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

[Samuel Klein]

1000 per month!  Interesting.  Do we have readership / download data for
those created?

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 4:24 AM Mike Peel  wrote:

>
>
> On 17/4/22 17:40:35, Strainu wrote:
> >
> >
> > Pe duminică, 17 aprilie 2022, Tito Dutta  > > a scris:
> >  > Hello,
> >  > This was a very useful tool for the readers. I used it a lot when it
> > was working.
> >  > User namespace books page category shows 50,000 subpages:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_namespace_book_pages
> > 
> >  > (Please see language sidebar for other languages)
> >
> > You could probably go though all the pages in all the equivalent
> > categories and have a histogram of usage based on page creation time.
>
> This sounded interesting, so I made the histogram, just for enwiki, here
> it is:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Book_collection_enwiki_histogram.pdf
>
> The count is pages created per month.
>
> Key dates:
> - February 2009 - initial peak, tool enabled?
> - May 2013 - rapid increase, it became more visible?
> - October 2014 - peak usage (1145/month)
> - End of 2017 - rapid decrease, reduced visibility?
> - January 2020 - drop to close to zero, tool disabled?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> 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/COMZAJKQ4C7J6PHEKTWEFFACMGEEYMOH/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
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/SYE4FWR5L4DRXHLIUYPTSEMBAE55JFLB/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 Last year the community voted that way putting diverse candidates at 5th and 
6th position because the election method could not work properly, even assuming 
(as it was) a general attempt of diverse choice by the electorate. The main 
issue was in the low threshold for the candidatures. As soon as I figured out 
with a simple set of simulations I tried to warn and I was semi-harassed on the 
telegram chat. One person told me to shut up because I did not understand how 
STV worked, another one accused me of being in bad taste.
However, my analysis was probably right. I expected the output to be gender 
balanced but not geographically balanced because of dispersion among 
candidates. Unfortunately people were probably too ideologically oriented by 
how good STV system was and how great was to have so many candidates. Just to 
be clear, I don't dislike STV, but at least I understand how to simulate an 
election. If you want to use STV for a diverse output, put a clear selection of 
candidates after studying how people usually vote.

In general, this community has no literacy on electoral process but more 
importantly, it does not want it. That's why discussing this topic seems almost 
useless. People could mix up everything together, sometimes they just take a 
concept and put it to the extreme. 

The direct elections was poor because of the lack of understanding of the 
voting behavior. I am sure even now somebody thinks we have elected so many 
"white people" because of the "racist" (or more nuanced adjective) electorate, 
but it would have happened with an honest attempt of diversity by voters, which 
I think it actually occurred.
As for this issue, these other seats with this system. in the end it looks that 
the power of the generic users might have increased, we are switching probably 
from a totally affiliate-oriented election to an election where the community 
in one step of the process cast a vote in a open at-large election which is 
generally good. If you have a good selections of candidates, the result might 
be balanced.

The ASBS2019 election was already an improvement enlarging the electoral base, 
it was more transparent and public the previous elections of affiliates seats, 
but it still had to face some issues. One is that some affiliates cast the 
actual vote among few people with no real participation of their members (even 
suggesting them to at least inform their members they were casting a vote was 
"too much"), the other one that a small fraction of active users could be more 
involved in the process in two or more UGs. 

Giving a power of selecting candidates and not final votes to affiliates force 
them to care more about that step, producing convincing figures while the 
at-large election still has some issues but it's more democratic for the final 
choice. It might work, if correctly calibrated.One issue of the at-large 
elections  is the threshold for candidates, but delegating to the affiliates 
might lead to both strong and diverse options, without excessive dispersion.
Another issue of the at-large elections are the votes of institutional account 
that are not properly handled. Usually people here make some weird comparison 
about civil servants voting but it has nothing to do with it. You just expect 
people to reach voting right by themselves and not as a result of c.o.i paid 
activity, and you should be more careful about it in the case of close results. 
If the internal process of affiliates select the candidates, than that would be 
a good moment to decide the weigh of this type of votes at the next step if 
it's an at large election. Again, you probably don't want to deal with  this 
problem with a close call.

In any case, again, electoral literacy is hard, while taking one concept and 
enlarging it for a "soapbox moment" is easy. just to clear I have nothing 
against one position or another per se. For example I disagree with the merge 
of the two types of seats because it might lead to some functional results if 
correctly handled but for sure with the strong ideological positions we face, 
it can only lead to more chaos. So far, I might say that both processes might 
end up to more open globally than in the past. Although they could have been 
much better. 

Like everything, we will deal with the data at the end for those who want to 
care.

Alessandro


Il domenica 24 aprile 2022, 14:58:23 CEST, Andreas Kolbe 
 ha scritto:  
 
 
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:40 AM Chris Keating  
wrote:

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate trustees. 
For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board member table 
on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1] 
What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining 
"community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "implemented on a 
trial basis for the 2022 election".  



I don't think it follows that

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Lane Chance]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 21:45, Vi to  wrote:

> "lack of infrastructure" and lack of "current volunteers" weren't
> addressed in your email at all, given that you're relying upon wrong
> premises by assuming checkusers' bad faith and non-existing practices.
>
>
The paragraph that starts with "If that's inconvenient for volunteer
checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support
service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements,
..." addressed this issue precisely, hence is why I referred to it. You
seem to have been reading a different email.

There were no assumptions about "non-existing practices" and it's not bad
faith to highlight that there are cases of checkusers that misused the
tools and have vanished or left the projects. Perhaps you can answer the
question about how many cases there have been?

Lane


> Vito
>
> Il giorno sab 23 apr 2022 alle ore 19:58 Lane Chance 
> ha scritto:
>
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 15:17, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lane,
>>>
>>> I would appreciate if you could take the time to learn about an issue
>>> before holding strong, accusatory opinions about it.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe reading the facts in my email would be a good starting point. Your
>> response has not refuted any of those facts, in fact as a checkuser you no
>> doubt could confirm exactly how many times in the past checkuser tools have
>> been misused and how they are still open to being misused.
>>
>>
>>> gIPBE is granted to people in China and other areas where they want to
>>> use proxies for security reasons. A significant portion of current gIPBEs
>>> are for people in China. The issue here is not people being declined gIPBE,
>>> it’s the sheer amount of people who need it and the lack of infrastructure
>>> for current volunteers to handle those requests.
>>>
>>
>>  Declining was not mentioned and is not the issue. Alternatives for "lack
>> of infrastructure" and lack of "current volunteers" was addressed in my
>> email. Lacking volunteers is not a reason to fail to provide access to new
>> joiners editing in good faith.
>>
>>
>>
>>> What isn’t feasible is automatically giving everyone IPBE, global or
>>> local, as it would make CU next to useless. Anyone intent on abuse could
>>> just flip a VPN on. This isn’t “the convenience of current checkusers”,
>>> this is an indisputable fact. People subject to bans often try to get IPBE
>>> so they can edit on a VPN without concern for that account being found in
>>> relation to previous ones. Any human review is better than mass-granting it
>>> to tens of thousands of accounts. We just need to speed up the time it
>>> takes to do that human review.
>>>
>>>
>> No, it would not "make CU next to useless". If people are contributing as
>> part of editathons or similar, and if 100% of all their contributions are
>> valuable good faith contributions, nothing else should matter. Literally
>> they are not using the account for anything wrong, so why would anyone
>> care? It is not the job of checkusers to be secret police and see all new
>> joiners in bad faith, that is neither useful, nor a good use of volunteer
>> time.
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Rae
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 04:48 Lane Chance  wrote:
>>>
 "Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not
 feasible."

 Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such
 as entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts
 joining a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on
 wikidata.

 "also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts
 the convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against
 the safety of new and regular users.

 Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and
 in the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private
 records, despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to
 vanish without any serious consequences.

 Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment
 or harassment by state actors which may be instigated by leaking this
 information, simple precautions like GIPBE should be automatic and
 preferably unquestioned for some regions or types of editathon or
 competition, such as for good faith contributors to the articles about the
 Ukraine war or human rights in China. If that's inconvenient for volunteer
 checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support
 service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements,
 even independent of the WMF itself if necessary, to run necessary
 verification and ensure that the editors are not just vandals or state
 lobbyists.

 Lane

 On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 20:49, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l <
 wikimedia-l@lists.wik

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Todd Allen]

No. I would prefer them to be selected in open, at-large elections, as they
should have been in previous years.

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 04:25 Chris Keating 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 1:13 AM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Yes, and let me say it in stronger terms: This is unacceptable.
>> Community-selected seats have nothing to do with affiliates; affiliates are
>> absolutely not the community. Community-selected seats must be an at-large
>> election from Wikimedia editors from any candidate who cares to run, not
>> taken from a "short list" of affiliate-approved candidates.
>>
>
> So - just for clarity - would you prefer these 2 seats to be selected only
> by affiliates, as they have been in previous years, without any involvement
> from community members who aren't in affiliates?
> ___
> 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/YUHJCW66YEZWXJJAQI24QWV6OL6K743C/
> 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/6OVUYLAS7XWIQPWZ3KRPSI67JW6TVCAR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:40 AM Chris Keating 
wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate
>> trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board
>> member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1]
>>
>> What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining
>> "community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "*implemented
>> on a trial basis for the 2022 election*".
>>
>>
> I don't think it follows that the Board intends to use this model for the
> following (2024?) election of the four seats elected last year. Indeed, I
> am virtually certain they won't, given the significance of the movement
> governance changes that are going on, and the level of change we have seen
> in WMF board elections in the last few years.
>


You don't say you "trial" something if you're planning to do it only this
once.

This whole change in process goes back to a "Call for feedback" that was
put out on December 23, 2021, i.e. one day before Christmas Eve.[1]

There is hardly a worse working day in the year to make such an
announcement, for most people in our movement, if the intent truly is to
attract widespread attention. Why not wait until the New Year, and make
such an announcement once people are back at their desks, undistracted by
holiday preparations?

(Announcing potentially contentious items or U-turns this close to
Christmas should really be forbidden. A similar thing was done in the
Abstract Wikipedia licensing discussion.[2])

Subsequently this "Call for feedback" process seems to have consisted
almost exclusively of four calls or meetings between the WMF and a number
of affiliates.[3] The description of these meetings on Meta includes the
following item:

*"By Victoria: Currently, there are a range of options for affiliates to be
involved; e.g. the same way as before (ASBS) or; the affiliates could
select among the candidates, and the community votes on those candidates,
or swap it around, to have the community vote on a shortlist for the
affiliates to vote on."*

I assume that "Victoria" refers to WMF Board Member Victoria Doronina. If
that is so, then it is somewhat obfuscatory – although not altogether
incorrect, of course – to say on the page on Meta summarising these
discussions:[4]

*"One member of the community suggested that diversity (regional, gender,
expertise and others) could be ensured if the election process was modified
to allow the affiliates to choose a shortlist of 10-15 candidates. This is
in a way similar to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee selection
process. The community would later vote and select their representatives
from that shortlist."*

Of course Victoria is a longstanding community member, but she is also
presently a WMF Board Member. If a WMF Board Member suggests changes to the
way the WMF Board will be constituted in future, then I think it would be
proper to identify this suggestion as originating from within the Board
itself. If another Victoria was meant, then this point is moot.

As for the question in your other mail, Chris, the two seats in question
are not affiliate seats. For better or worse, they are now
community-and-affiliate-selected seats.[3] They should be selected by a
method that is equitable. The method Dariusz announced is not.

A couple of people on the Kurier Diskussion page in de:WP and on Meta have
made comments to the effect that volunteers always end up voting for white
men living in the West. It's worth noting that the people placed 5th and
6th in last year's community vote were a woman from Ivory Coast (who lost
out by the slimmest of margins) and a Brit living on Tenerife, a Spanish
island off the coast of Africa.

Andreas

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/ZJZQDVRN6KARSVYJJAJIQ4S2ED5IG3YP/
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia/Licensing_discussion#Decision
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Affiliations_Consultation
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Reports#First_question
___
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/DFPXDHE6VVCI3BFDJPZNBFUPSGLD7UZ7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Uwe Herzke]

I've asked for the reasons to mix those two totally different type of seats in 
2021 on the discussion page of the board[1], but I never got any answer besides 
''the board decided this way'', which is in no way a valid decision process for 
community matters in the Wikiverse.
I've asked again on the page, where such things should appear at first, the 
board election committee[2], where to find the process for the election of the 
affiliate seats.

The mix-up of those two very distinct type of seats is in no way useful, nor 
has it anywhere discussed with the ultimate ruler of the Wikiverse, the 
community.

I'd rather see any answers on-wiki in those two threads then here, in this 
slightly off-wiki venue of a mailing list.

Grüße vom Sänger

[1]: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees#Why_mixing_up_community_and_affiliates
[2]: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections#2022_affiliates_seats
___
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/K56EY6FA2WCDHTYQXBETOG75TVVZECSA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Chris Keating]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 1:13 AM Todd Allen  wrote:

> Yes, and let me say it in stronger terms: This is unacceptable.
> Community-selected seats have nothing to do with affiliates; affiliates are
> absolutely not the community. Community-selected seats must be an at-large
> election from Wikimedia editors from any candidate who cares to run, not
> taken from a "short list" of affiliate-approved candidates.
>

So - just for clarity - would you prefer these 2 seats to be selected only
by affiliates, as they have been in previous years, without any involvement
from community members who aren't in affiliates?
___
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/YUHJCW66YEZWXJJAQI24QWV6OL6K743C/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Chris Keating]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Chris,
>
> There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate
> trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board
> member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1]
>
> What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining
> "community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "*implemented
> on a trial basis for the 2022 election*".
>
>
I don't think it follows that the Board intends to use this model for the
following (2024?) election of the four seats elected last year. Indeed, I
am virtually certain they won't, given the significance of the movement
governance changes that are going on, and the level of change we have seen
in WMF board elections in the last few years.
___
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/I6A53AW6RPJDU2GCL3FULYC3X23WKPZR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

[Mike Peel]

On 17/4/22 17:40:35, Strainu wrote:



Pe duminică, 17 aprilie 2022, Tito Dutta > a scris:

 > Hello,
 > This was a very useful tool for the readers. I used it a lot when it 
was working.
 > User namespace books page category shows 50,000 subpages: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_namespace_book_pages 


 > (Please see language sidebar for other languages)

You could probably go though all the pages in all the equivalent 
categories and have a histogram of usage based on page creation time.


This sounded interesting, so I made the histogram, just for enwiki, here 
it is:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Book_collection_enwiki_histogram.pdf

The count is pages created per month.

Key dates:
- February 2009 - initial peak, tool enabled?
- May 2013 - rapid increase, it became more visible?
- October 2014 - peak usage (1145/month)
- End of 2017 - rapid decrease, reduced visibility?
- January 2020 - drop to close to zero, tool disabled?

Thanks,
Mike
___
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/COMZAJKQ4C7J6PHEKTWEFFACMGEEYMOH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org