account my reply published on the same page, a few
 diffs later:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Larger_suggestions/General_maintenance,_outstanding_phabricator_tickets&diff=next&oldid=22669903

 In a nutshell, the voting results are instructions for the Community
 Tech team. Since our team can't hire an

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Wikipedia Library: Accessing free reliable sources is now easier than ever

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:25 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>  --> collab w/ a free-content annotation + summarization service

Strong +1. Summarization of proprietary sources helps to further
broaden access to the facts stated therein (summarization of free
sources is, of course, useful as well!). I'm not aware of a general
wiki-style effort to summarize All The Things; if none exists, IMO
this could be a great initiative for Wikimedia itself to take up,
especially considering the need for summaries to be available in
multiple languages.

Warmly,
Erik
___
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/CQ3JT3OBGYET6M2OL4I22FF375QLWSYA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is coming. Help us and prepare

[MusikAnimal]

> Perhaps we can also have community discussion and !voting on the larger
suggestions, to help Wikimedia at large to prioritize (or reflect on why
tackling a popular set of challenges is hard to focus on).  This seems like
a useful enough list to want to come out with a rough ordering of the
"larger" list as well as the traditional ordering of smaller wishes.

That's exactly what it is for. See the lead at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Larger_suggestions
. The wish about Commons maintenance was never "removed", it was *moved* to
Larger suggestions, because as Szymon explained better than I did, we
(Community Tech) cannot provide indefinite support for Commons and tackle
900+ bugs. Moving it to Larger suggestions recognizes the proposal is an
important problem that deserves broader attention. Apologies this wasn't
clear.

~ MA

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 2:31 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Perhaps we can also have community discussion and !voting on the larger
> suggestions, to help Wikimedia at large to prioritize (or reflect on why
> tackling a popular set of challenges is hard to focus on).  This seems like
> a useful enough list to want to come out with a rough ordering of the
> "larger" list as well as the traditional ordering of smaller wishes.
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:51 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> Kaya
>>
>> As was said we should put forward wishes to the list even if they can't
>> be fulfilled by the team, by removing the issue from the wishlist you have
>> taken away the communities ability to express that they wish the issues to
>> be addressed.
>>
>> Calling it out of scope and removing it is exactly what we were told was
>> not going happen this year. I'll go back to my original response the
>> Wishlist is broken and doesnt serve the communities needs
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 15:12, Szymon Grabarczuk <
>> sgrabarc...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Gnangarra and everyone who feels misinformed,
>>>
>>> Please take into account my reply published on the same page, a few
>>> diffs later:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Larger_suggestions/General_maintenance,_outstanding_phabricator_tickets&diff=next&oldid=22669903
>>>
>>> In a nutshell, the voting results are instructions for the Community
>>> Tech team. Since our team can't hire another team, such wishes,
>>> unfortunately, can't be voted upon. Instead, these become "larger
>>> suggestions" which will be shared with the leadership of the Product
>>> department at the Wikimedia Foundation.
>>>
>>> I invite you to discuss the details on the Survey talk page:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Wishlist_Survey
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Szymon Grabarczuk (he/him)
>>>
>>> Community Relations Specialist
>>>
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 7:18 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>>
 so much for all the assurances here
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Multimedia_and_Commons/General_maintenance,_outstanding_phabricator_tickets&diff=next&oldid=22663179
  Out of scope for our team, which I hope is obvious

 On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 12:26, Gnangarra  wrote:

> Commons issues raised in
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Multimedia_and_Commons#General_maintenance,_outstanding_phabricator_tickets
>
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 at 05:16, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe, the Community Tech team should start picking up long standing
>> issues first which are being proposed repetitively almost every year but 
>> do
>> not get adequate votes to receive their attention.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2022, 00:59 Mike Peel  wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure if the opening of the Wishlist has been announced here yet?
>>> But
>>> it seems to be open for proposals until the 23rd.
>>>
>>> Which means I get to propose fixing a simple technical question for
>>> the
>>> fifth time in the wishlist: does this page exist?
>>>
>>> Seriously.
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Miscellaneous/Check_if_a_page_exists_without_populating_WhatLinksHere
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On 5/1/22 16:10:37, Natalia Rodriguez wrote:
>>> > Hey all,
>>> > Nice to meet many of you for the first time! Thanks for your
>>> feedback
>>> > and for raising larger concerns around resource allocation at the
>>> > Foundation. These concerns are extremely valid-- especially the
>>> ones
>>> > around allocating resources for less supported platforms such as
>>> Commons
>>> > and broken infrastructure. The wishlist process will begin next
>>> week
>>> > with the proposal phase starting Jan 10.
>>> >
>>> > In the email thread, I identified some open questions about the
>>> Wi

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is coming. Help us and prepare

[Samuel Klein]

Perhaps we can also have community discussion and !voting on the larger
suggestions, to help Wikimedia at large to prioritize (or reflect on why
tackling a popular set of challenges is hard to focus on).  This seems like
a useful enough list to want to come out with a rough ordering of the
"larger" list as well as the traditional ordering of smaller wishes.

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:51 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> Kaya
>
> As was said we should put forward wishes to the list even if they can't be
> fulfilled by the team, by removing the issue from the wishlist you have
> taken away the communities ability to express that they wish the issues to
> be addressed.
>
> Calling it out of scope and removing it is exactly what we were told was
> not going happen this year. I'll go back to my original response the
> Wishlist is broken and doesnt serve the communities needs
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 15:12, Szymon Grabarczuk 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Gnangarra and everyone who feels misinformed,
>>
>> Please take into account my reply published on the same page, a few diffs
>> later:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Larger_suggestions/General_maintenance,_outstanding_phabricator_tickets&diff=next&oldid=22669903
>>
>> In a nutshell, the voting results are instructions for the Community Tech
>> team. Since our team can't hire another team, such wishes, unfortunately,
>> can't be voted upon. Instead, these become "larger suggestions" which will
>> be shared with the leadership of the Product department at the Wikimedia
>> Foundation.
>>
>> I invite you to discuss the details on the Survey talk page:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Wishlist_Survey
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Szymon Grabarczuk (he/him)
>>
>> Community Relations Specialist
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 7:18 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>>> so much for all the assurances here
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Multimedia_and_Commons/General_maintenance,_outstanding_phabricator_tickets&diff=next&oldid=22663179
>>>  Out of scope for our team, which I hope is obvious
>>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 12:26, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>>
 Commons issues raised in
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Multimedia_and_Commons#General_maintenance,_outstanding_phabricator_tickets

 On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 at 05:16, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
 bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe, the Community Tech team should start picking up long standing
> issues first which are being proposed repetitively almost every year but 
> do
> not get adequate votes to receive their attention.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2022, 00:59 Mike Peel  wrote:
>
>> Not sure if the opening of the Wishlist has been announced here yet?
>> But
>> it seems to be open for proposals until the 23rd.
>>
>> Which means I get to propose fixing a simple technical question for
>> the
>> fifth time in the wishlist: does this page exist?
>>
>> Seriously.
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Miscellaneous/Check_if_a_page_exists_without_populating_WhatLinksHere
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>>
>> On 5/1/22 16:10:37, Natalia Rodriguez wrote:
>> > Hey all,
>> > Nice to meet many of you for the first time! Thanks for your
>> feedback
>> > and for raising larger concerns around resource allocation at the
>> > Foundation. These concerns are extremely valid-- especially the
>> ones
>> > around allocating resources for less supported platforms such as
>> Commons
>> > and broken infrastructure. The wishlist process will begin next
>> week
>> > with the proposal phase starting Jan 10.
>> >
>> > In the email thread, I identified some open questions about the
>> Wishlist
>> > process so I am answering them here.
>> >
>> >   *
>> > Can we vote/focus on the maintenance of tools rather than new
>> tools?
>> >   o
>> > Yes. The wishes that we work on do not have to be associated
>> > with a new tool. In the past we’ve taken on projects that
>> were
>> > maintenance related. For example, in the last year, we took
>> on
>> > improvement projects for Wikisource Export and Wikisource
>> OCR
>> > tools, among other initiatives. We also maintain and fix
>> all the
>> > tools we’ve built in the past.Check out the fresh
>> documentation
>> > about what qualifies as a proposal here.
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey/FAQ#How_to_create_a_good_proposal
>> ?>
>> >   o
>> > Gnangarra, your points about the issues with bulk uploads in
>> > Commons would make a sound proposal-- a proposal does not
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Wikipedia Library: Accessing free reliable sources is now easier than ever

[Samuel Klein]

Some practical things that could help expand access to referenced sources:
 --> collab w/ OA Works on an OAButton  /
equivalent integration  (for works where the author can make it more open)
 --> collab w/ a free-content annotation + summarization service (like the Wiki
Journal Club  for medicine)
to capture working notes + summaries.  These will generally be many times
longer and more reusable by others interested in the same source, than the
single fact / clause / sentences they may be boiled down to in any one
article.
 --> collab w/ IA and TARB

to raise the priority level of the target for inclusion in the Open Library

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:25 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> I think it's something to bear in mind. Yay, more information on
> Wikipedia, and more information freely available to the world - but at
> the same time we tell our readers to use the references to verify the
> information, which they can't do if it's not openly available.
>
> I think the best thing is to reference things to sources everyone can
> access - if that's not possible, then use the closed links. But don't
> encourage closed links at the cost of open ones.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 26/1/22 18:20:57, Rebecca O'Neill wrote:
> > I understand where you are coming from Mike, but I'm a bit stumped by it
> > at the same time. Do you apply the same logic to editors using expensive
> > print books they happen to have access through to some sort of
> > connection or other privilege? I often think about this in the opposite
> > way, wrestling information from behind paywalls into the open, I don't
> > know how I feel about anything that would discourage that.
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 17:49, Mike Peel  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > While the Wikipedia Library is definitely great at providing editors
> > resources to find more information to Wikipedia articles - it does
> also
> > have the drawback that it makes it much harder for readers to verify
> > that information. It can even cause problems for other editors who
> > haven't opted to join it, when they are working on the same articles
> as
> > those that have.
> >
> > Have the issues this creates for readers been documented/discussed
> > somewhere by the Wikipedia Library team? Do the tools point towards
> > where the information might be publicly available outside of the
> > Library? (I've seen some references being added that I could find
> > publicly available through some googling.)
> >
> > I can't complain too much about this, since it's sadly generally how
> > the
> > world works - particularly coming from the academic side where I
> don't
> > even see most journal paywalls from my work internet connection.
> > However, I think it's also important to have a balanced viewpoint
> here,
> > particularly since we're much more on the side of open access than
> > encouraging links to closed access resources.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > On 24/1/22 15:39:43, Todd Allen wrote:
> >  > Excellent work. Thanks to all who worked on this project and made
> > it happen.
> >  >
> >  > Todd
> >  >
> >  > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:10 AM Sam Walton
> > mailto:swal...@wikimedia.org>
> >  > >>
> wrote:
> >  >
> >  > Hi all,
> >  >
> >  > We've just published a blog post summarising the new features
> and
> >  > functionality available to active Wikipedia editors in The
> > Wikipedia
> >  > Library:
> >  >
> >
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-accessing-free-reliable-sources-is-now-easier-than-ever/
> > <
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-accessing-free-reliable-sources-is-now-easier-than-ever/
> >
> >  >
> >   <
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-accessing-free-reliable-sources-is-now-easier-than-ever/
> <
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-accessing-free-reliable-sources-is-now-easier-than-ever/
> >>
> >  >
> >  > The Wikipedia Library is a tool providing active Wikipedia
> > editors
> >  > with free access to otherwise-paywalled resources, including
> >  > journals, books, newspapers, magazines, and databases. Over
> > the past
> >  > 5-10 years the library has built up a large collection of
> content
> >  > from a wide range of publishers.
> >  >
> >  > In the past couple of years we've been finalising the
> centralised
> >  > Wikipedia Library tool used for accessing all this content:
> >  > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/
> > 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Wikipedia Library: Accessing free reliable sources is now easier than ever

[Mike Peel]

I think it's something to bear in mind. Yay, more information on 
Wikipedia, and more information freely available to the world - but at 
the same time we tell our readers to use the references to verify the 
information, which they can't do if it's not openly available.


I think the best thing is to reference things to sources everyone can 
access - if that's not possible, then use the closed links. But don't 
encourage closed links at the cost of open ones.


Thanks,
Mike

On 26/1/22 18:20:57, Rebecca O'Neill wrote:
I understand where you are coming from Mike, but I'm a bit stumped by it 
at the same time. Do you apply the same logic to editors using expensive 
print books they happen to have access through to some sort of 
connection or other privilege? I often think about this in the opposite 
way, wrestling information from behind paywalls into the open, I don't 
know how I feel about anything that would discourage that.


On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 17:49, Mike Peel > wrote:


Hi all,

While the Wikipedia Library is definitely great at providing editors
resources to find more information to Wikipedia articles - it does also
have the drawback that it makes it much harder for readers to verify
that information. It can even cause problems for other editors who
haven't opted to join it, when they are working on the same articles as
those that have.

Have the issues this creates for readers been documented/discussed
somewhere by the Wikipedia Library team? Do the tools point towards
where the information might be publicly available outside of the
Library? (I've seen some references being added that I could find
publicly available through some googling.)

I can't complain too much about this, since it's sadly generally how
the
world works - particularly coming from the academic side where I don't
even see most journal paywalls from my work internet connection.
However, I think it's also important to have a balanced viewpoint here,
particularly since we're much more on the side of open access than
encouraging links to closed access resources.

Thanks,
Mike

On 24/1/22 15:39:43, Todd Allen wrote:
 > Excellent work. Thanks to all who worked on this project and made
it happen.
 >
 > Todd
 >
 > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:10 AM Sam Walton
mailto:swal...@wikimedia.org>
 > >> wrote:
 >
 >     Hi all,
 >
 >     We've just published a blog post summarising the new features and
 >     functionality available to active Wikipedia editors in The
Wikipedia
 >     Library:
 >

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-accessing-free-reliable-sources-is-now-easier-than-ever/


 >   
  >

 >
 >     The Wikipedia Library is a tool providing active Wikipedia
editors
 >     with free access to otherwise-paywalled resources, including
 >     journals, books, newspapers, magazines, and databases. Over
the past
 >     5-10 years the library has built up a large collection of content
 >     from a wide range of publishers.
 >
 >     In the past couple of years we've been finalising the centralised
 >     Wikipedia Library tool used for accessing all this content:
 > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/

 >     >. I'm really pleased to
 >     announce that we've finished work on some long-requested and
planned
 >     features which make it really simple to use!
 >
 >     The library now has:
 >
 >       * Proxy-based authentication for direct access of resources
 >         without a secondary login
 >       * A centralised search feature for browsing multiple
collections
 >         from one place
 >       * An on-wiki notification to let editors know about the library
 >         when they have crossed the eligibility threshold (rolling
out in
 >         stages throughout January)
 >
 >     As the project I first joined the Wikimedia Foundation to work on
 >     years ago I'm personally thrilled that we've finally been able to
 >     deploy all these features!
 >
 >     If you're eligible to use the library (500+ edits, 6+ months
 >     editing) you can jump in and start using the library straight
away.
 >     We're now working on expanding and diversif

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Wikipedia Library: Accessing free reliable sources is now easier than ever

[Rebecca O'Neill]

I understand where you are coming from Mike, but I'm a bit stumped by it at
the same time. Do you apply the same logic to editors using expensive print
books they happen to have access through to some sort of connection or
other privilege? I often think about this in the opposite way, wrestling
information from behind paywalls into the open, I don't know how I feel
about anything that would discourage that.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 17:49, Mike Peel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> While the Wikipedia Library is definitely great at providing editors
> resources to find more information to Wikipedia articles - it does also
> have the drawback that it makes it much harder for readers to verify
> that information. It can even cause problems for other editors who
> haven't opted to join it, when they are working on the same articles as
> those that have.
>
> Have the issues this creates for readers been documented/discussed
> somewhere by the Wikipedia Library team? Do the tools point towards
> where the information might be publicly available outside of the
> Library? (I've seen some references being added that I could find
> publicly available through some googling.)
>
> I can't complain too much about this, since it's sadly generally how the
> world works - particularly coming from the academic side where I don't
> even see most journal paywalls from my work internet connection.
> However, I think it's also important to have a balanced viewpoint here,
> particularly since we're much more on the side of open access than
> encouraging links to closed access resources.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 24/1/22 15:39:43, Todd Allen wrote:
> > Excellent work. Thanks to all who worked on this project and made it
> happen.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:10 AM Sam Walton  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We've just published a blog post summarising the new features and
> > functionality available to active Wikipedia editors in The Wikipedia
> > Library:
> >
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-accessing-free-reliable-sources-is-now-easier-than-ever/
> > <
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-accessing-free-reliable-sources-is-now-easier-than-ever/
> >
> >
> > The Wikipedia Library is a tool providing active Wikipedia editors
> > with free access to otherwise-paywalled resources, including
> > journals, books, newspapers, magazines, and databases. Over the past
> > 5-10 years the library has built up a large collection of content
> > from a wide range of publishers.
> >
> > In the past couple of years we've been finalising the centralised
> > Wikipedia Library tool used for accessing all this content:
> > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/
> > . I'm really pleased to
> > announce that we've finished work on some long-requested and planned
> > features which make it really simple to use!
> >
> > The library now has:
> >
> >   * Proxy-based authentication for direct access of resources
> > without a secondary login
> >   * A centralised search feature for browsing multiple collections
> > from one place
> >   * An on-wiki notification to let editors know about the library
> > when they have crossed the eligibility threshold (rolling out in
> > stages throughout January)
> >
> > As the project I first joined the Wikimedia Foundation to work on
> > years ago I'm personally thrilled that we've finally been able to
> > deploy all these features!
> >
> > If you're eligible to use the library (500+ edits, 6+ months
> > editing) you can jump in and start using the library straight away.
> > We're now working on expanding and diversifying the content
> > available in the library, so let us know on the suggestions page if
> > there are collections you want us to make available:
> > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/
> > 
> >
> > If the tool isn't currently localised into your language, you can
> > translate it on TranslateWiki:
> >
> https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Wikipedia_Library_Card_Platform
> > <
> https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Wikipedia_Library_Card_Platform
> >
> >
> > We're planning to host some Office Hours, which will be a chance to
> > get a walkthrough of how to use the library, as well as discuss your
> > research needs and requests for new collections with the team. Look
> > out for more on that in the coming weeks.
> >
> > --
> > Sam Walton
> > Product Manager, The Wikipedia Library
> >
> > swal...@wikimedia.org
> >
> > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Wikipedia Library: Accessing free reliable sources is now easier than ever

[Mike Peel]

Hi all,

While the Wikipedia Library is definitely great at providing editors 
resources to find more information to Wikipedia articles - it does also 
have the drawback that it makes it much harder for readers to verify 
that information. It can even cause problems for other editors who 
haven't opted to join it, when they are working on the same articles as 
those that have.


Have the issues this creates for readers been documented/discussed 
somewhere by the Wikipedia Library team? Do the tools point towards 
where the information might be publicly available outside of the 
Library? (I've seen some references being added that I could find 
publicly available through some googling.)


I can't complain too much about this, since it's sadly generally how the 
world works - particularly coming from the academic side where I don't 
even see most journal paywalls from my work internet connection. 
However, I think it's also important to have a balanced viewpoint here, 
particularly since we're much more on the side of open access than 
encouraging links to closed access resources.


Thanks,
Mike

On 24/1/22 15:39:43, Todd Allen wrote:

Excellent work. Thanks to all who worked on this project and made it happen.

Todd

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:10 AM Sam Walton > wrote:


Hi all,

We've just published a blog post summarising the new features and
functionality available to active Wikipedia editors in The Wikipedia
Library:

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/19/the-wikipedia-library-accessing-free-reliable-sources-is-now-easier-than-ever/



The Wikipedia Library is a tool providing active Wikipedia editors
with free access to otherwise-paywalled resources, including
journals, books, newspapers, magazines, and databases. Over the past
5-10 years the library has built up a large collection of content
from a wide range of publishers.

In the past couple of years we've been finalising the centralised
Wikipedia Library tool used for accessing all this content:
https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/
. I'm really pleased to
announce that we've finished work on some long-requested and planned
features which make it really simple to use!

The library now has:

  * Proxy-based authentication for direct access of resources
without a secondary login
  * A centralised search feature for browsing multiple collections
from one place
  * An on-wiki notification to let editors know about the library
when they have crossed the eligibility threshold (rolling out in
stages throughout January)

As the project I first joined the Wikimedia Foundation to work on
years ago I'm personally thrilled that we've finally been able to
deploy all these features!

If you're eligible to use the library (500+ edits, 6+ months
editing) you can jump in and start using the library straight away.
We're now working on expanding and diversifying the content
available in the library, so let us know on the suggestions page if
there are collections you want us to make available:
https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/


If the tool isn't currently localised into your language, you can
translate it on TranslateWiki:
https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Wikipedia_Library_Card_Platform


We're planning to host some Office Hours, which will be a chance to
get a walkthrough of how to use the library, as well as discuss your
research needs and requests for new collections with the team. Look
out for more on that in the coming weeks.

-- 
Sam Walton

Product Manager, The Wikipedia Library

swal...@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/XW32I7VHKR5HIVNY3VG5SFT6NB2QIYTU/


To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 

[Wikimedia-l] How to innovate in free knowledge: Mapping the movement's innovation capacity

[Kannika Thaimai]

Dear Wikimedians,

Today I am excited to share a document [1] with you that I hope will help
initiate the conversation around how to ‘innovate in free knowledge’.

This document directly refers to recommendation 9 “Innovate in Free
Knowledge” [2] of the Movement Strategy that calls for the exploration and
expansion of free knowledge projects. The aim is to stay relevant and to
serve our movement’s vision to give access to the sum of human knowledge.
Building upon this recommendation, our team at Wikimedia Deutschland
outlined different stages of innovation – taking into account the different
structures, people, processes of support that innovators and innovations
might require at each stage in order to grow. The paper maps out how each
innovation stage is or isn’t existent within our movement. And uncovers
what is still clearly lacking: While it is not surprising to see structures
and processes in place to support the development of existing Wikimedia
projects, there are only few support structures and resources to promote
new free knowledge projects that are equally needed for the movement to
evolve, grow and to become sustainable.

The outlined examples are far from exhaustive, so don’t see this as the
final and absolute version of the mapping. This map is one way to raise
awareness and make ‘innovate in free knowledge’ become more relevant in our
movement.

Please have a look, and leave your comments and/or questions on the talk
page. We are more than happy to engage in conversations and eager to hear
additional perspectives, insights, and feedback from across the movement
related to this topic. Please also reach out to me directly to explore ways
to take the conversation forward.

All the best

Kannika

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Innovation_Engine/Buildiing_an_ecosystem_to_innovate_in_free_knowledge


[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Innovate_in_Free_Knowledge
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/innovationengine/unlockaccelerator




---
Kannika Thaimai (she/her)*Innovation Engine - Strategy Lead*>> WMDE
innovation engine strategy

>> UNLOCK Accelerator 

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Phone: +49 30 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de

Keep up to date! Current news and exciting stories about Wikimedia,
Wikipedia and Free Knowledge in our newsletter (in German):
https://www.wikimedia.de/newsletter/

Wikimedia Deutschland – Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
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/GBD6ZJBTTS4MZC7SQ7ZEKYNRK3MPFV4B/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Updates on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Review

[Lane Chance]

Xeno,

Question 1 - ratification failure
Could you explain more clearly what happens if the ratification
process fails to get 50% support?
"If the majority of voters oppose the adoption of the guidelines as
written, they will be asked which elements need to be changed and
why"[1] gives no clue about timeline or if anything else than minor
changes and resubmitting six months later would be tried or tried
multiple times.

Question 2 - the role of Arbcoms
Hopefully you and the Board understand that though you "strongly
support" the "Open Letter from Arbcoms",[2] Arbcoms do not represent
the many minorities in our global community and case studies clearly
demonstrate they do not represent minority groups by their majority
vote nature. How will this bias be balanced if Arbcoms are so involved
behind the scenes in the UCoC enforcement, which may include
correcting or overruling cases where an Arbcom has already been
involved and have conflicts of interest?

Does the UCoC drafting team understand "politically" elected groups
like the Russian Wikipedia Arbcom represents a strong anti-minority
group bias in their own right, something that cannot be corrected by
just having more majority votes, a bias that the UCoC is supposed to
help correct? An example is the hostile and attacking responses to the
recent meta RFC to ban a Russian blatantly anti-LGBTQ lobbyist and
vandal which provides an excellent case study for why a committee that
only represents majority views gives outcomes that drive out minority
groups from Wikimedia projects and has failed to change this despite
complaints and protest over many years.[3]

1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/January_2022_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Community_ratification_of_enforcement_guidelines_of_UCoC
2. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_from_Arbcoms_to_the_Board_of_Trustees
3. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_1Goldberg2


On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 22:43, Xeno (Jack)  wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has provided an update on the 
> ratification process for the updated Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) 
> Enforcement guidelines [1]. In the next few weeks, the UCoC project team will 
> provide more information on how to participate in the ratification process. 
> The timeline has been updated on Meta [2] as the UCoC project team prepares 
> for the voting process that will take place in early March.
>
>
> To help to understand the process better, the Movement Strategy and 
> Governance (MSG) team will be hosting Conversation Hours on the 4th of 
> February 2022 at 15:00 UTC, and also on the 4th of March 2022 (exact time to 
> be announced). We are urging everyone to join the conversation hours and 
> dialogue with the UCoC project team on the voting process [3].
>
>
> In the meantime, please take a look at the revised and translated Guidelines 
> [4] that the drafting committee has been hard at work on over the last few 
> months to improve and clarify.  There is a comparison page if you would like 
> to see the changes to the guidelines since the draft review last year [5]. 
> You can leave your comments on the talk page as well [6].
>
>
> Finally, the UCoC and MSG teams want to deeply thank the Drafting Committee 
> for their hard work and dedication in finding equitable ways of applying the 
> UCoC in ways that work for both our growing and more established community 
> processes across the movement.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Xeno (WMF)
> Facilitator, Movement Strategy and Governance
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> [1] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/January_2022_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Community_ratification_of_enforcement_guidelines_of_UCoC
> [2] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Project#Timeline
> [3] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/2021_consultations/Roundtable_discussions
> [4] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines
> [5] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Changes
> [6] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines
> ___
> 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/5YDHN744SCICE3IJAIC6F54OSGEDBASP/
> 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://