[Wikimedia-l] Re: Third Pywikibot workshop on Friday, April 29th, 16:00 UTC

[Srishti Sethi]

Hello all,

This is a reminder that the third workshop on the topic of "Writing
Pywikibot scripts" is coming up in two days - it will take place on Friday,
April 29th at 16:00 UTC. You can find more details on the workshop and a
link to join here <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Workshops#How_to_write_a_basic_script_via_Pywikibot>
[1]. This workshop will introduce participants to writing basic scripts via
the Pywikibot framework. Please follow through with the prerequisites if
you plan to attend this workshop, particularly understanding how classes
and methods work in Python, among others listed in the workshop details on
the wiki page. We look forward to your participation!

Best,
Srishti

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Workshops#How_to_write_a_basic_script_via_Pywikibot

*Srishti Sethi*
Senior Developer Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation 



On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:55 PM Srishti Sethi  wrote:

> Hello Handgod,
>
> We currently do not have the resources to offer the workshop content in
> different languages. We are investigating the possibility of taking this up
> in future projects. One thing, though, is that we are presently exploring
> Google Meet's live captioning feature, and interestingly, it offers
> translations in French. As I have not tested this feature myself,
> particularly for non-English translations, I am unsure how reliable it is,
> something you might want to try out!
>
> Best,
> Srishti
> *Srishti Sethi*
> Senior Developer Advocate
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 1:31 PM Handgod Abraham 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks ! Is a French translation planned please ?
>>
>> Le ven. 15 avr. 2022 à 15:42, Srishti Sethi  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>> The third workshop on the topic of "Writing Pywikibot scripts" is coming
>>> up - it will take place on Friday, April 29th at 16:00 UTC. You can find
>>> more details on the workshop and a link to join here: <
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Workshops#How_to_write_a_basic_script_via_Pywikibot>
>>> [1].
>>>
>>>
>>> This workshop will introduce participants to writing basic scripts via
>>> the Pywikibot framework. We will be focusing on examples of scripts that
>>> participants have requested to cover in the workshop (e.g., finding and
>>> replacing content, archiving discussions, etc.). You can add your ideas to
>>> the ongoing discussion in the etherpad doc linked from the workshops page. 
>>> If
>>> you missed attending the previous two workshops, going through the workshop
>>> materials beforehand would be beneficial.
>>>
>>>
>>> We look forward to your participation!
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Srishti
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the SWT Workshops Organization team
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Workshops#How_to_write_a_basic_script_via_Pywikibot
>>>
>>>
>>> *Srishti Sethi*
>>> Senior Developer Advocate
>>> 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/DVHYCRRMJO4OUZW5BHXZ7RFHVZSAJD2B/
>>> 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/TMHK7YB6FG7BSBF6XGSMQMLO7VZKJF6A/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Wikimedia Hackathon: Call for Sessions

[Srishti Sethi]

Hello all,


Following up on this thread - Komla (cc'd) and I are planning to moderate a
few sessions at the upcoming Wikimedia Hackathon; each focused on a popular
bot to show how one can set it up on their language wiki <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T306593> [1]. We are currently recruiting
session leaders who are owners / maintainers of a popular bot (for example,
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Starter_kit/Bots_and_Tools#Bots>
[2]). We want the session leader to address some commonly asked questions
about setting up a bot (see the task description for details). If you are
interested in joining our efforts and running a session around a bot that
you own, please share your interest in the Phabricator task linked above.


Best,

Srishti


[1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T306593


[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Starter_kit/Bots_and_Tools#Bots


*Srishti Sethi*
Senior Developer Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation 



On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 8:25 PM Haley Lepp  wrote:

> Hello all!
>
> Are you planning to attend the Wikimedia Hackathon
>  from May 20-22
> next month? We hope to see you there!
>
> The main event will be held online. We have an open call for sessions on
> our schedule page
> . If
> you'd like to host a session, you can simply pick an open slot in the
> category which best fits your topic. The developer advocacy team also put
> together some suggestions
> 
> for how to create a fun session.
>
> You can also add project ideas to the Phabricator Board.
> 
>
> We will share more information soon about how to join the online space and
> where to find local meetups.
>
> Take care!
> Haley and the Hackathon Committee
>
>
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list -- wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikitech-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.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/72RPRXVJ2Y74G7E63CS73YCQXVETZ2LG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Summit: Update and next steps

[Nicole Ebber]

Dear all,


We would like to share with you the latest update on the planning of the
Wikimedia Summit 2022.

The application process for on-site participation is now closed

We thank you for your responsiveness despite the short timeline. We
received over 130 applications and collected valuable data on movement
strategy engagement in the affiliates. All applicants who completed the
form and answered all questions should have received a confirmation email
earlier today. If you completed your application on time and yet did not
receive a confirmation, please send an email to wmsum...@wikimedia.de.

The final invitation list for on-site participants will be shared in the
second week of May

Each application will be thoroughly reviewed and the final invitation list
will be published in the second week of May on our meta page
.
The registration process for on-site participation is therefore postponed
and will start after the final invitation list has been published.

We are extending online participation

Based on the feedback we received, we decided to extend online
participation to allow for more inclusion and equity.

   -

   Some sessions will be streamed publicly to ensure a certain level of
   transparency and flow of information.
   -

   Workshops will be open for registered participants from eligible
   affiliates and other eligible attendees (WMF, committees, etc., details
   tbc).
   -

   Each eligible affiliate will be allocated a total of 3 seats for
   participation for both on-site and online participation. This includes the
   affiliate’s representatives and Executive Directors. That means:
   -

  If an affiliate doesn’t have in-person representation at all, 3
  online slots for participation will be provided.
  -

  If an affiliate has 1 in-person representative attending, the
  affiliate gets 2 additional online slots for participation.
  -

  If an affiliate has 2 in-person representatives (the Executive
  Director), the affiliate gets 1 additional online slot.


More information about the online registration process will follow soon.
Please add your questions to our meta talk page.


Kind regards,

Wikimedia Summit Team


-- 
Nicole Ebber
Director Movement Strategy and Global Relations

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Phone: +49 (0)30-577 11 62-0
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/Z6BDZJSGJZ7PQ5ULCVB7ZR6KEJMZADWU/
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]

Hi Dariusz,

Many thanks for your reply. I wasn't really interested in having you
confirm a commitment to conduct future (s)elections in any particular way –
I was only interested in having you confirm the *absence* of any commitment
to conduct a free community election in 2024, along the lines of the one
conducted in 2021.

You have indeed confirmed that there is no such commitment to holding a
free community election in 2024.

Best,
Andreas

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:44 PM Dariusz Jemielniak <
djemieln...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> a quick and short response: we do not provide a response on a thing that
> has not been collectively discussed. That's a standard that should be kept,
> and the organization of elections is definitely something that needs
> discussing every time they happen (the procedure involves several months of
> work of the governance committee, before going to the board discussion).
>
> In no way the "reluctance" should be read as a commitment to organize the
> future elections in some specific way.
>
> Our approach to this particular, upcoming elections of 2 seats was
> straightforward: we recognized the fact that the community input was
> missing for seats historically reserved for affiliate-only nomination. Two
> of these seats are upcoming for re-election, and we focused on optimizing
> the process for these two seats, with no specific intent for the community
> elections in the future.
>
> I realize it is difficult not to assume that we're secretly plotting to
> take over the world, but the mundane reality is that much as we would love
> to, we lack the bandwidth and to a large extent focus on things as they
> come.
>
> best,
>
> Dariusz
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:41 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Hi Dariusz and all,
>>
>> Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple
>> locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly
>> community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community
>> members will be given a free vote.
>>
>> This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for
>> Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where
>> mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has
>> clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that *"the
>> answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other,
>> Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."*
>>
>> I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you think
>> about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing community-selected
>> seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new category, "Community-
>> and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if you do intend to abolish
>> community voting. After all, these were the very words, "community voting",
>> that were removed from the bylaws.
>>
>> So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024
>> selection process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of
>> the 2021 vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024
>> procedure to be similar to this year, i.e.:
>>
>> – either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by
>> the affiliates,
>> – or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the
>> community.
>>
>> Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because
>> the community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022
>> (as was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the
>> affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024.
>>
>> But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing
>> community influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of
>> community influence on the board, because either way, the community vote
>> will always be filtered through affiliate preferences.
>>
>> I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued
>> strenuously against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was
>> concurrently talk of removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia
>> Weekly Faceboook group[3] (my emphases):
>>
>> *It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that I
>> should.*
>>
>> *As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or
>> the dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the
>> encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a
>> community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that
>> we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means
>> safety for all these values in the long run.*
>>
>> *In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it
>> increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of
>> professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and
>> control. I am a steadfast proponent of that 

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

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

Hi Andreas,

a quick and short response: we do not provide a response on a thing that
has not been collectively discussed. That's a standard that should be kept,
and the organization of elections is definitely something that needs
discussing every time they happen (the procedure involves several months of
work of the governance committee, before going to the board discussion).

In no way the "reluctance" should be read as a commitment to organize the
future elections in some specific way.

Our approach to this particular, upcoming elections of 2 seats was
straightforward: we recognized the fact that the community input was
missing for seats historically reserved for affiliate-only nomination. Two
of these seats are upcoming for re-election, and we focused on optimizing
the process for these two seats, with no specific intent for the community
elections in the future.

I realize it is difficult not to assume that we're secretly plotting to
take over the world, but the mundane reality is that much as we would love
to, we lack the bandwidth and to a large extent focus on things as they
come.

best,

Dariusz

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:41 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Dariusz and all,
>
> Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple
> locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly
> community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community
> members will be given a free vote.
>
> This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for
> Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where
> mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has
> clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that *"the
> answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other,
> Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."*
>
> I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you think
> about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing community-selected
> seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new category, "Community-
> and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if you do intend to abolish
> community voting. After all, these were the very words, "community voting",
> that were removed from the bylaws.
>
> So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024
> selection process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of
> the 2021 vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024
> procedure to be similar to this year, i.e.:
>
> – either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by
> the affiliates,
> – or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the
> community.
>
> Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because the
> community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022 (as
> was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the
> affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024.
>
> But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing
> community influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of
> community influence on the board, because either way, the community vote
> will always be filtered through affiliate preferences.
>
> I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued strenuously
> against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was concurrently talk of
> removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia Weekly Faceboook
> group[3] (my emphases):
>
> *It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that I
> should.*
>
> *As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or the
> dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the
> encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a
> community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that
> we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means
> safety for all these values in the long run.*
>
> *In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it
> increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of
> professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and
> control. I am a steadfast proponent of that - you can speak to James
> Heilman for more details (I've not consulted with him in advance but I'm
> sure he'll tell you about my concerns about the "professional" board
> members who don't seem to have our values at heart.)*
>
> *I am deeply concerned about the tone of some of the latest proposals from
> some quarters: a reluctance to be firmly clear that community control - in
> the form of voting and not just some vague "community-sourced board
> members" language that might mean anything or nothing - is not negotiable.*
>
> *I believe that we need to be moving in a mildly different direction with
> the board expansion. I don't want t

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Dariusz and all,

Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple
locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly
community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community
members will be given a free vote.

This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for
Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where
mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has
clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that *"the
answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other,
Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."*

I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you think
about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing community-selected
seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new category, "Community-
and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if you do intend to abolish
community voting. After all, these were the very words, "community voting",
that were removed from the bylaws.

So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024 selection
process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of the 2021
vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024 procedure
to be similar to this year, i.e.:

– either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the
affiliates,
– or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the
community.

Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because the
community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022 (as
was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the
affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024.

But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing community
influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of community
influence on the board, because either way, the community vote will always
be filtered through affiliate preferences.

I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued strenuously
against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was concurrently talk of
removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia Weekly Faceboook
group[3] (my emphases):

*It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that I
should.*

*As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or the
dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the
encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a
community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that
we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means
safety for all these values in the long run.*

*In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it
increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of
professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and
control. I am a steadfast proponent of that - you can speak to James
Heilman for more details (I've not consulted with him in advance but I'm
sure he'll tell you about my concerns about the "professional" board
members who don't seem to have our values at heart.)*

*I am deeply concerned about the tone of some of the latest proposals from
some quarters: a reluctance to be firmly clear that community control - in
the form of voting and not just some vague "community-sourced board
members" language that might mean anything or nothing - is not negotiable.*

*I believe that we need to be moving in a mildly different direction with
the board expansion. I don't want to make a specific proposal but I will
say this: rather than an expansion that keeps community in a slight +1
position, I think we need an expansion that gives the community an
absolutely dominant role.*

*I've not spoken yet about my personal role, because I want us to focus on
the long run. But my preference is not to step aside until I am sure that
the "professional" appointed seats are absolutely always in service to the
community, by making sure that their numbers are - relative to the
community numbers - reduced.*

*Removing my voting seat - yes, it's a good idea in the long run, as I am
just one person and not that important in the grand scheme of things. But
for now, I feel that my role is to represent the moral conscience of the
movement and to prevent takeover by outside interests who do not understand
our values. So for those who ask when, I would say: when we are safe. And I
don't think that's true just yet.*

He had said earlier[4] that he would "personally only support a final
revision which explicitly includes community voting and I believe it is
abundantly clear to everyone on the board that this is mandatory."
Unfortunately he was mistaken on both counts; in the end, community voting
was struck from the bylaws by a unanimous board resolution, supported by
both James and