Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] media tarballs announcement

This is great! Forwarding to wikimedia-l. On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Ariel T. Glenn ar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Folks who are interested in downloading tarballs of media for their particular project can now do so from: http://ftpmirror.your.org/pub/wikimedia/imagedumps/tarballs/ In

[Wikimedia-l] Yet Another Cybercrime Law (Philippines)

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/philippines-new-cybercrime-prevention-act-troubling-free-expression I suppose this is old news by now, but I haven't seen it mentioned here yet. Are any projects taking action? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board resolutions on bylaw amendments and appointment of Foundation staff officers

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote: Please note the substantive change in Article V: Officers and Duties. As per the amendments, the Secretary and Treasurer are now non-trustee officer positions. This doesn't seem too unreasonable in itself, but it is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Why not distinguish the community seats from the Chapters seats with the terms community seats and Chapters seats? Using the word community in both cases may induce to believe that's it's the same community with two

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:15 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included. In the 2011 election, anyone active with commit access (that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

The way this whole affair was undertaken was unfortunate, but that can be smoothed over with apologies. The remaining issue is that the wrong decision was made, and there's no way to fix that except to reverse the decision. On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com

Re: [Wikimedia-l] PRISM

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: By access logs I meant HTTP access logs. It's pretty clear that without taking extraordinary measures, what you're editing is not anonymous. But some people are probably under the impression that what they're reading and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] My choice for ED

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:29 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: Chad, I wonder if Rory has been considered. (: Given his history of biting newbies, I'm not sure he'd be in a good position to help solve the editor retention problem. ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Setting ticket prices

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:19 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.comwrote: James, In the past you have supported a hardline position regarding publishing of private correspondence, and in circumstances when the reasons for publishing the private correspondence were of greater importance

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible from the video? Presumably the person who set up the templates thought that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How many volunteers (not editors) does the movement have????

There's no master list that I know of, but there are lists of each of those things: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/System_administrators#List https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developers/Accounts https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room#Official_chapters

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How many volunteers (not editors) does the movement have????

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Alice Wiegand me.ly...@gmail.com wrote: How's your definition of volunteers? In this case, I just mean that some of the people on those lists are paid employees of the WMF or a chapter, so I can't guarantee that everyone on a list of volunteers is acting in a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting system (was: Results of 2015 WMF Board elections)

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On the other side, I would note that being a member of en.wp's ArbCom is highly stressful position and I don't think that there are many of long-term ArbCom members (in comparison to, let's say, WMF Board). I am sure that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CAPTCHA issues discouraging new editors

Events sometimes get whitelisted for account creation purposes: https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/throttle.php.txt The exceptions there there could be made to set $wgCaptchaWhitelistIP too. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 8:54 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: alternatively perhaps

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Global North/South

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Michał Buczyński sand...@o2.pl wrote: It would be _bad_ if this tag was used as a support more / less flag and financial decisions on particular projects and people were heavily based upon this underexplained and arbitrary list. Well... Based on the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Priority languages

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: * MediaWiki is developing and messages are changing. While it doesn't matter a lot for the main language to have 99% and not 100% of translated most used messages, the new one won't get a project if it's not 100%. (The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedias among Top 10

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm shows clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. It's a shame we don't have filtered page view data: it'd be good to know whether

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On toxic communities

This article highlights the happier side of things, but it appears that Lin's approach also involved completely removing bad actors: "Some players have also asked why we've taken such an aggressive stance when we've been focused on reform; well, the key here is that for most players, reform

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "9 annoying nonprofit trends that need to die"

Which of these heinous sins do we commit? On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Pine W wrote: > I think that a number of us may appreciate this article, specifically > people who are involved with Wikimedia affiliates, grant committees, and > WMF Community Engagement including CR

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:19 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > Sue explained to me that the goal was to have WMF's budget be roughly 50% > grants and 50% user contributions to guard against unexpected fragility > with either of these funding sources. If that was the goal, it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Shared list

Someone complained to you off-list about the amount you're posting to the list. You immediately forwarded his email to the list. Is this the best approach? On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > I thought I was bringing a sorely under-represented

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

I was glad when I saw Jimbo indicate he was reaching out to James. At the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, maybe Jimbo should send James another email, this time extending a clearer olive branch. If we're past the point of no return on that, then so be it, but I would be happy to know that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > of course I dont expect > people to know their copyright laws in detail or to have read them but they > do know the principles of it and what they can do Are you sure? In the US, at least, industry groups go to a lot of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia is basically just another giant bureaucracy

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Stephen Philbrick wrote: > and it is astonishing how bad it is. If you're astonished, then I'm afraid you haven't read enough news articles about Wikipedia yet. :-( P.S. MAYBE IT'S TIME WE REEVALUATED OUR STANCE ON ALLCAPS.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliate-selected Board seats voting started

This is still going on, right? The latest question on the questions page has only gotten one answer in a month. :-( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions#Top_board_responsibilities.3F On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Laurentius

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Publicpolicy] news events impacting the Foundation's ability to hire and its employees' ability to travel

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > I think this is a very interesting point. Why is the WMF so dependent on > being able to hire staff in one location? A quick scan of the staff page shows more than 60 "international" employees. (A fair number of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Christophe Henner wrote: > First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a > board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That > resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 10:41 AM, sashi wrote: > The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being > overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) is > certainly striking. (cf. the 862 members of Category:French Jews & the 21

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GDPR

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 9:33 AM, sashi wrote: > Given that the category French Jews contains more members than the category > French Roman Catholics, and that there are living people included in both > categories... I would again recommend caution in looking at numbers, because Category:French

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: > Are there any specific reasons that the Foundation should remain > neutral on any topic, economic, political, or otherwise, which clearly > impacts the readership or community? Well, off the top of my head: to avoid compromising the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Survey about the Foundation's Mission

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:48 PM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > I am troubled with the ease doubt is raised about people contributing to > this mailing list/ our community/ our projects. This is a mailing list that > has the option of moderation. That is already in itself a sure way of > driving

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During wrote: > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al as > the new press barons? All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments. As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

You paint the problem as being about us adapting to changing demographics. I'm not so sure--if only because the notion of attention-impaired millennials appears to be one of those self-propagating ideas whose supposed statistical support turns out to be fabricated.[1][2] If the concern is about

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…

It's interesting that you chose spellchecking as your example. On the English Wikipedia, I tend to see that as an activity that some people actually do find fun (or relaxing). Plus, spelling errors (or perceived spelling errors[1]) are something that unregistered users really like fixing. But

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:18 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let's look at the content first. Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has > failed. It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources, > and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

Like Peter, I do not see a clear connection to the proposed rebranding. Threads of this sort would be more constructive if they were framed in a way that does not unnecessarily tie in every other issue one might have with the movement, and that does not imply that anybody with a different

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 1:18 AM Gregory Varnum wrote: > > Having said that, we agree with some of the criticisms you have raised. We > had understood the Earth Day Live campaign to be both global and > apolitical. However, we agree that the final campaign was both more > US-centric and more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:50 AM John Erling Blad wrote: > It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. I'm not sure I've seen anybody say that. I have seen people say that we should avoid political activism or lobbying when it is not part of our core mission, and that we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric

The original email here said "We welcome your input through 26 October." I don't think a three-week comment period was appropriate to begin with for a dramatic overhaul of our most formally powerful institution--particularly at a time when the board has determined elections need to be put on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 9:20 PM Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > Are we really sure he would have done something in any case if we did not > provide such options? > It's pretty hard to be sure about the hypothetical behavior of individuals.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and > you make that plain in what you say. > This sort of assumption-making about other

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Appropriate promotion OR Appropriate canvassing protocol/policy

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:05 AM টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta wrote: > In such a situation there is a possibility that if a candidate has many > social media or contacts and friends (Wimimedian), they will end up getting > more votes than someone who entirely relied on their nomination and > performance.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:18 AM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > You have to appreciate that fulfilling the role of a board member of the > Wikimedia Foundations is very time consuming. The candidates that may be > chosen from are all volunteers, they have a day job. The argument for > having only

Re: [Wikimedia-l] #forQuestioningUCoC : Online_edit-a-thon_Tech_February_2021#Conclusion

Željko, I am really having trouble understanding what point you are making or why this is appropriate for this list. Would you be able to clarify? On Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 6:13 PM Željko Blaće wrote: > Dear ALL - > Especially #forQuestioningUCoC this is what working on Wikipedia is in > 2021 even

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 4:31 PM Nathan wrote: > > No, it isn't a messaging failure. There's no failure at all - the WMF, I'm > sure, already recognizes there are pros and cons to a movement where every > individual participant feels a sense of ownership. They work around that, > sometimes they

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter on negating race and ethnicity as "meaningful distinctions" in the UCoC

The comment from WJBScribe in May 2021 that the open letter mentioned is here: < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Policy_text#Concern_with_note_included_under_%22Insults%22> (he also raised it earlier during the English Wikipedia consultation). Was there a

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter on negating race and ethnicity as "meaningful distinctions" in the UCoC

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 1:06 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Definitions of terminology makes sense in any document that is intended as > an enforceable guide to behavior. Without them, whose definition applies? > Cheers, Peter > No document defines all its terms.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Legacy maintenance

I don't think "slower budget growth" means spending less. It just means not spending as much more. Anyway, you can spend more on one thing, such as technical debt, and less on other things. On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 8:21 AM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > In information I read the WMF intends

[Wikimedia-l] Re: what do we do with all this opportunity?

Is there no public notice or rationale given when grant applications are declined? The only update on the status of your grant that I can see was by you: < https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:Project/Rapid/WPM:VideoWiki=23125476=23110705 >. On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 6:37 PM James

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Announcing the six candidates for the 2022 Board of Trustees election

I don't think there's anything blithe in pointing out that an after-the-fact promise of secrecy serves no one. Affiliates had to decide whether to vote without knowing whether the list would be published (but hopefully realizing that the username of their voter would be published, although I'm

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

On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 11:27 AM wrote: > > We don't have the capacity to handle a big bulk increase in pending > changes as proposed by gbfv on en-wiki and presumably others as well - and > making very short-length blocks on proxies would require a major increase > in Steward time, which a

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period is now open

I'm surprised to see that this announcement includes no mention of the videos that the candidates created answering community questions[1] and instead highlights the affiliate questions from the earlier phase of the election. The on-wiki instructions also made no mention of the videos until a

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost issue (Aug. 1) is out

I would encourage everyone to take a look at the second link Mike provided. I recommend reading the entire talk page and, if you have time, the talk page for the candidate guidelines[1] and for the election itself[2]; you will get a better idea of how this election has been managed so far and can