[Wikimedia-l] Re: Translating Wikipedia articles

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hi Ziko,

Content on the Simple English Wikipedia is indeed very uneven. Though most
of the project’s articles are stubs with not many issues, there are a lot
of mid-size articles with sourcing and/or accuracy problems.

And given the nature of Simple English, our good articles are not really
written in the same way that a good article in another language would
necessarily be written, meaning that machine translation would likely
require a lot more copyediting than usual to bring it to an acceptable
level. For specifics, see:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_pages#Simple_sentence_structure

Best regards,
Vermont


On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 03:55 Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello James,
> Interesting, what extra tools you have there.
> Andreas, in theory Simple English Wikipedia would be great as an
> international platform for the dissemination of articles. But in
> reality I have the impression that the content of S.E.WP is very
> uneven, the quality is very diverse.
> Galder, nice to hear of these initiatives and what is all possible in
> a joint action.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> Am Do., 16. Dez. 2021 um 19:59 Uhr schrieb James Heilman  >:
> >
> > Hey Ziko
> >
> > We have moved our medical translation efforts, such that MDWiki is our
> starting point.
> >
> > https://mdwiki.org/wiki/WikiProjectMed:Translation_task_force
> >
> > 1) We have also encountered a reference template issue with CTX but have
> built a work around. Our issue appears to relate to  and the
> same reference being used multiple times. What we do is we simply expand
> all the metadata for each instance of the reference before feeding the text
> into CTX. And then we have a bot that shortens all the instances of a
> reference back to one.
> >
> > 2) One of the benefits of using MDWiki is it allows us to keep
> references in the lead and use language that is easier to understand, but
> not be forced to use language as easy as Simple English. It has also
> allowed us to automatically generate a leaderboard to track progress and
> impact of our translation efforts. Additionally we only encourage people to
> translate the leads as that is only that has been medically checked for
> accuracy.
> https://mdwiki.toolforge.org/Translation_Dashboard/leaderboard.php
> >
> > Best
> > James
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 5:34 AM Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks, Ziko. Does anyone use Simple English Wikipedia as a basis for
> their translations?
> >>
> >> I reckon DeepL – which is by far the best machine translation program
> around, in the languages it covers – might do an even better job with those
> (provided the Simple English article is itself of good quality, and worth
> translating).
> >>
> >> Andreas
> >> ___
> >> 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/R7UQ4EUVVRFXYIYBQB6S25Y7SQQCIB2J/
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > ___
> > 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/I4QSZFVMBRVU7SBRYROJUMSR5RMQWYHA/
> > 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/NUTGNPULDEVOWA3KL4H5ZCHZKEH7H25M/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

-- 


User:Vermont  on Wikimedia
projects
they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter
)
___
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/B5WSUJKIQUP3PPJIGDFAURQM6ORCFVZV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

I also want to note something about question 10.

It's incredibly amusing that, on a list of questions for arguably the most
senior position the community has any say in, names for Wikimedia projects
(and referring to Wikimedia projects as a whole) are written incorrectly.

The bit: "WikiSpecies, WikiNews, Wikiversity and other smaller Wikiprojects"

No. It's Wikispecies, not WikiSpecies. Wikinews, not WikiNews. And
"Wikiprojects" generally refers to groups of collaborating editors on
specific projects, not the projects themselves; use "Wikimedia projects".

Best,
Verm

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 7:56 PM Adam Wight  wrote:

> As a candidate, I would be happy to work with the full list of questions,
> and to choose which ones I want to answer.  Whether we each prioritize the
> harder or easier questions could be useful information for the electors.
> Potential drawbacks are that our responses might be harder to compare if
> the questions are less standardized, and that some might feel obliged to
> answer the full set, which would be a heavy burden.
>
> Regards,
> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 8:55 AM Nosebagbear  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I write to highlight concerns shared by a number of editors about how the
>> questions selected by the Elections Committee <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A>
>> from the broader Community-created list <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate#Community_Questions_for_Candidates>
>> has not been well-chosen, on several grounds.
>>
>> First and foremost, is that of the questions that received significant
>> Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the Community felt so
>> strongly those questions should be answered by any candidate should be
>> grounds for presumptive inclusion.
>>
>> The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those presented. As
>> a role that needs significant time, and in a process that lasts weeks, it
>> seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is the most that can be
>> answered in an election for the most "senior" community-selected positions
>> in the movement. This is especially in comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA
>> candidates who answer well over 20, on average.
>>
>> A number of editors have also raised concerns that some of the questions
>> on the list are "soft" or "gimme" questions vs much more difficult ones
>> left off. As engagement with individual editors is a must for Trustees, it
>> is also unclear why the page is claiming grounds to prohibit editors from
>> individually seeking answers from candidates.
>>
>> Finally, there has been a distinct communications failure, though I am
>> unsure how much is purely ElectCom, WMF, etc. Questions were asked on the
>> original Q talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given
>> for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list.
>>
>> There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I
>> look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a
>> section.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Nosebagbear
>> ___
>> 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/OQUL2MSPXBDUNHH7JI4IZFUHIBJ5ZNZS/
>> 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/FUWCYEI5K7AEX4YDR7HHD4XXHCIVARNK/
> 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/2PHRG3DFXWULYZZDBOVITIM3HDCV6INX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Idea of a new project: Wikifacts ?

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hello,

Independent of my opinions on the validity of such a new Wikimedia project,
there is currently an experiment of similar goals (and potentially
structure) over at Twitter:

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation.html



Best,
Verm


On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:17 PM Leinonen Teemu 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Has there been any discussion to start a new Wikimedia project focusing on
> fact checking?
>
> Fact checking of course is in the core of editing Wikipedia, but I was
> thinking about dedicated wiki-site that is dedicated for fact checking of
> current events and news. Why this would be important?
>
> (1) There are many fact checking site in the English speaking world but
> much less elsewhere. I am afraid that there is still greater need for fact
> checking in the rest of the world. {{Citation needed}}
>
> (2) Our community is very well educated to do fact checking the wiki-way.
> Again internationally, many of our community members are real fact
> champions in their home countries and language groups. The practice of
> Wikipedia could be applied to fact checking of fast moving current events
> and news, too.
>
> (3) This could help us to get new young people to the movement, as editing
> Wikipedias is not anymore so easy to start (because they are so good
> already).
>
> (4) In many parts of the world, fact checking can also be dangerous. With
> our anonymous and community driven practices and services we could protect
> the fact checkers in many parts of the world.
>
> I am not sure what is the state of the Wikinews, but my impression is that
> it is not really working. It was a good idea, but maybe wiki or wiki-way is
> not the way to produce news. Also the beautiful idea of citizen journalism
> has not really become reality. Maybe we could try if wiki and the wki-way
> works better in fact checking.
>
> Peace,
>
>  - Teemu
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hello Phil,

It would be optimal if you did not continue to use this thread in an
attempt to draw attention to your block. Were someone to open your list of
contributions on the English Wikipedia, they would find a bunch of
suppressed edits, some on arbcom pages, and a block placed referring people
to arbcom. Nothing remotely abnormal about that.

And regarding letting the “WMF sort this one out”, the WMF is not in the
business of handling individual local block appeals, at least not yet.
Community processes exist to handle such appeals, and in continuing to
hijack an otherwise constructive mailing list thread you make the chances
of appeal, if they ever existed in the first place, diminish. If you
believe the WMF should take action on your case, for whatever reason, the
avenue to pursue that is not Wikimedia-l, and I request you cease utilizing
this thread for your own purposes unrelated to this thread’s subject.

Regards,
Vermont

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 01:46 Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I prefer to let WMF sort this one out. Whether you are correct or not, my
> block has an intolerable odour about it. Will someone please open a window?
>
> ---
> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
> https://www.oeclassic.com/
>
>
>
> *- Original Message -*
> *From:* Risker 
> *Reply-To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Sent:* 09/12/2020 01:06:18
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+
> volunteers
> --
> I'm sorry that you've chosen to hijack this thread, Rodhullandemu.
> Nonetheless, I will point out that it was *me* who indefinitely blocked you
> in the middle of an arbitration case, for reasons that didn't actually have
> anything to do with the case, and for edits that met the requirements for
> suppression.  Those edits were also reported to the predecessor of the
> Trust & Safety department at the time. There was also nothing to do with
> Usenet - it was your own words that resulted in your block.  I hope that
> the circumstances that led to your block have improved significantly since
> that time. Your block remains appealable to the current Arbitration
> Committee, and I am certain neither I nor Roger Davies (who subsequently
> reblocked you to remove email access) would object to the block being
> reviewed.
>
> Returning to the key subject of this thread, I thank Trust & Safety for
> making a statement, and also thank our colleagues for arranging
> translations into other languages.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 19:07, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Great news. Vulnerable contributors to Wikimedia projects should be owed
>> a duty of care, not least because they make good, well-informed
>> contributions, but also that those projects should not become the preserve
>> of a socially and politically advantaged elite.
>>
>> However, what he have here is only much less than half of the story.
>> Those who are falsely accused of unacceptable, maybe criminal behaviour,
>> when there is a significant lack of evidence to support that, have little
>> or no comeback. Minds seem to be irretrievably poisoned against you.
>>
>> I make no secret of the fact that I am User:Rodhullandemu on multiple
>> Wikimedia projects. I was blocked or banned (it's not been made clear) on
>> en:WP in 2011 on the basis of some fake Usenet posts that Roger Davies
>> found, and for some reason gave credence to, despite the policy
>> [[:en:WP:Usenet]]. There is no pretending that this is not the case, given
>>
>> ---
>> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
>> https://www.oeclassic.com/
>>
>> the entry in my block log on en:WP. As an experienced user on Wikipedia,
>> I know exactly what "Refer all enquiries to Arbitration Committee" means.
>> It's a code which everybody understands, and as it stands, is a defamatory
>> libel as an innuendo.
>>
>> I have asked Roger to copy those Usenet posts to me, compete with
>> headers. I have no doubt that he will be unable, or will refuse, to do so.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I cannot trust ArbCom to understand their role in relation to
>> due processs and the rules of natural justice, given the recent input into
>> my desysop on Commons from two sitting arbs, one of whom was such in 2011,
>> and one of their clerks. So I can't ask them to unblock me. They are
>> irretrievably poisoned.
>>
>> Meanwhile, WMF T refused to do anything to intervene when someone
>> misguidedly complained about me to them. Shameful, as I said at the time. I
>> deserve at least as much as those who are against me. Jimbo Wales's
>> decision on my appeal against my block missed the point completely. He
>> suggested that I shoud prove myself sane. That's both impossible and
>> ridiculous, and mentioned in my RFA on Commons.
>>
>> Time, perhaps, for the WMF to get its act together and say 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hi Seddon,

Thanks for removing the emojis; without them, the banner is infinitely more
professional.

Regards,
Vermont

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 11:09 Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
> we've rolled back this change.
>
> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
> campaigns.
>
> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>
> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>
> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
> ).
>
> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
>> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
>> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
>> seem childish
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>>>
>>> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
>>> the first):
>>>
>>> “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
>>> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
>>> our readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75 and
>>> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
>>> scroll away .“
>>>
>>> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
>>> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
>>> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
>>> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
>>> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
>>> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
>>> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
>>> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
>>> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
>>> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
>>> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
>>> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
>>> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
>>> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
>>> some ad campaign?
>>>
>>> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
>>> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
>>> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
>>> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
>>> of getting more donations.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vermont
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.

Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing the
first):

“Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of our
readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75 and
then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
scroll away .“

It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.

Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
some ad campaign?

And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
of getting more donations.

Regards,
Vermont

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:

> Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.
>
> This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
> how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
> with a *2 page* advert.
> * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
> title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
> fundraising notices.
> * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
> unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
> non-profit". That's a literally untrue Trumpian political sentence if
> ever I saw one.
> * The 2 pages close with "We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away"
> followed by a single option of a "MAYBE LATER" link (not a 'go away
> forever please' link, and yes, it's really in shouty all caps).
>
> I might have passed on thinking, gah, not again, but there is a
> further sting in this tale. After working out that there was a "No
> thanks" link back at the start in a font smaller than all the notice
> text, you are faced with a second big red fundraising notice. This one
> has a sad weeping emoji in it, because you are going to "look the
> other way". I guess the idea is to make it feel like you are
> heartlessly walking past a beggar on the street without having the
> humanity to look at them, not sure how else this is supposed to read.
> It closes with the same "humbly" sentence, but this time with two
> emojis that are begging or praying hands. Personally I find being
> prayed at slightly offensive, Wikipedia being a haven of logical
> thought, not a church, but that's probably me being too black hat.
>
> Isn't it about time the $100,000,000+ a year WMF made a design choice
> to stay classy and avoid multiple full page banners begging the public
> for money like it was about to go bust? It looks desperate because
> there's no other honest way to describe it.
>
> Stay safe, wear a mask,
> Fae
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 12:58, WereSpielChequers
>  wrote:
> >
> > Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
> > cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the
> WMF
> > was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a few
> > months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
> >
> > In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess.
> But
> > the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
> > their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have kept
> > their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
> > Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be in a
> > position to donate.
> >
> > WSC
> >
> > On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:25, 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> > > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

If someone states that something is unclear, they very obviously intend
“unclear” to apply to their perception of it.

For example, I just used the words “very obviously.” That is my perception,
my opinion, what I gathered from the information available to me. Should I
note “it is my opinion that...” before every adjective I use?

Regardless, it would be beneficial to civil discourse if you focused on
addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you rather than
attacking them personally and the method in which they put forward their
ideas, especially when it results in such unnecessary (see, my opinion
again) semantics such as this. This also applies to your: “I hope the
moderators are considering moderation for several posters beyond Dan.”, the
message of which was fully clear and not constructive.

Best,
Verm

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 15:25 Paul J. Weiss  wrote:

> To expand on the last part of my previous post, one of the things that
> Peter and other posters are doing that is problematic in my eyes is
> phrasing their opinions as fact. It is quite clear to me why Dan was put on
> moderation. So it is a false statement to say that "this is patently
> unclear". I believe that opinion should be stated as such. When I see
> opinion being spun as fact, I am less interested in reading the rest of
> such a message, and that writer loses credibility in my eyes.
>
> Paul
>
> - Original Message -
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
> From: "Peter Southwood" 
> Date: 9/11/20 4:20 am
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
>
> In that case, can we please have an explanation of exactly how the relevant
> text was found to be inappropriate, as this is patently unclear, and
> apparently the reason for all this debate. I have my own speculation, but
> as
> it is speculation, it would be inappropriate to publicise unless there is
> no
> official explanation.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Asaf Bartov
> Sent: 11 September 2020 11:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
> intention of maintaining a list.
>
> We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
> avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
> interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.
>
> Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
> without effort.
>
> As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
> preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
> to be heard.
>
> A.
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
> wrote:
>
> > Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> > expressions, and how they are determined?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Anders Wennersten
> > Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
> >
> > There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
> > that expression offensive and unacceptable.
> >
> > Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
> > and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
> > valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just
> > so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> > accepted as a norm)
> >
> > The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> > adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> > our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who
> > are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> > hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> > Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> > >
> > > Please, enlighten me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> > >> :
> > >>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do
> I
> > have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> > >> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> > >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> > >> Kind regards
> > >> Ziko
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to apply to Outreachy Round 21 with Wikimedia!

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hi,

Is this funded by the WMF? I noticed it in the list of "promoters" but was
unable to discern whether there was funding involved.

Regards,
Vermont

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:00 PM Gopa Vasanth 
wrote:

> *(feel free to forward the message as is to your friends, family members
> )*
>
> Hello folks,
>
> We would like to invite you to apply to the Outreachy program with the
> Wikimedia Foundation (a non-profit organization behind Wikipedia)!
>
> *About the Outreachy program*
>
> Wikimedia will be mentoring ~6 projects in the Outreachy’s December 2020 to
> February 2021 Round, around data science and engineering. The initial
> applications are due *September 20th at 4 pm UTC*.
>
> Apply today:  [1]
>
> Outreachy offers three-month internships to work remotely in Free and Open
> Source Software (FOSS) projects, coding, and non-coding related (e.g.,
> design, documentation, translation, outreach, and research), with
> experienced mentors. Outreachy internships run twice a year – from May to
> August and December to March. Interns are paid a stipend of USD 5,500 for
> the three months of work. They also have a USD 500 stipend to travel to
> conferences and events. Interns often find employment after their
> internship with Outreachy sponsors or in jobs that use the skills they
> learned during their internship.
>
> Outreachy is open to both students and non-students. Outreachy expressly
> invites the following people to apply:
>
> * Women (both cis and trans), trans men, and genderqueer people.
> * Anyone who faces under-representation, systematic bias, or discrimination
> in the technology industry in their country of residence is invited to
> apply.
> * Residents and nationals of the United States of any gender who are
> Black/African American, Hispanic/Latin@, Native American/American Indian,
> Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander.
>
> Browse through the participants’ guides, to learn more about the
> application process steps <
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreachy/Participants> [2]
>
>
> *About the Wikimedia Foundation*
> The Wikimedia Foundation  [3] is the
> nonprofit organization that hosts and operates Wikipedia and the other
> Wikimedia free knowledge projects <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/wikimedia-projects/> [4]. Our
> vision is a world in which every single human can freely share in the sum
> of all knowledge. We believe that everyone has the potential to contribute
> something to our shared knowledge and that everyone should be able to
> access that knowledge, free of interference. We host the Wikimedia
> projects, build software experiences for reading, contributing, and sharing
> Wikimedia content, support the volunteer communities and partners who make
> Wikimedia possible, and advocate for policies that enable Wikimedia and
> free knowledge to thrive.
>
> We hope you will help us spread the word about Wikimedia’s participation in
> these programs: <
> https://twitter.com/gopavasanth1999/status/1299566047423377408> [5] (by
> retweeting the post in the link or by sharing this email).
>
> Looking forward to your participation!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pavithra, Gopa Vasanth & Srishti (Wikimedia organization administrators for
> Outreachy)
>
> [1] https://www.outreachy.org/apply/
> [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreachy/Participants
> [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/
> [4] https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/wikimedia-projects/
> [5] https://twitter.com/gopavasanth1999/status/1299566047423377408
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Gopa Vasanth 
> Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham  | Blog
> 
> amFOSS  | GitHub
>  | Gerrit
> 
>
> “Yesterday is not ours to recover, but tomorrow is ours to win or lose.”
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

 because they receive
> too many case to review per day, or an "unsafe safe space" because
> harassers know those who deal with these reports.
>
>
> You either get a language that is too big and inefficient to treat reports,
> or languages that, because of the size, they harasser may just outright
> know the ones who deal with these problems. That's why T needs way more
> people.
>
> And not all languages have self-governing bodies.
>
>
>
> P.S. Written by someone who had emailed T about harassments against
> himself. One harasser got a conduct warning while the other one got
> foundation-blocked.
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 22:54 Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> >  For a person to report harassment they must first feel safe to do so.
> Not
> > everyone is capable of dealing with or participating in a public debate
> > about whether they have been harassed, there is a significant difference
> > between arguing facts on a topic and dealing with harassment and
> offensive
> > comments directed at you.  Its a very effective method of ensuring that
> you
> > can keep control of subject areas, or part of Wikipedia.  What is going
> > unnoticed, unrecorded and never dealt with is the same people make
> personal
> > attacks and harass contributors repeatedly, many of these people are
> > protected by other at AN/I or large followings that ensure they are
> almost
> > untouchable.
> >
> > Just like this thread dismissing problems when they are raised is
> > unhelpful, and has a chilling effect on productive outcomes.   The lack
> of
> > alternative safe ways to address issues has been a problem for many years
> > driving away 1,000s of good contributors.
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 21:47, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I fail to understand how requiring public report of publicly-occurring
> > > harassment is a problem.
> > >
> > > If people are being harassed constantly via off-wiki communication,
> > > emailing a local admin team or T is definitely the best thing to do
> if
> > > they don’t want to make it public in an on-wiki report.
> > >
> > > However, if it’s on-wiki, I don’t see any viable reason as to why it
> > should
> > > not be reported on-wiki as well. By no means is it “doubling down” on
> > > harassment; that doesn’t even make much sense considering that it isn’t
> > the
> > > collective community making the harassment, it’s an individual. It also
> > > doesn’t matter at all what the harasser feels like either; if they’re
> > > blocked after a civilly-written and clear-cut report on ANI it doesn’t
> > > matter what they think. It’s not acceptable to have a secret police
> team
> > to
> > > handle every content issue; community input exists for a reason,
> > especially
> > > on collaborative projects like this.
> > >
> > > Further, when did anyone say the community is not willing to handle
> > > harassment issues? It truly bothers me to see people write nonsense
> like
> > > this.
> > >
> > > I will restate:
> > >
> > > Local communities appoint administrators to enforce consensus. There is
> > > consensus that harassment should be responded to with warnings and, if
> > > repeated or severe, blocks.
> > >
> > > These administrators usually have a mailing list and an on-wiki
> > > noticeboard. These noticeboards are open for anyone to create sections
> > on,
> > > and unless a request was clearly made in bad faith or intentionally
> > misled
> > > readers, there is practically no chance of successful retaliatory
> action
> > on
> > > the part of the individual who created the harassment.
> > >
> > > In this case, a section was made on ANI, multiple editors commented,
> and
> > > for some reason the section was removed mid-discussion. It is to be
> > > expected that someone with an independent viewpoint would seek less
> > radical
> > > action than someone directly a party of the dispute. In this case,
> there
> > > was incivility and arguable harassment coming from both parties, though
> > > clearly “cutie” is not conducive to the desired contributory
> environment.
> > >
> > > Simple conduct cases are not the sort of issue for T Let them (and
> > often
> > > stewards) handle the threats to life, the vandals trying to find where
> > > editors live, the IPs making terrorist threats, the new accounts
> > uploading

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

I fail to understand how requiring public report of publicly-occurring
harassment is a problem.

If people are being harassed constantly via off-wiki communication,
emailing a local admin team or T is definitely the best thing to do if
they don’t want to make it public in an on-wiki report.

However, if it’s on-wiki, I don’t see any viable reason as to why it should
not be reported on-wiki as well. By no means is it “doubling down” on
harassment; that doesn’t even make much sense considering that it isn’t the
collective community making the harassment, it’s an individual. It also
doesn’t matter at all what the harasser feels like either; if they’re
blocked after a civilly-written and clear-cut report on ANI it doesn’t
matter what they think. It’s not acceptable to have a secret police team to
handle every content issue; community input exists for a reason, especially
on collaborative projects like this.

Further, when did anyone say the community is not willing to handle
harassment issues? It truly bothers me to see people write nonsense like
this.

I will restate:

Local communities appoint administrators to enforce consensus. There is
consensus that harassment should be responded to with warnings and, if
repeated or severe, blocks.

These administrators usually have a mailing list and an on-wiki
noticeboard. These noticeboards are open for anyone to create sections on,
and unless a request was clearly made in bad faith or intentionally misled
readers, there is practically no chance of successful retaliatory action on
the part of the individual who created the harassment.

In this case, a section was made on ANI, multiple editors commented, and
for some reason the section was removed mid-discussion. It is to be
expected that someone with an independent viewpoint would seek less radical
action than someone directly a party of the dispute. In this case, there
was incivility and arguable harassment coming from both parties, though
clearly “cutie” is not conducive to the desired contributory environment.

Simple conduct cases are not the sort of issue for T Let them (and often
stewards) handle the threats to life, the vandals trying to find where
editors live, the IPs making terrorist threats, the new accounts uploading
child pornography, the vandals spreading the private details of editors,
etc. Basic conduct issues can be handled by local administrators.

And for the “chilling effect” of reporting issues like this publicly, if
someone is incapable of seeing other people interpret events another way,
disagreeing with them, or not wanting as drastic and immediate action, they
may not be suited for a collaborative project.

There are easy ways to handle people who are clearly harassing you on-wiki:
1) Ask them to stop. If they refuse,
2) Create a section on ANI giving a short, simple, and unbiased explanation
of the issue with diffs.
3) Wait for editors and admins to comment. If the community believes it’s
problematic enough to warrant action, action will be taken. If no and the
harassment continues continues,
4) Most projects have other methods of handling issues like this. Enwiki
has ArbCom for this, simplewiki has community sanction discussions, other
projects have other methods.

At no point would removing the ANI report mid-discussion be helpful. And
doing so then claiming that it’s the community’s fault is clearly
incorrect.

Regards,
Vermont



On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:46 Gnangarra  wrote:

> >
> > The code of conduct is not a law. People who are harassers are criminals
> > and not above the law. Sexual harassment is a serious offense. Any kind
> > of harrasment is an offense. Wikipedia s administrators are not the law
> > and not above the law.
>
> Wikipedia is not above the law.
>
>
> The international aspects and the fact that WMF protects editors privacy
> makes options outside the movement very limited to only the extreme end of
> the scale. Beside the legal aspect its a cop out for the Community & WMF to
> dismiss any harassment as something they cant do anything about, this
> response is why AN/I is also a waste of time and why so much harassment
> never gets dealt with, ultimately why the movement has difficulty in
> attracting under represented groups
>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 13:14, Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής <
> anonymuswikiped...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The code of conduct is not a law.
> > People who are harassers are criminals and not above the law.
> > Sexual harassment is a serious offense. Any kind of harrasment is an
> > offense. Wikipedia s administrators are not the law and not above the
> law.
> > Wikipedia is not above the law.
> > People who seek help should be appointed to the right specialized
> > authorities as the police and not discouraged to do so.
> >
> > Safety team from my experience, will not help any wikipedian/victim who
> > with report a harrasment case. They are just another department of
> > wikimedia foundation.
> >
> > Any people is important and count.
> > Please 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Chris,

More generally, conduct issues are handled locally. We do not have a
central authority to handle issues like this; local communities are, in the
vast majority of cases, capable of handling conduct problems of it’s
editors. Not to mention that T would be incapable of handling every minor
conduct problem.

It also is not something that is usually emailed to emergency@; if there’s
extensive problems with harassment, and local functions do not work,
c...@wikimedia.org will get you in touch with T who can look into the issue.

However, you haven’t tried to handle this locally. Creating an ANI section,
seeing that people aren’t 100% in agreement with your preferred outcome,
and then removing it is not very helpful towards resolving this.

From my somewhat limited looking into the events, there’s been some
problematic shows of incivility on from both parties, with WWGB using the
word “cutie” in an offhand edit summary. It isn’t appropriate, it certainly
didn’t improve their point, but calling it sexual harassment and hoping for
the WMF or others to take immediate and dire action without community input
is misleading and unrealistic. On a collaborative project, problems are
handled collaboratively with uninvolved editors looking at the issue from a
third party perspective, giving their input, and at some point an
administrator coming along to enact the consensus. That’s why noticeboards
of this type exist, which discuss and evaluate conduct issues to seek a
resolution. We do not know how other community members and admins would
have participated in the discussion because it was cut short.

I noticed that you said, on Facebook, that you did not feel safe talking to
WWGB directly about it, and that you did not feel safe on ANI. I’m very
sorry to hear this; though I am not sure what you believe to be unsafe
about leaving a talk page message stating your having taken offense at
WWGB’s remarks, or asking for input from administrators and the community
to resolve the issue, those are the methods of fixing issues. If either
action were met with hostility, insult, or further harassment, there would
be a very clear and simple case for an administrator to take action, and
thus would have been much easier. If WWGB, however, apologized and agreed
not to continue with such conduct in the future, it would also have been
much easier. We don’t have a sort of secret police to handle issues in
private. The community processes exist for a reason, and when permitted to
take place, usually work.

Best regards,
Vermont


On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 17:27 Aron Manning  wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 22:43, Chris Sherlock 
> wrote:
>
> > I have been advised by the WMF that if anyone is concerned about being
> > sexually harassed they must report this to AN/I and there are no private
> > mechanisms to report this sort of thing.
> >
> > Is this for real?
>
>
> Assuming you've contacted Trust, "falls outside of the Foundation's
> remit" is a standard answer to receive as a regular editor.
>
> Bringing the issue to ANI it will most likely be ignored. If your issue is
> with a long-term / established editor it has a significant chance to
> boomerang .
>
> Sadly, this is for real and somewhat the reason behind the UCoC proposal.
> Whether that will change this is another question.
>
> Aron
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

With regard to the issue Facebook is having, if that were to become an
issue on Wikimedia projects something likely would have happened already.
The majority of disturbing content is handled by volunteers, and that which
T handles is often sent to them by volunteers.

Also, given the relatively complicated upload process (compared to
Facebook), we simply don’t get nearly as many problematic uploads as they
do.

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:19 Gnangarra  wrote:

> Is  anyone not already aware of the recent issue facing Facebook over
> compensation for moderators
> https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/12/facebook-moderators-ptsd-settlement/
>  To
> me there appears to be potential risk that the Board and the WMF must
> consider in relation to any role that involves any form of moderation;
>
>1. is there a problem with setting standards against harassment, toxic
>behavior, and incivility that is at a minimum equal, understandable, and
>respected on all projects, committees, affiliates, events and everything
>else we do
>2. is there concern about being asked to contribute at these standards
>3. is the concern how much the WMF needs to be part of the process, or
>4. how long it should be allowed to go unaddressed before its escalated.
>
> I go back way to far back I remember a group targeted stalking of female
> admins,  I was part of a group of admins that were willing to take action
> against this group. We lost some very good people during that,   Harassment
> has been an on going issue for all my 15 years, we had some the worst
> people become tool holders, others have just created 1,000's of socks.
> There are still people contributing today that are trolls, and harassers
> contributing today, we know that our failures to deal with it effectively
> and quickly are legendary.   What ever we do we need to keep improving our
> response and our ability to respond across projects, the alternative is
> going to be that the Board & WMF are going to have to step in and take
> responsibility out of the communities hands.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 18:58, Philip Kopetzky 
> wrote:
>
> > What Martin mentions should be covered in the recommendations for the
> 2030
> > strategy, the measures mentioned here being "fast-tracked" to provide a
> > starting point for improving Community Health.
> > Conflict resolution needs to happen on the lowest possible level so that
> we
> > don't run into situations we've encountered in the past. Of course it's
> > difficult for one aspect to work without the other, so the overall goal
> > won't be achieved until every part is in place.
> >
> > On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 17:46, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> > > > A former steward fellow and I
> > > > discussed this topic at the Safety Space at Wikimania. Due to the
> > nature
> > > of
> > > > the space, the discussion have not been documented but you can find
> the
> > > > presentation with backgrounds of the situation and open questions on
> > > > Commons
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2019_%E2%80%93_Do_we_need_a_global_dispute_resolution_committee%3F.pdf
> > > > >.
> > > > Maybe it can give some ideas how to proceed with this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes -- I was just thinking of your discussions of this while reading
> the
> > > thread. I hope these steward reflections are considered as people move
> > > forward.
> > >
> > > The case of disputes that embroil an entire community and their admins
> > > should (also) specifically be addressed.
> > > S
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
>
> *Power of Diverse Collaboration*
> *Sharing knowledge brings people together*
> Wikimania Bangkok 2021
> August
> hosted by ESEAP
>
> Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 

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

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose our
message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we
make in favor of that goal are often political.

However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such
policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and Earth
Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.

If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few people
who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere with a
half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the
flying saucers surveying the flat earth.

The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia
Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be
isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many
people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have unions
and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's specifically
American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of
those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is done
for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and should
not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.

If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or viewpoints
that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and
work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced
into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they
volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased
information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political
stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation to
legitimate criticism on claims of bias.

There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there was
a very different political landscape with very different arguments taking
place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists, would
likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and Wikipedia
will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of political
advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct political
stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former category.

Best regards,
Chris Gates
(User:Vermont)

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban 
wrote:

> Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as
> everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning.
> As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
>
> Camelia
>
> --
> *Camelia Boban*
>
> *| Java EE Developer |*
>
>
>
> *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation*
> Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> *Interwiki Women
>  | **Wiki
> Loves Sport  | Wiki
> Loves
> Fashion *
> WMIT  - WMSE
>  - WMAR
>  - WMCH
>  Member
>
> M. +39 3383385545
> camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
>  *|* *LinkedIn
> *
> *Wikipedia  **|
> **WikiDonne
> UG * | *WikiDonne Project
>  *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill <
> rebeccanin...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Well said. Everything is political, and when the movement choses not to
> > speak out or state an opinion on something, then we are giving our
> support
> > to the status quo.
> >
> > Believing yourself to be apolitical is as much a fantasy as being
> > completely objective, it is inherently impossible.
> >
> > Rebecca
> >
> > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020, 16:50 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
> >
> > > It is said quite often that the Wikimedia-movement is apolitical. In
> > > strongly believe the movement with its goal has never been, and never
> > will
> > > be apolitical. When we say that knowledge should be free and fully
> > > available for everyone, then we make a political statement. It may not
> > > align with you favorite love/hate political party, but it is still a
> very
> > > strong political statement.
> > >
> > > So please, don't claim the movement to be apolitical. We may not align
> > with
> > > any specific political party in any specific country, but we are still
> > not
> > > apolitical.
> > >
> > > /jeblad
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

c Foundation strategy and the terms for
> >> the CEO.
> >>
> >> Thank you in advance.
> >>
> >> Link to Phabricator task to implement the banner:
> >> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T250508
> >> CC: María Sefidari as WMF Chair.
> >>
> >> Fae
> >>
> >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 05:50, K. Peachey  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T250508
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 09:53, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems that they just gave a link to that website, which...eh...
> >>>> When I opened it, I heard one sentence of the stream before I stopped
> >> it
> >>>> and read the rest of the webpage: "and then we give thanks to spirit,
> >> for
> >>>> the air we breathe, for the earth..." After reading the rest of the
> >>>> webpage, I un-paused it, and am currently listening to a bit of
> >> propaganda
> >>>> promoting unions and more extensive labor laws.
> >>>>
> >>>> The linked website is explicitly political, explicitly  on the
> American
> >>>> left, and explicitly in favor of certain highly contentious American
> >>>> political proposals. I would like to hear the reasoning for why that
> >> link
> >>>> has been shown, and it seems to me simply unjustifiable. The WMF is
> the
> >>>> host of a series of community-built projects, not a political activism
> >>>> organization.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Vermont
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Ziko van Dijk 
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>> I can confirm that I see the same also here in the Netherlands.
> >> Which is
> >>>>> strange, there are no general elections here before 2021...
> >>>>> An explanation about this link would be interesting.
> >>>>> Kind regards
> >>>>> Ziko
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am Mi., 22. Apr. 2020 um 22:50 Uhr schrieb Yair Rand <
> >> yyairr...@gmail.com
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The WMF corporate site (wikimediafoundation.org) currently has a
> >>>>>> full-page ad with the text "We are watching Earth Day Live today.
> >> Will
> >>>>>> you?". This links to an external site with the text "Click here to
> >> sign
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>> to the US Youth Climate Strike Coalition Earth Day Demands - From
> >>>>> congress
> >>>>>> and the next president, we demand a People’s Bailout, a Green New
> >> Deal,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> Land Back for Indigenous Peoples", and prompting readers to
> >> "Pledge to
> >>>>> vote
> >>>>>> for our future" and to subscribe to "US Climate Strike".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Everyone here already knows how unacceptable this is, and why, so
> >> I don't
> >>>>>> think this requires any further explanation. The WMF should
> >> immediately
> >>>>>> take this down, and make certain that this kind of thing can't
> >> happen
> >>>>>> again. They've failed yet again at preventing inappropriate
> >>>>>> political activism in WMF's communications, and must take serious
> >> action
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> fix this constant stream of terrible failures.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- Yair Rand
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Samuel
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Adding onto this, it appears the WMF is proudly and publicly displayed on
the participants, which may as well be endorsements, page for Earth Day
Live: https://www.earthdaylive2020.org/get-involved/

I'm simply astounded by this. Never would I have expected the WMF to take
such a strong political position on the American left. If the WMF wants to
rethink their branding strategy towards "interconnection", perhaps stop
isolating those who disagree with the radical positions endorsed by
participating in Earth Day Live. It wasn't even a small thing on the
website; t took up the entire page, and the purpose of Earth Day Live is
explicitly not only about Earth. It has a number of other policies it
supports entirely entirely unrelated to the climate, and even includes a
call to vote in the American presidential election, by implication a
Democrat.

At the very least, someone at the WMF should respond to the concerns
outlined here.

Regards,
Vermont

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:51 AM Fæ  wrote:

> OPEN LETTER
>
> Dear Katherine Maher,
>
> The WMF home website landing page (https://wikimediafoundation.org)
> yesterday featured a full-page banner directing all visitors globally
> to https://www.earthdaylive2020.org. This is a site used for Americal
> political lobbying, refer to the email discussion attached.
>
> Could you, or the responsible member of your management team, please
> explain exactly how this happened?
>
> There is zero doubt that this was a serious operational error, misuse
> of WMF development time and a misuse of the Wikimedia brand. It is
> certain that you will agree that the buck stops with the CEO. The
> decision to use the Foundation's website for American lobbying is in
> conflict with your not for profit status and is in conflict with the
> charitable status promoted to donors worldwide.
>
> If the management team and yourself are going to continuing political
> lobbying and using WMF resources to raise funds for Americal political
> organizations which have no agreed relevance to the mission of the
> Foundation, there must be a published transparent governance review by
> the WMF board of trustees to examine and agree on this significant
> operational change to the public Foundation strategy and the terms for
> the CEO.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Link to Phabricator task to implement the banner:
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T250508
> CC: María Sefidari as WMF Chair.
>
> Fae
>
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 05:50, K. Peachey  wrote:
> >
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T250508
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 09:53, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It seems that they just gave a link to that website, which...eh...
> > > When I opened it, I heard one sentence of the stream before I stopped
> it
> > > and read the rest of the webpage: "and then we give thanks to spirit,
> for
> > > the air we breathe, for the earth..." After reading the rest of the
> > > webpage, I un-paused it, and am currently listening to a bit of
> propaganda
> > > promoting unions and more extensive labor laws.
> > >
> > > The linked website is explicitly political, explicitly  on the American
> > > left, and explicitly in favor of certain highly contentious American
> > > political proposals. I would like to hear the reasoning for why that
> link
> > > has been shown, and it seems to me simply unjustifiable. The WMF is the
> > > host of a series of community-built projects, not a political activism
> > > organization.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Vermont
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I can confirm that I see the same also here in the Netherlands.
> Which is
> > > > strange, there are no general elections here before 2021...
> > > > An explanation about this link would be interesting.
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am Mi., 22. Apr. 2020 um 22:50 Uhr schrieb Yair Rand <
> yyairr...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > The WMF corporate site (wikimediafoundation.org) currently has a
> > > > > full-page ad with the text "We are watching Earth Day Live today.
> Will
> > > > > you?". This links to an external site with the text "Click here to
> sign
> > > > on
> > > > > to the US Youth Climate Strike Coalition Earth

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism, yet again

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hi,

It seems that they just gave a link to that website, which...eh...
When I opened it, I heard one sentence of the stream before I stopped it
and read the rest of the webpage: "and then we give thanks to spirit, for
the air we breathe, for the earth..." After reading the rest of the
webpage, I un-paused it, and am currently listening to a bit of propaganda
promoting unions and more extensive labor laws.

The linked website is explicitly political, explicitly  on the American
left, and explicitly in favor of certain highly contentious American
political proposals. I would like to hear the reasoning for why that link
has been shown, and it seems to me simply unjustifiable. The WMF is the
host of a series of community-built projects, not a political activism
organization.

Regards,
Vermont

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
> I can confirm that I see the same also here in the Netherlands. Which is
> strange, there are no general elections here before 2021...
> An explanation about this link would be interesting.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am Mi., 22. Apr. 2020 um 22:50 Uhr schrieb Yair Rand  >:
>
> > The WMF corporate site (wikimediafoundation.org) currently has a
> > full-page ad with the text "We are watching Earth Day Live today. Will
> > you?". This links to an external site with the text "Click here to sign
> on
> > to the US Youth Climate Strike Coalition Earth Day Demands - From
> congress
> > and the next president, we demand a People’s Bailout, a Green New Deal,
> and
> > Land Back for Indigenous Peoples", and prompting readers to "Pledge to
> vote
> > for our future" and to subscribe to "US Climate Strike".
> >
> > Everyone here already knows how unacceptable this is, and why, so I don't
> > think this requires any further explanation. The WMF should immediately
> > take this down, and make certain that this kind of thing can't happen
> > again. They've failed yet again at preventing inappropriate
> > political activism in WMF's communications, and must take serious action
> to
> > fix this constant stream of terrible failures.
> >
> > -- Yair Rand
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Summary of the Brand Project presentation

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

As it appears my earlier email was not approved by the moderators:

I'm in agreement with Fæ on this.

The text and videos given on the subject of the new "interconnection" focus
is all extremely vague. I don't see how this is a change from previous
branding, or how the idea of "interconnection" will change anything.
Specifically in regard to the video, I was surprised by the vagueness.
Obviously, everything is connected. We are all humans with a majority of
similar characteristics and a high potential for similar experiences.
Putting together a few videos of people from different cultures
collaborating and some videos of nature doesn't make a branding strategy.

I am very happy that, in the presentation, a timeline was addressed and
that there will be ample time for feedback on the proposed naming
conventions. I am looking forward to that; this project has been quite
vague for a while, and I hope there's some great ideas we can, as a
community, discuss.

Best regards,
Chris Gates
(User:Vermont)

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:44 PM Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

> I have a background in a telecom supplier, and we were proud to talk of
> us "connecting people" and with 5G (where things also gets connected)
> "interconenctivity" would be a great brand concept for that company.
>
> But for Wikimedia I have never felt this as a relevant brandconcept. To
> "share and spread knowledge"is the core word as far as I see it and have
> been all the time.
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-04-18 kl. 18:44, skrev Peter Southwood:
> > I agree. It did not seem to say anything much.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Fæ
> > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 3:06 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Summary of the Brand Project presentation
> >
> > Have now watched "interconnection". It did not seem to say anything
> > tangible apart from stuff like you find 'interconnection in nature' in
> > the 2 minutes. It was produced to a good standard.
> >
> > Sorry, it was not encouraging. The question remains of how much this
> > is costing the movement in WMF funding and valuable Wikimedia
> > community time without any clear outcomes being defined that the
> > Wikimedia community wants or could use to benefit the core value of
> > adding to the sum of human knowledge. Why the "rebranding" project
> > continues at this time remains an enigma.
> >
> > We have gone ahead and added the video to Commons. If superseded it
> > will remain useful as a snapshot as of 16 April.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Our_unified_concept_interconnection.webm
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 09:57, Samir Elsharbaty
> >  wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >>
> >> Yesterday, the 2030 Brand Movement Project presented the unified concept
> >> that will guide the upcoming branding proposals. Thanks to the 224
> >> attendees who watched the presentation live! Participants brought a
> great
> >> stream of comments and questions (averaging 8 per minute!) that helped
> >> clarify important points.
> >>
> >> The unified concept, “interconnection”, was arrived at after many
> community
> >> workshops, exercises, and conversations. “Interconnection” distills the
> 23
> >> distinct concepts generated in workshops into a single word that links
> >> together the insights and definitions from the participants, and at the
> >> same time adds more meaning to the answer to the question who are we?
> This
> >> concept will not be a public or visible part of branding, but rather a
> >> guiding idea.
> >>
> >> Take a look at the video explaining interconnection as a unified concept
> >> [1].
> >>
> >> You can watch the full presentation video, together with the lively
> >> discussion that accompanied it [2]. Most of the questions were answered
> >> during the presentation (including questions about the project scope,
> the
> >> upcoming naming convention proposals, and the RfC), but there wasn't
> enough
> >> time to answer them all. Questions are being compiled on the Brand
> Network
> >> talk page on Meta [3].
> >>
> >> The team will be hosting a follow-up office hour next week to answer the
> >> rest of the questions. Participation details will be shared on the Brand
> >> Network talk page. The session will be recorded and shared, and answers
> >> will be covered on the project pages. If you have a different question
> >> you’d like to ask, feel free to add it to the page or bring it to the
> >> office hour.
> >>
> >> PS: As soon as these videos are ready for Commons we will upload them
> >> there, and we will notify about this on the Brand Network talk page as
> well.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Samir & the Brand Project team
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/04/16/our-unified-concept-interconnection/
> >>
> >> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS72O6Si94Q
> >>
> >> [3]
> >>
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Summary of the Brand Project presentation

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

I’m in agreement with Fæ here.

I just checked and wikipedia.org’s Alexa ranking is 13. That’s very
different from the 5 last time I checked, but it could be due to a number
of temporary factors. If there is evidence of a marked decrease in traffic
independent of the Coronavirus and other issues, I understand seeking a
branding change and trying to engage more readers.

However, that does not justify feeding marketing nonsense to the Wikimedia
community.

I’m currently watching the presentation, and just read/watched the bits on
Interconnection at the branding website.

From the text:
“The concept is a creative tool that will inform the naming convention and
design system. Through input, collaboration and validation with the
community the concept will guide us in a direction that reflects who we
are.”

This is patently unintelligible, vague beyond belief, and utterly useless.
The only insight this sentence offers a reader on what “Interconnection” is
that it’s a meaningless buzzword marketing departments of tech firms like
to fabricate. Please remember that this is the Wikimedia community, and
that stuff like this isn’t appreciated. We’re here to build helpful
projects for billions of readers, and if you don’t have something remotely
useful to say, please don’t take people’s attention away from editing with
it.

I’ve been following this project for months and have yet to find a single
useful statement about this project, and the aim seems to be changing every
other day.

For example, on the 9th of this month, in response to a comment I wrote:
“Now, Wikipedia is envisioned as a concept, among many concepts and
criteria, that are informing the thinking around naming and design
proposals.”

Similarly vague. I can’t support a project that is nothing other than a
collection of marketing speak and invented buzzwords with no tangible
information on it.

Regards,
Vermont





On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 09:06 Fæ  wrote:

> Have now watched "interconnection". It did not seem to say anything
> tangible apart from stuff like you find 'interconnection in nature' in
> the 2 minutes. It was produced to a good standard.
>
> Sorry, it was not encouraging. The question remains of how much this
> is costing the movement in WMF funding and valuable Wikimedia
> community time without any clear outcomes being defined that the
> Wikimedia community wants or could use to benefit the core value of
> adding to the sum of human knowledge. Why the "rebranding" project
> continues at this time remains an enigma.
>
> We have gone ahead and added the video to Commons. If superseded it
> will remain useful as a snapshot as of 16 April.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Our_unified_concept_interconnection.webm
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 09:57, Samir Elsharbaty
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> >
> > Yesterday, the 2030 Brand Movement Project presented the unified concept
> > that will guide the upcoming branding proposals. Thanks to the 224
> > attendees who watched the presentation live! Participants brought a great
> > stream of comments and questions (averaging 8 per minute!) that helped
> > clarify important points.
> >
> > The unified concept, “interconnection”, was arrived at after many
> community
> > workshops, exercises, and conversations. “Interconnection” distills the
> 23
> > distinct concepts generated in workshops into a single word that links
> > together the insights and definitions from the participants, and at the
> > same time adds more meaning to the answer to the question who are we?
> This
> > concept will not be a public or visible part of branding, but rather a
> > guiding idea.
> >
> > Take a look at the video explaining interconnection as a unified concept
> > [1].
> >
> > You can watch the full presentation video, together with the lively
> > discussion that accompanied it [2]. Most of the questions were answered
> > during the presentation (including questions about the project scope, the
> > upcoming naming convention proposals, and the RfC), but there wasn't
> enough
> > time to answer them all. Questions are being compiled on the Brand
> Network
> > talk page on Meta [3].
> >
> > The team will be hosting a follow-up office hour next week to answer the
> > rest of the questions. Participation details will be shared on the Brand
> > Network talk page. The session will be recorded and shared, and answers
> > will be covered on the project pages. If you have a different question
> > you’d like to ask, feel free to add it to the page or bring it to the
> > office hour.
> >
> > PS: As soon as these videos are ready for Commons we will upload them
> > there, and we will notify about this on the Brand Network talk page as
> well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Samir & the Brand Project team
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/04/16/our-unified-concept-interconnection/
> >
> > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS72O6Si94Q
> >
> > [3]
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] SEEKING A WIKIPEDIAN IN RESIDENCE! (U.S.)

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hello,

Speaking as a person within the great state of Vermont, (not included in
the list):

This mailing list has a lot of people on it, many of which are not within
the United States, if not most. And of those who are in the United States,
there’s a large chance that they’re not in one of those states.

It seems unnecessary to email an very large mailing list seeking an editor,
for what is basically paid editing, from a very small geographic area.

Regards,
Vermont

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 16:32 Michael Peel  wrote:

>
>
> > This position can only be based
> > remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA,
> PA,
> > NY, HI, or MT.
> >
> > PLEASE APPLY!
>
> You might have a slight mismatch between the audience that reads this
> mailing list, and your rather arbitrary geographic location requirement.
> Perhaps consider changing one of them?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Hi,

The IRC channels where public, on-topic discussions are held usually have
public logging, like #wikimedia-office. And regardless of the channel,
discussions within them have no bearing on onwiki actions. In other words,
binding decisions cannot be made solely on IRC. That is very different with
a movement strategy discussion.

Regards,
Vermont

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 13:32 Aron Manning  wrote:

> Hi Todd,
>
> I'm not sure how your comment about "backchanneling" is applicable to a
> recording made in public. Please express your views in a good-faith and
> respectful manner.
>
> On Wikimedia projects, we do things in full public view.
>
>
> To prove your point, please link to the log of the irc channels and the
> admin back-channels to start with.
>
>
> Aron
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 19:21, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > Nicole,
> >
> > While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, this is exactly why we
> > distrust this kind of backchanneling. If you have something to say, you
> say
> > it publicly, open to criticism and dispute. You don't say it in a "salon"
> > or a "survey" or anything else insulated from that. On Wikimedia
> projects,
> > we do things in full public view.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 10:14 AM Nicole Ebber 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello again,
> > >
> > > I now realised that none of the participants in the audience was aware
> > > of us recording them, and that we aren't able to identify them to ask
> > > for their consent. We are not going to release the full video, but are
> > > of course happy to answer potential questions and create more clarity
> > > where needed.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Nicole
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:30, Nicole Ebber 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Todd,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your question. The video is indeed incomplete. We cut if
> > > > for the viewer's comfort, as the original version is ~60 mins long,
> > > > and has questions and interaction with the audience at All Hands. Our
> > > > main objective for this video was to focus on conveying the broad
> > > > context and content of each recommendation in a quick and accessible
> > > > way, without putting too much emphasis on specific recommendations or
> > > > details.
> > > >
> > > > We'll look into whether the dialogues offer additional clarity. We
> > > > might also have to identify those who have asked the questions and
> get
> > > > their consent to publish. That can take a couple of days, so please
> > > > stay tuned.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Nicole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 21:25, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Nicole,
> > > > >
> > > > > The second video seems to be incomplete. There are, for example,
> > > several
> > > > > jump cuts, e.g., at 05:07, 11:08, 17:08, 22:31, etc. At 11:14 the
> > > > > presenters invite questions or comments, and at 41:32 someone is
> > > clearly
> > > > > being called upon to offer one, but they are not shown in the
> video.
> > > Could
> > > > > you please provide a link to the entire video without cuts,
> including
> > > any
> > > > > questions or comments and the responses to them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Nicole Ebber <
> > > nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We’re in week 4 of community conversations about the movement
> > > strategy
> > > > > > recommendations. Thank you to everyone who has already taken
> part.
> > > The
> > > > > > community conversations will continue until Friday, February 21 -
> > you
> > > > > > can get involved on Meta[1] in Arabic, English, French, German,
> > > Hindi,
> > > > > > Spanish, and Portuguese, strategize with your community or
> > > > > > organization, or send the core team your feedback to
> > > > > > strategy2...@wikimedia.org.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This current round of community conversations is the last
> > opportunity
> > > > > > to suggest improvements to the recommendations. They will be
> > > finalized
> > > > > > before the end of March, and then published for the movement to
> > > > > > understand them, reflect on what they mean in their project,
> local,
> > > or
> > > > > > thematic context, and move into implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == Movement feedback: what happens next ==
> > > > > > All feedback is being collected, reviewed and analyzed on an
> > ongoing
> > > > > > basis. Here are the  next steps after February 21:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Week commencing February 24: the core team will summarize all
> the
> > > > > > feedback received in a report. You are welcome to continue
> > commenting
> > > > > > and discussing during this time, but the discussions will not be
> as
> > > > > > closely facilitated and documented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Week commencing March 2: the core team will publish the above
> > > report
> > > > > > on Meta to give the movement an opportunity to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donating to Wikipedia

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

I've sent in multiple emails about this issue already, the last one about a
week ago. I was given a response within a few hours; a boilerplate
explaining why one might be seeing banners after they had donated, and
explaining my options on how to hide them.

I had not donated, and I did not mention that at all in my email. It was
feedback (more of a complaint) about the style of the campaign. I'm quite
disappointed that my email was evidently not read at all and simply replied
to with some generic boilerplate.

And I have to agree with everyone else here. I have an immensely strong
dislike of this campaign.

Regards,
Vermont

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:58 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> I've heard this asked this by 3-4 people recently
> * A family member (checking in to make sure things were ok)
> * A local grantmaker (who likewise has supported WP at least once before)
> * A couple undergrads (on phones, asking eachother what to do if WP went
> down during finals)
>
> All worried either that there had bee some sudden change, or that knowledge
> or access would be lost in the near future. Perhaps there's a way to reach
> the same people while highlighting our commitment to persistent access to
> knowledge across time.  And maybe a way to measure interpretation or
> reaction to a banner in addition to its conversion rate.  [Some banners are
> so delightful that they are a welcome improvement to a page without; and
> I've occasionally thought we should run some of those, w/ low probability,
> continuously year-round.]
>
> Wikilove,
> SJ
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Sadly I had a similar experience only this weekend.
> >
> > We were enjoying a going away lunch with friends who are out of the
> > country over Christmas, when one of them asked about Wikipedia's
> > problems, knowing that I often volunteer time to it. He claimed that
> > the site was spamming screen-sized pop-up banners trying to raise
> > money because they were going bust. I had to advise him how wealthy
> > the Foundation was, with hundreds of staff and extra cash in an
> > endowment fund.
> >
> > Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that
> > /plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every
> > year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the
> > impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't
> > give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over
> > Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of
> > it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way
> > where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the
> > fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia is
> > about to vanish.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 20:34, Jacob Jose  wrote:
> > >
> > > I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did..  If one is viewing using the
> > > mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to
> scroll
> > > down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need to
> be
> > > much less loud than it's now..
> > >
> > > Background: I have been an active Wiki contributor for over 10 years
> now.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My dad recently said to me:
> > > >
> > > > "I was solitated by them after looking something up.  I thought it
> > strange
> > > > the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like
> they
> > > > might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
> > > >
> > > > Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get
> > the
> > > > wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
> > > >
> > > > I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's
> > highly
> > > > antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
> >
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The wikisites looks like 1996

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

Is this the right time to plug Timeless?

It is, well, timeless. Looks modern too.

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 18:22 John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Try holding your cellphone vertically.
>
> tor. 12. des. 2019, 22.38 skrev Todd Allen :
>
> > Erm, I remember what websites looked like in 1996. I even made some then.
> > It looks nothing like that.
> >
> > On the other hand, on the site you linked to? The first thing I see is an
> > absolutely huge photo of a robot looking at me. I have to scroll down
> past
> > that to get to the actual meat, the text content. *That* looks like 1996.
> >
> > I'll take the way we have it over that, thanks very much.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:48 PM John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Could we please update them with a slightly more up-to-date skin?
> > >
> > > Take a look at our Norwegian competitor in the lexicon field.
> > > https://snl.no/kunstig_intelligens
> > >
> > > John Erling Blad
> > > /jeblad
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,