[Wikimedia-l] Re: Collection / Special:Book usage

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

AFAIK, you can't then print the book or download as PDF. This used to work, but the WMF decidef to break it and never fixed it.2022(e)ko api. 16(a) 11:43 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du ("Amir E. Aharoni" ):Hi,As far as I can see, the Collection extension, which provides the Special:Book page, is deployed on nearly all Wikimedia wikis.Is there data that shows how often do people actually use it?--Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִיhttp://aharoni.wordpress.com‪“We're living in pieces,I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
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/MNOP7EROSJ2ZT5ZJZPLQDBQNCDZGIALE/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Collection / Special:Book usage

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Hi,

As far as I can see, the Collection extension, which provides the
Special:Book page, is deployed on nearly all Wikimedia wikis.

Is there data that shows how often do people actually use it?

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
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/5JWSKWYE5M44OZR5MLLXFQEZXLQYOO72/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

[Todd Allen]

Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".

I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
regarding both spammers and already-public information.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Rosie,
>
> Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
> Universal Code of Conduct:
>
>
>- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
>private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
>address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
>elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
>outside the projects.
>
>
> As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
> state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
> working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
>
> The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia
> activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter
> that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already
> be in breach of the code as written.)
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
> rstephen...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
>> concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal
>> Code of Conduct (UCoC)
>> 
>> .
>>
>> The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy
>> of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283.
>> Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for
>> the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members
>> voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with 77% of
>> the comments written in English.
>>
>> We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community
>> members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture.
>> Wikimedia community culture stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports
>> people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be
>> productive on the Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. The
>> Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the
>> Board to review. However, we encouraged voters, regardless of how they were
>> voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines.
>> We asked the voters to inform us what changes were needed and in case it
>> was prudent to launch a further round of edits that would address community
>> concerns.
>>
>> Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of the
>> emerging themes. As a result, as Community Affairs Committee, we have
>> decided to ask the Foundation to reconvene the Drafting Committee. The
>> Drafting Committee will undertake another community engagement to refine
>> the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
>> the recently concluded vote.
>>
>> For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into four sections as
>> follows:
>>
>>
>>1.
>>
>>To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
>>2.
>>
>>To simplify the language for more accessible translation and
>>comprehension by non-experts;
>>3.
>>
>>To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
>>4.
>>
>>To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and the
>>right to be heard.
>>
>>
>> Other issues may emerge during conversations, particularly as the draft
>> Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of
>> concern for voters. Therefore, we are asking staff to facilitate a review
>> of these issues. Then, after the further engagement, the Foundation should
>> re-run the community vote to evaluate the redrafted Enforcement Outline to
>> see if the new document is ready for its official ratification.
>>
>> Further, we are aware of the concerns with note 3.1 in the Universal Code
>> of Conduct Policy. Therefore, we are directing the Foundation to review
>> this part of the Code to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes
>> of supporting a safe and inclusive community without waiting for the
>> planned review of the entire Policy at the end of the year.
>>
>> Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussion, thinking
>> about these complex challenges and contributing to better approaches to
>> working together