[Wikimedia-l] A Red Wikibase for every Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The two biggest technical changes that had a huge impact on all our
projects were first Commons and then Wikidata. Commons centralised pictures
in one location and this saved Wikimedia a huge amount in storage costs.
Wikidata centralised all the interwiki links in one database and it stopped
the biggest generator of edits in all the Wikipedias.

I have toying with the idea of combining each Wikipedia with its own
Wikibase. It will improve the functionality of both blue and red links.
Disambiguation will be improved. It enables synchronisation with Wikidata.
We link to the OpenLibrary where books can be read by an
international public. Books and scholarly papers will be known at Wikidata
as well enabling the signalling of retractions and citations.

I blogged about this and a more complete expose can be read..

https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2024/02/a-red-wikibase-for-red-blue-and-black.html
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2024/03/a-red-wikibase-disambiguation-on.html
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2024/03/another-red-application-epidemiologist.html
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2024/03/a-red-approach-to-wikipedia-references.html

What do you think, what is not to like?
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
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/3G4JHFTHGAYAU7KPOAS5O3NSA72MWBBV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I know the license... is it wise to use these pictures? What is it that the
WMF advises?
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 14:38, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Fjmustak (Farah Jack Mustaklem, a recent candidate for the WMF board) has
> uploaded a picture of the two jailed Wikipedians, Osama Khalid
> (User:OsamaK) and Ziyad Alsufyani (User:Ziad), to Commons:
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osama_Khalid_and_Ziyad_Alsufyani.jpg
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 12:41 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety <
> c...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> We would like to thank you, Nanour, for the suggestion and apologize that
>> the suggestion was necessary. We have now translated our message to the
>> community into Arabic and posted a further update
>> 
>> there, as we were made aware that much of the erroneous information
>> spreading in the press and on social media is causing a lot of distress
>> within our Arabic Wikipedia communities. Here is the updated text:
>>
>> Our investigation and these bans are not connected to the arrest of these
>> two users. The ban decision impacted 16 users, not all of whom were
>> administrators, from Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia. As stated below, we have
>> no reason to believe that these individuals are all residents of Saudi
>> Arabia; on the contrary, this seems extremely unlikely. Further, we imagine
>> you are all aware that editors are volunteers, not paid by the Foundation,
>> and that the Foundation does not have offices or staff in Saudi Arabia.
>>
>> While, as stated, the December office action is unrelated to the arrests
>> of two Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia, the safety of Wikimedia volunteers
>> always remains our utmost concern. We understand the desire to take action
>> or speak out. Know that we need to act in the interests of any volunteer
>> whose safety is under threat. As indicated in yesterday’s message,
>> additional publicity around such cases can cause harm, as can speculation
>> and misinformation. We are confident that everyone values the safety of
>> their fellow volunteers and can understand the constraints this might
>> create.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> WMF Office/Trust and Safety
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:26 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety <
>> c...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports
>>> about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6
>>> .
>>> More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from
>>> SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many
>>> material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
>>> - for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
>>> based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not
>>> know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who
>>> may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16
>>> editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the
>>> Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement
>>> with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release
>>> can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country
>>> named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on
>>> social media.
>>>
>>> As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss
>>> Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists
>>> accounts banned as a result of its investigations
>>> .
>>> It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential
>>> protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead
>>> disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have
>>> disclosed the rationale.
>>>
>>> The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We
>>> were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about
>>> concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report
>>> right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report
>>> not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our
>>> non-disclosure agreement
>>> 
>>> to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further
>>> evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of English Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The best competition to the English Wikipedia? Any other Wikipedia. The
Wikimedia Foundation increasingly puts its effort outside the borders of
the USA. As a techie I am really pleased with a full fledged data centre in
France. Then there is the Abstract Wikipedia, given that facts are findable
and the advent of AI generated texts, it has the potential to give the
staid English Wikipedia a run for its money.

English Wikipedia is for me a bastion of conservatism. They consider
anything outside of their direct influence problematic and at the same time
technically they rely on Commons and Wikidata. However Wikidata has not
enough sources it is said while repeatedly it has been shown to have more
sources than English Wikipedia itself. References are considered fixed
while Wikidata shows how what is used as a reference gets debunked. English
Wikipedia could be aware of it if they cared at all..

Anyway, I hardly edit Wikipedia anymore. The politics of it all take too
much time and effort. However, I still find a niche for myself in the
Wikimedia ecosystem.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 05:34, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Last I heard, Wikipedia is not for sale, so not much point in persuading
> someone to try to buy it. Also some real competition could be good for
> Wikipedia, and for that matter, good for the Wikimedia Foundation. It would
> also be very interesting to see how a real challenge to English Wikipedia
> would be organized. All the previous attempts have failed, often quite
> dismally. If it were to work better, many of us would probably join it, if
> it turns out to be a thing one could join.
> Many of us are loyal to the concept of free knowledge, not so much to the
> platform it is presented on.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rey Bueno via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 19:01
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Cc: reybue...@proton.me
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Long Reddit post laying out inner workings of
> English Wikipedia
>
> The last part of the great wall of text appears to persuade him to invest
> in
> alternatives instead of buying Wikipedia. For him Wiki is like a sole
> McDonald's in a food dessert, and that the solution is to open new
> "restaurants".
> ___
> 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/6LNO3HAMIVCEXO7PBMZGRAOG2JGGI4IW/
> 
> 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/VL2H4QTOIIEPIARBE34Q7Y7CLAMMTIG7/
> 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/KCSLJCOFUWITHOSXH2TKWEJ4ORJPBXFZ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost issue is out!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Quote: "A significant minority of participants" so the majority is not what
Sign Post represents.. obviously.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 at 17:33, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> The Signpost – Volume 18, Issue 11 – 28 November 2022
> --
>
> News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking
> banners"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/News_and_notes
> 
>
> In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/In_the_media
> 
>
> Interview: Lisa Seitz-Gruwell on WMF fundraising in the wake of big banner
> ad RfC
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Interview
> 
>
> Opinion: Privacy on Wikipedia in the cyberpunk future
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Opinion
> 
>
> Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Disinformation_report
> 
>
> Op-Ed: Diminishing returns for article quality
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Op-Ed
> 
>
> Book review: *Writing the Revolution*
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Book_review
> 
>
> Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Technology_report
> 
>
> Essay: The Six Million FP Man
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Essay
> 
>
> Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Tips_and_tricks
> 
>
> Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of
> clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk
> Observatory"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Recent_research
> 
>
> Featured content: A great month for featured articles
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Featured_content
> 
>
> Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Obituary
> 
>
> Concept: The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Concept
> 
>
> Traffic report: Musical deaths, murders, Princess Di's nominative
> determinism, and sports
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/Traffic_report
> 
>
> From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/From_the_archives
> 
>
> CommonsComix: Joker's trick
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/CommonsComix
> 
>
>
> Single-page view
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single
>
>
>
> https://facebook.com/wikisignpost
>
> https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
>
> ___
> 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/WPBBRKWN2X24E3LKIWF4C47SXKKBG64V/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost is out!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Be realistic. A newsletter across the Wikimedia Movement would promote
existing newsletter that mostly in a language people do not understand.

It does not change my point that I do not want to read promotions for a
product that is not representative while it assumes that it does reflect a
relevant opinion. An opinion that is mostly negative in its aspirations.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 20:28, Rexogamer  wrote:

> It might be worth creating a unified "Newsletters across the Wikimedia
> movement" email, consisting of the Signpost and any other
> newsletters/publications produced/released by community members that month
> - are there any other "newspapers"/publications created by Wikimedia
> communities and released on a regular basis?
>
> - Sophie (User:Remagoxer)
>
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 19:23, Risker  wrote:
>
>> Hi Gerard (and everyone else) -
>>
>> I join with others in saying that links to other newsletters published on
>> our various projects, and in various languages, would be a really valuable
>> addition to this list.  Many of us would really like to learn about what
>> different projects consider to be important. I'd really like to encourage
>> that other newsletter links be posted on this list.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 07:31, Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> The problem with the arguments made in the Signpost is that they
>>> represent English Wikipedia and adhere to what some consider what the pov
>>> of Wikipedia should be. As a pov it is fine but I do consider it not a
>>> publication that is representative. As such I do not need the
>>> advertisements for its publication.
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 06:50, WereSpielChequers <
>>> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While the Signpost is hosted on the English Wikipedia and started as
>>>> very much an EN Wiki venture, it aspires to be of more general interest.
>>>> Looking at that specific issue, yes there is much that is mainly English
>>>> Wikipedia focused, including a small contribution of mine. But some of the
>>>> content, such as about the WMF elections is of general community interest,
>>>> and at least one story is about Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>> WSC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Message: 2
>>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2022 16:35:35 +0200
>>>>> From: Gerard Meijssen 
>>>>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost is out!
>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> >>>> f...@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>>> boundary="c55e2e05e9fa0636"
>>>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> De Signpost is een publicatie van de Engelse Wikipedia. Waarom wordt de
>>>>> Wikimedia mailing list daarmee lastig gevallen?
>>>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>>>>GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 14:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Name: not available
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 613, Issue 1
>>>>> ***
>>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> 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/EW26JDC3PO2J4TO4K7VODOJ7R4CI75JR/
>>>> 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/WGGKF3VFLEDRBQHLNHXZOA4L6ZLNJ6JK/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> _

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost is out!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The problem with the arguments made in the Signpost is that they represent
English Wikipedia and adhere to what some consider what the pov of
Wikipedia should be. As a pov it is fine but I do consider it not a
publication that is representative. As such I do not need the
advertisements for its publication.
Thanks,


On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 06:50, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> While the Signpost is hosted on the English Wikipedia and started as very
> much an EN Wiki venture, it aspires to be of more general interest. Looking
> at that specific issue, yes there is much that is mainly English Wikipedia
> focused, including a small contribution of mine. But some of the content,
> such as about the WMF elections is of general community interest, and at
> least one story is about Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia.
>
> WSC
>
>
>>
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2022 16:35:35 +0200
>> From: Gerard Meijssen 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost is out!
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Message-ID:
>> > f...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="c55e2e05e9fa0636"
>>
>> Hoi,
>> De Signpost is een publicatie van de Engelse Wikipedia. Waarom wordt de
>> Wikimedia mailing list daarmee lastig gevallen?
>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 14:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> Name: not available
>>
>>
>> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 613, Issue 1
>> ***
>>
> ___
> 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/EW26JDC3PO2J4TO4K7VODOJ7R4CI75JR/
> 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/WGGKF3VFLEDRBQHLNHXZOA4L6ZLNJ6JK/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost is out!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
De Signpost is een publicatie van de Engelse Wikipedia. Waarom wordt de
Wikimedia mailing list daarmee lastig gevallen?
Vriendelijke groet,
   GerardM

On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 14:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> The Signpost – Volume 18, Issue 9 – 30 September 2022
> --
>
> News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new
> mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/News_and_notes
> 
>
> In focus: NPP: Still heaven or hell for new users – and for the reviewers
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/In_focus
> 
>
> In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/In_the_media
> 
>
> Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Special_report
> 
>
> Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Discussion_report
> 
>
> Interview: ScottishFinnishRadish's Request for Adminship
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Interview
> 
>
> Opinion: Are we ever going to reach consensus?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Opinion
> 
>
> Serendipity: Removing watermarks, copyright signs and cigarettes from
> photos
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Serendipity
> 
>
> Recent research: How readers assess Wikipedia's trustworthiness, and how
> they could in the future
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Recent_research
> 
>
> Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Traffic_report
> 
>
> Featured content: Farm-fresh content
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Featured_content
> 
>
> Gallery: A Festival Descends on the City: The Edinburgh Fringe, Pt. 2
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Gallery
> 
>
> CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/CommonsComix
> 
>
> From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/From_the_archives
> 
>
>
> Single-page view
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single
>
>
>
> https://facebook.com/wikisignpost
>
> https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
> ___
> 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/GN3462XQWXTIWJ76TTVCXLOIUPYVT3IW/
> 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/GRBEXDYIOLL5D26TVGIPC6HSC7SR3V7T/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Decentralized fundraising, centralized distribution

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
At the same time, Wikipedia was offered to the world in English and only
now we put more effort into bringing Wikipedia to the rest of our world, in
other languages. When you consider the huge bias we offer in our
information about ourselves. Your arguments centre around a past that was
glorious as a start. It is hightime we ensure that we grow Wikipedia for
the rest of the world,. Yes, we are not only Wikipedia and underinvestment
and lack of interest in other projects is obvious.
Thanks,
Gerard

On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 08:03, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Nate,
>
> You say, "By contrast, the bulk of mission-related services from the
> Wikimedia movement are offered to the world at large centrally by the
> international office (i.e. the Wikimedia projects)."
>
> Just think about this statement for a moment. It is not true. The bulk of
> mission-related services from the Wikimedia movement are offered to the
> world at large by volunteers distributed all over the world, some of whom
> organise themselves into local affiliates.
>
> How do we know this? We know this because Wikipedia became a top-10
> website serving the world in 2007, at a time when the WMF had less than a
> dozen staff and annual expenses of $2 million.
>
> I'm not advocating a return to those times, but I think it makes clear
> where the value came from.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022, Nathan  wrote:
> > Hi Nicole,
> > Thanks for sharing this - very interesting reading so far. I'm hoping
> you can elaborate on WMDE's thinking around selecting INGOs for evaluation.
> Your criteria is very straightforward - INGOs with a confederation of
> independent organizations, connected by a global mission.
> > But each of your selected INGOs is composed of individual organizations
> that deliver the products and services that advance the global mission
> within their geographic area, with an "international office" that fulfills
> a coordination and governance role. By contrast, the bulk of
> mission-related services from the Wikimedia movement are offered to the
> world at large centrally by the international office (i.e. the Wikimedia
> projects). Did WMDE consider how comparable these INGOs are to the
> Wikimedia movement in this sense? I don't see a section of your paper that
> compares the service/product delivery structure of these INGOs, so perhaps
> this distinction did not come up during your review? Or is the thinking
> that decentralization of project hosting and support is on the table, and
> the report can inform that consideration?
> > Thanks for any insight you can share,
> > Nate ___
> 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/MYEOTJM4HXACTGXDTOJZLKWNVULL44LZ/
> 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/O6UHC5LCJQWVHHHCYTUY2DCI4CRKT6E6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What is the point of diversity when the agenda for everyone is insisted to
be the same. What is the point of much of what we do as volunteers when it
will not be considered as the basis for use by a public?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 12:26, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> Thanks SJ for setting out the problem, re your second point, simplifying
> electoral processes:
>
> One very easy simplification of the governance process is to take the
> skillset issue out of the community elections for the WMF board. The board
> already has a number of "independent" members, and one reason for having
> them is to add skills and experience that haven't emerged in the elections
> from the community. We should go back to that principle. If the board
> decides it needs a member who is an expert on horology, campanology or  the
> making of stroopwaffels, and it doesn't have such a member, then recruit an
> independent member who fills that gap. As for diversity of community
> members, you can always create a separate constituency for a particular
> election. For example, in this year we want to make sure that the board has
> its first member from sub saharan Africa, so we are reserving one seat for
> someone from that part of the world. You can still set some basics, for
> legal and insurance reasons candidates will need to be legally adult, not
> currently in jail etc. But otherwise the election result should be up to
> the community.
>
> WSC
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 16:44:08 -0400
>> From: Samuel Klein 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Simplifying governance processes
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> caatu9w+zjapb-3olf3poka92de30krub8wqbcl8gmcgfyhg...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="cc355205df4f53c9"
>>
>> Dear Board (and all),
>>
>> The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process
>> creep
>>  is an
>> existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating if not
>> actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess process.
>> There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have unglamorous titles.
>>
>> Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. Let's
>> try to scale it back!  Recent developments, all at least somewhat
>> confusing:
>>
>> *Global Council*: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee.  After 6
>> months of work in private, we know the charter will cover governance,
>> resourcing, & community
>> .  A ratifiable
>> charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then *another* group may
>> draft an election process. Council elections would start mid-2024.
>>
>> *Conduct*: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review &
>> revision process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement by
>> *another* group (U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual
>> elections
>> for it [starting in 2023?].
>>
>> *WMF Board*: A *four*-stage election, with a new complex nomination
>> template. Nominees evaluated by *another* elected 9-person Analysis
>> Committee, followed by a two-stage vote.
>> Months of process, 16 staff facilitators.
>>
>> Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be
>> different,
>> complex affairs.
>> And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti
>> through a straw.
>>
>> ~ ~ ~
>> Four short proposals for your consideration:
>>
>> 1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process.
>> We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical
>> reasons.
>> What challenges do they need to resolve this year?  What major issues +
>> nuances are at play?
>>
>> 2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent.
>> Build tools and frameworks that *conserve* rather than soak up community
>> time.  Make longer processes capture proportionately detailed results.
>> Empower a standing election committee.
>>
>> 3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization,
>> regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies.
>> *Support* organizers + facilitators rather than *hiring* them out of their
>> communities to facilitate on behalf of a central org.
>>
>> 4. Delegate more.  Delegate to community.  Delegate *design* and
>> *implementation*.
>> Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against arbitrary
>> mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or
>> exaggerate staff-community division.
>>
>> 풲♡,  SJ
>>
>
>>
>> ___
> 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
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Are you considering running for the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation board elections?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
My experience as a candidate was that the diversity sought is external. You
may look different, have a different  background, speak a different
language, come from a different country. However, when you have an agenda,
want something that is not on the agenda, you are informed that there is no
room for such things. In essence it is very much like parliaments in
certain countries.

The consequence is that kids who can read and write their own language do
not use Commons to find illustrations in school. A board member cannot put
it on the agenda and the search department considers it not to be part of
their mission. We have the software, we have no marketing for our projects.
The process of informing potential board candidates is a filter that
prevents diversity.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 5 May 2022 at 01:59, H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Can we stop referring to "diverse people" please? It's offensive.
>
> Sent with ProtonMail secure email.
> --- Original Message ---
> On Wednesday, May 4th, 2022 at 3:30 AM, Lorenzo Losa 
> wrote:
>
>
> > Are you considering running for the Wikimedia Foundation board
> > elections? Are you unsure about that it entails, or whether it's the
> > right choice?
> > You can have a talk with a trustee (or a former trustee):
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Peer_support_for_potential_candidates
> >
> > Remember that you can submit you candidacy until May 9:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate
> >
> > We are looking forward a new round of skilled and diverse people to
> > join the board!
> >
> > Lorenzo
> >
> > P.S.: current and recent trustees are welcomed to add their name to the
> > list
> > ___
> > 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/LW6TCCMOQGPIIVCU6DWLK4BSUZQHEQKO/
> > 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/PNITIQUN3ULR7HNCX74N3CYMIEBEPPM3/
> 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/MVBTGCL6464XUHFAZLHI7X4U64SO6PUF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Legacy maintenance

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
How do you compare functionality that is totally broken with "another
tool". Or is your tool broken as well?

As to Commons, we once had a Wikidata provided search tool that allowed
search in any language. It was "adopted" by general search and is now no
longer functional. In essence it provided a service where an eight year old
could find pictures in any language. When asked if the functionality could
be revived, the answer was "that is not our mission".

What we see is another type of bias. It is the bias that comes with the
highest usage. It is not considered why the other functionality is hardly
used given that it is abandoned, given that it is broken, given that it is
not used by our group. Who in the WMF is the designated champion for
projects like Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Commons? Seeks out what we can do and
make a bigger impact?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 22:49, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 21:08, Risker  wrote:
>
> > there was mention of there being 50,000 "books" attached to English
> Wikipedia. We
> > have individual images on Commons that probably have been used more
> often than
> > that
>
> Over a thousand times more than that, for several icon files:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MostLinkedFiles
>
> Even our most used photograph is used more than three times as much
> (Raafront.jpg Used on 185,058 pages)
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> ___
> 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/LDA562B2BV5SRQJZA3AUTDYW42FZGWCA/
> 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/TJVUQJG4LW46XDGE7KGQJZAIPJJYAWW7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Legacy maintenance

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In information I read the WMF intends to spend less. However, given that
there is a huge technical debt in maintenance, including software that is
currently not functional. I wonder why we intend to spend less when our
technical house is not in order.

For just one example of technical debt .. Collection / Special:Book usage
is broken.

So when will we address broken and missing functionality particularly when
it is not Wikipedia?
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
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/RXK3TU3VSLLGWPOKELG7AS54FDVXJXLB/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: UNLOCK free knowledge projects | Call for application

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Wikimedia Germany produced a tool that allows people to find pictures based
on the Wikidata item they are associated with (depicts)... As Wikidata uses
labels in all the Wikimedia languages, it follows that when labels exist,
children who seek pictures at school can find these pictures.

When this tool exclusively supports a language, it follows that the current
goobledegook you get when you search Commons will be prevented. When
children can find pictures at Commons, we can campaign for pictures that
are relevant in a geographical setting... ie occupations in Nigeria, Benin,
Serbia.Children can illustrate their work using Commons media, when they
know Commons for what it has, it will enthuse people to work in their own
language Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 12:53, Kannika Thaimai 
wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> We are happy to announce that applications for the innovation program
> UNLOCK open from today – April 5th! We are calling for ideas and projects
> that break down social and technical barriers preventing people from both
> accessing and contributing to free knowledge.
>
> In alignment with recommendation 9 “Innovate in free knowledge” [1] of the
> Movement Strategy, we look for early stage projects that address knowledge
> equity, including technical ones that make the access and contribution to
> knowledge easier, more inclusive and equitable. We also look for
> non-technical projects, concepts or standards that create more
> opportunities for everyone to participate in free knowledge projects –
> leading to a more inclusive representation of the diverse knowledge of our
> world.
>
> Participating teams will benefit from a structured online program with
> tailored coaching, access to an international network of experts,
> peer-to-peer exchange and a scholarship.
>
> == Who is the program for? ==
>
> We are looking for Wikimedians as well as free knowledge enthusiasts,
> developers, designers and activists from outside the Wikimedia movement.
> For this year’s edition, Wikimedia Deutschland teamed up with Wikimedia
> Serbia to co-design and co-host the program which will have a regional
> focus on the Western Balkan and German-speaking area. This means that
> applications are open to project teams (of a minimum of two and no more
> than five members) from the following countries: Albania, Austria,
> Bosnia-Herzegovina, Germany, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia as well as
> Serbia and Switzerland. The program language is English in order to enable
> exchange and create synergies among the cross-regional project teams.
> UNLOCK is designed to work completely virtually.
>
> Applications are open from April 5th until May 29th!
>
> == You want to apply? ==
>
> Great – we look forward to your ideas! Please head over to the UNLOCK
> program page [2] for details (incl. eligibility criteria, program timeline,
> application form and more) If you require further assistance with your
> application or if you have an idea but are not sure whether or not to
> apply, feel free to reach out to the organizing team behind the program via
> Email: unl...@wikimedia.de
>
> == You know people who would be interested in this program? ==
>
> Feel free to share this call in your network and community beyond the
> mailing list.
>
> Warm regards,
> Kannika (WMDE) and Ivana (WMRS)
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Innovate_in_Free_Knowledge
>
> [2] https://www.wikimedia.de/unlock/program/
> --
>
> Kannika Thaimai (she/her)*Innovation Engine - Strategy Lead*>> WMDE 
> innovation engine strategy 
> 
> >> UNLOCK Accelerator 
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Phone: +49 30 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Keep up to date! Current news and exciting stories about Wikimedia,
> Wikipedia and Free Knowledge in our newsletter (in German):
> https://www.wikimedia.de/newsletter/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland – Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/I5EORZHDKAA4N6RLXTFYFWBNNR4DUPCP/
> 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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation governance and Russian finances

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As far as I am aware we do not support any government. We do not have
interests or investments that support any and all governments. So it is
wonderful that you are so happy for the WMF to spend effort on a
hypothetical.

As to taking offence, you apparently expect that you and your intentions
are self evident and you do not need to reciprocate those sentiments.
Wonderful, thank you for your interaction.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 10:02, Lane Chance  wrote:

> A governance review to check where investments or interests "support
> the actions of the Russian government" is nothing similar to calling
> "The Russian people" an enemy.
>
> A Wikimedia Foundation review or independent assessment would sensibly
> take into account sanctions and recommendations that governments in
> the EU and USA have published for all their international trade with
> Russia, and confirm there are no ethical or compliance conflicts for
> the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Having a review is not "escalation", nor have I made any claim about
> money being "well spent". A review is the simplest way to ensure
> appropriate transparency.
>
> Please avoid making bad faith accusations of using a "page out of the
> playbook" of escalation when they have done no such thing. It is
> manipulative and unwelcome when you know nothing about who you are
> attacking.
>
> Lane
>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 14:02, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > A reality check. With a Wikipedian in jail in Belarus, it is easy to
> grasp that Wikipedia is not the flavour of the month in either Belarus or
> in Russia by the "powers that be".
> >
> > When you compare Wikimedia projects to Facebook, the glaring difference
> between them is money. Our money has as a goal to educate and inform
> people. Our mission is to do this with a neutral point of view. When we
> consider the war waged by Russia, our neutral view is on offer and a view
> that we should provide as long as we can.
> >
> > The Russian people are not necessarily the enemy, arguably they are not.
> Our money spent in Russia supports our aim of informing and educating the
> Russian people, all the money spent is well spent.
> >
> > We do not have to borrow a page out of the playbook that is escalation.
> We should not because of what we stand for.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 11:27, Lane Chance  wrote:
> >>
> >> Several organizations, including pension companies, have been
> >> withdrawing their investments that may indirectly support Russia's war
> >> in Ukraine. Similarly there have been several news reports of
> >> directors stepping down from companies where their personal interests
> >> and or past history is now seen to be in conflict with the ethical
> >> values of the organisation they represent.
> >>
> >> Has the board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the board of the
> >> Endowment Fund asked for a governance review for their connections of
> >> people (including trustees and advisers), received donations, outgoing
> >> funding or investment funds that may even indirectly or
> >> unintentionally support the actions of the Russian government?
> >>
> >> As an example, the founder of Cendana Capital, a global venture
> >> capital company, is an adviser for the Endowment Fund, but I can not
> >> find a specific governance report for Cendana Capital for financial
> >> interests connected Russia. Being "global", it's hard to imagine there
> >> is none or has never been any.
> >>
> >> References
> >> https://wikimediaendowment.org/#advisory-board
> >> https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board
> >> https://www.cendanacapital.com
> >>
> https://www.funds-europe.com/news/blackrock-suspends-purchase-of-russian-securities-in-active-and-index-funds
> >>
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/13/mps-pension-fund-drops-russian-linked-investments-in-protest
> >>
> >> Lane
> >> ___
> >> 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/W7SRE4UXETS44TS4633FER7Z6M2HO52Z/
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to
> wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgwriting
> >
> > ___

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation governance and Russian finances

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
A reality check. With a Wikipedian in jail in Belarus, it is easy to grasp
that Wikipedia is not the flavour of the month in either Belarus or in
Russia by the "powers that be".

When you compare Wikimedia projects to Facebook, the glaring difference
between them is money. Our money has as a goal to educate and inform
people. Our mission is to do this with a neutral point of view. When we
consider the war waged by Russia, our neutral view is on offer and a view
that we should provide as long as we can.

The Russian people are not necessarily the enemy, arguably they are not.
Our money spent in Russia supports our aim of informing and educating the
Russian people, all the money spent is well spent.

We do not have to borrow a page out of the playbook that is escalation. We
should not because of what we stand for.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 11:27, Lane Chance  wrote:

> Several organizations, including pension companies, have been
> withdrawing their investments that may indirectly support Russia's war
> in Ukraine. Similarly there have been several news reports of
> directors stepping down from companies where their personal interests
> and or past history is now seen to be in conflict with the ethical
> values of the organisation they represent.
>
> Has the board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the board of the
> Endowment Fund asked for a governance review for their connections of
> people (including trustees and advisers), received donations, outgoing
> funding or investment funds that may even indirectly or
> unintentionally support the actions of the Russian government?
>
> As an example, the founder of Cendana Capital, a global venture
> capital company, is an adviser for the Endowment Fund, but I can not
> find a specific governance report for Cendana Capital for financial
> interests connected Russia. Being "global", it's hard to imagine there
> is none or has never been any.
>
> References
> https://wikimediaendowment.org/#advisory-board
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board
> https://www.cendanacapital.com
>
> https://www.funds-europe.com/news/blackrock-suspends-purchase-of-russian-securities-in-active-and-index-funds
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/13/mps-pension-fund-drops-russian-linked-investments-in-protest
>
> Lane
> ___
> 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/W7SRE4UXETS44TS4633FER7Z6M2HO52Z/
> 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/XFBZGIP3V32O4TPFCEJCD2Q6LZTA3EUB/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What you describe is a standard approach to what is not the real
problem.The problem is in diversity. It is a stated objective and the
Wikimedia Foundation does a comparatively good job.. except that it could
be so much better.

Another issue with concentrating on fundraising is that it is known that
(read Gapminder) genuinely rich people live in every country. The Wikimedia
Foundation as a rule does not target the truly rich and consequently the
average donation is low. It makes us independent of the vagaries of the
opinions of the really rich. As Wikimedia becomes a truly global
organisation, it will raise funds everywhere and it will report everywhere
what WMF does for them locally.

As we report on what we do locally, it follows that we have an interest for
what we can do locally. As local children do use Commons we ask people to
upload pictures of a local policeman, firefighter, nurse, police car
ambulance etc for them to use. As students read in their own language we
easily offer e-books using the hub best suited for the purpose. When as a
response we are asked to provide services, we prioritise the local service
and we will internationalise and localise to get the most out of our
investments.

As we become more global and diverse, the percentage of what the provision
of our services will represent more and more the global distribution of
people. It will grow our community, it will grow our audience and we will
evolve away from an organisation managed from "the center of the world".

Plenty of challenges ahead but not so much the amount of money the highest
earners in the WMF get paid. At that I do not give a fuck as long as the
job gets done and, so should you.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 at 23:15, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Strainu,
>
> The outlier problem is manageable I believe, given that the Form 990 lists
> the compensation of the dozen highest-paid employees (going up to just over
> $400,000 in 2019).
>
> There were actually more people (four) north of $300,000 in 2018 than
> there were in 2019 (two) – a reflection of long-term C-level vacancies, I
> believe. So the average does tell us something.
>
> As for people working at the Foundation easily being able to earn much
> more in for-profit companies, the same applies to us, mate. :) Instead of
> working for free on Wikipedia, you and me could easily be doing work
> elsewhere that pays *much* better. :)) Also, I don't ask people in
> second- and third-world countries to give me more money each year –
> pretending to be hard up, while earning a burgeoning six-figure salary and
> living a first-world lifestyle.
>
> Levity aside, and returning to the topic of the upcoming fundraisers, I am
> aware that there are many reasonably or even extremely wealthy people in
> India who can well afford to donate to Wikipedia. And donating can be a
> good feeling, for anyone who is able to afford it. On the other hand it
> seems to me from watching social media that the people who are most
> affected or even distressed by Wikipedia's meretricious claims of poverty
> are often those who are *genuinely* not well off themselves. The messages
> resonate with them, and they falsely assume Wikipedia is in a similar
> position. :/ I wouldn't want people with $100 in the bank to give $2 so
> that people in SF can pocket a six-figure salary.
>
> Another point about fundraising from relatively poor people and countries:
> overall, according to the most recent Wikimedia fundraising report, the
> lion's share of donations in 2020/21 (around 94%) came from US, European
> and Australian donors. So the main financial burden is borne by the richest
> societies, which is as it should be. But it may be an idea to make a public
> commitment that money collected in places like India will never go to pay
> for expenses or salaries in the US, but will always be spent locally (again
> without ever implying that continuation of local services is *dependent*
> on new donations).
>
> It might also be good to increase the proportion of staff based in those
> countries – which, to be fair, I believe the Foundation is already in the
> process of doing.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 10:31 AM Strainu  wrote:
>
>> Andreas, I understand this email won't address your more serious
>> questions, but I believe it's fair to point out that the average salary
>> will tell you nothing relevant. Without drilling down on job family, your
>> results will be skewed by outliers.
>>
>> I can name out of the top of my head 10 people working at the foundation
>> in 2019 which I believe could get half a million dollar offers from
>> software companies in the bay area (that's $500.000 per year before tax).
>> While it's likely the Foundation doesn't pay this much, they're probably
>> not paying at 50% discount either.
>>
>> It's also worth asking if the salary costs include other type of
>> compensation,such as visa support or relocation costs.
>>
>> Also, maybe a 

[Wikimedia-l] What diversity is about

[Gerard Meijssen]

One of the stated objectives for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation is
to have a more diverse representation, for it to be more inclusive. As an
abstract it is a really worthwhile objective, once chosen as one of the
more diverse board members of the Wikimedia Foundation however, it is easy
to find it is a poisoned chalice.

The problem is that there is now a huge carnival where board candidates are
trotted around explaining themselves, giving their points of view. In this
way expectations are raised that cannot be fulfilled. They cannot be
fulfilled for several reasons.

   - the board activities are to consider proposals and points of view as
   prepared by the Wikimedia organisation
   - there is no room to introduce independent points of view for
   consideration
   - even when all community elected board members agree on a point of view
   (unlikely), they are by design a minority

When people are later judged for their contributions on the board by our
communities, there is no defence when it is argued that nothing
materialised from initial good intentions. In addition, there is no
interest from the Wikimedia organisation to learn what drives candidate
board members to invest an inordinate amount of time to play a role on the
"governing" level they are to enable.

Diversity can be many things but it is tokenism when board members are only
to fulfil a predetermined role. It is tokenism when the tradition of
prevalence for English and Wikipedia is not even considered. It is tokenism
when the needs of communities we could serve are not considered only
because "it is not a community we have defined we serve" particularly as
there is no cost except for initial configuration.

I have brought these points forward earlier in private communications. They
are not reflected in the provided feedback.
Thanks,
   GerardM
___
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/2N5EOVJWEKUUSABGUHODNYHDR3IFZMYA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Our World in Data (OWID)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi James,
The biggest bottleneck to innovation is our own community process. It is
also an impossibility to get Wikimedia to consider how it performs for
specific groups of students. Never mind.

When you want to increase the value of "Our World in Data", it helps when
their identifiers are linked to Wikidata identifiers. The OWID identifiers
are welcome on Wikidata when need be. The value is that as a consequence
labels in all our supported languages become available. When information is
to be shown in another language, only the missing labels are needed for
best results.

When Wikimedia Foundation is interested in improving its functionality, I
am quite happy to point to the lowest hanging fruits for the biggest number
of people we could provide a service for.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 22:52, James Heilman  wrote:

> We at Wiki Project Med are working to get Our World in Data (OWID) working
> within a mediawiki environment.
>
> 1) We have created a mirror of their website on WMF servers
> . Hopefully
> this has allowed us to address security and privacy concerns.
>
> 2) We have created an extension
>  that
> allows the use of this content within a mediawiki install
>
> 3) We have made a bunch of changes to formatting, such as removing the
> logo, to make it compliant with WP practice and style. You can see an
> example on MDWiki in the infobox here
> .
>
> My question to the movement is are their communities interested in using
> this technology? There are about 4,000 of these graphs
> . We of course will also need to
> develop a framework for translation.
>
> Best
> --
> 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/JFDYY5EIWNACATLHRWHUIXYSDCTS5LVE/
> 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/NKKBC4CBJJVZGJCH3W7EVL7ZAEVAMR23/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: RfC: Stop accepting cryptocurrency donations

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For what it is worth, I don't mind the WMF accepting crypto.. I do mind WMF
hanging on to crypto currencies. So when they get it and monetise it
immediately, all well and good.  The motto being: You do not look a gift
horse in the mouth ...
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 at 04:26, GorillaWarfare <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I have created an RfC at Meta to discuss no longer accepting
> cryptocurrency donations. You can read the proposal, discuss, and vote at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations
> .
>
> Sincerely,
> Molly White (User:GorillaWarfare)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> she/her
> ___
> 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/XRXIWLO7776X2BC2AHWEMF4XJCL5ROFF/
> 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/6VI7ZVFYEO7AXWELY2CHD7JQFPVDA5JN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Uplifting the multimedia stack (was: Community Wishlist Survery)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Only Pallas Athena arrived fully mature in armour from the head of Zeus. We
will never have a complete plan when all we do is based on the existence of
budgets, it failed us miserably. The way forward is to own our infra
structure including all software and decide its worth, its risc and if we
must have a huge budget for "unexpected" and use it to prevent and mitigate
the breakage of user stories.

It is not fair to blame only any CEO, it is fair to expect from a CEO to
acknowledge that only working from budgets gets us in the mess we face. We
are a community with differing needs, so explaining urgency in the form of
user stories really helps.
Thanks,
   Gerard

On Sun, 2 Jan 2022 at 22:09, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Yes, I did not purport to offer an easy solution.  I tried to clarify
> *what needs to happen* for significant progress on these issues, without
> suggesting that it is easy to make that happen.
>
> As I mentioned, a new CEO is beginning work this week, and one of the
> (many) items on her to-do list is to improve and rationalize the
> Foundation's annual planning process, and cross-departmental planning and
> decision-making.  Let's give her some time and wait for some guidance on
> this question of venue, i.e. how and where communities may *effectively*
> express needs and affect priorities.
>
> In the meantime, I repeat my suggestion that adding non-technical concise
> statements of impact to each issue would be a big help.  For example, I
> (and many of you) know the impact of our slow/broken video conversion and
> upload workflows, but it would be helpful to add to SJ's "*Bulk
> conversion* for video uploads (videoconverter / video2commons are
> broken)" an impact statement such as "this is deterring video uploads from
> casual contributors".
>
> Cheers,
>
>A.
>(volunteer capacity)
>
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2022 at 10:45 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
>> I appreciate all of the comments; still unsure where to more persistently
>> host the conversation, but for now I posted this still-arbitrary list on
>> Commons .
>> (adding other items mentioned in this thread)  SJ
>>
>> 
>> - *File formats*: Support high-demand formats – e.g. CSV, CML
>> , + hundreds of other
>>  open tickets
>> - *Uploads*:  Improve bulk, large, and video uploads.
>>+ *Bulk conversion* for video uploads (videoconverter /
>> video2commons are broken)
>>+ *Upload Wizard* upgrades (timeouts
>> , batch renaming, batch
>> imports )
>> - *Downloads*:  Fix multi-download (Imker
>>  is
>> broken)
>>+ Make public dumps  (stale
>> since 2013)
>> - *Video playback*:  Debug + roll out the videojs
>>  player
>> - *Search*:  Bring CQS back up
>> .  Implement a noauth option
>>  for tools
>> - *General*: Move to a blazegraph alternative (for wqcs)
>>+ *Images*: Update thumbor 
>>  and librsvg   ||  redesign
>>  the image table
>> *- Curation*: Simpler content assessment workflow, like en:wp's
>>  (QI/VP
>> doesn't scale)
>>
>> ___
>> 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/FVA4YJN5OHPRSLACPXYD4XITFG7NNKSL/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> 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/5CTLTK3I46B4OOPEBY6RYVKYJMMZ4JZO/
> 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/R4NHKC4Z3I2A6YTMX2BZMF7LJLNYOZQQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Uplifting the multimedia stack (was: Community Wishlist Survery)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There should be several mechanisms determining what work gets done. What
Asaf describes is a budget based process. Another mechanism is centred
around responsibility.

The granularity of responsibility does not negate that the buck stops at a
certain level. When responsibility has no consequences, what follows is
finger pointing. Management, board maintain that  a budget is required and
departments maintain that they have no budget. In the absence of risk
control , it follows that risk can grow to potentially disastrous levels.
This has been recognised for both Commons and Wikidata; there is no backup
for Commons and the software that runs Wikidata has the potential to break
its functionality. A complicating factor is the divide in functionality
maintained by the WMF and what the community produces. For the latter there
is no chain of responsibility.

In addition to all this there is a sense of ownership and priority; WMF
maintains Wikipedia with English Wikipedia as its focus. This is made worse
by a "community" of self appointed experts who will not accept that results
of the past will not predict what transpires in the future. As for the WMF
board, I was a candidate for the board and was quickly told that board
members do  not define any agenda, they assess plans and results presented
by the WMF. Health and money became an issue at my home, it is why I did
not campaign for a seat.

So how to move on. First, the WMF has to take ownership of the complete
technical environment used by our communities. A security analysis is to be
performed for the graded risks to our projects. Given ownership, it is no
longer feasible for any level of management to hide behind budgets or lack
of budgets. Once it is clear that a particular functionality is in danger
of long term breakage, an initial project plan is to be published like was
done for Wikidata. This provides awareness of the critical issues we face
and it is a deciding argument for out of budget activities. It also
provides arguments for realignment of priorities in existing budgets and
provides the basis for overall refinement.

Deciding what to do in the case of major breakage is relatively straight
forward. It becomes problematic when minor breakage is to be considered,
when it is only a small part of our community that suffers. WMF uses the
agile approach and it has a mechanism called "user stories". So when
something breaks or is likely to break, the question is what user stories
are affected, how much of an impact it has on our public and how much
impact it has on our editors. Once we gain a grip on what fails us, we can
refine it by adding project and language as complicating factors.

Thanks, GerardM .. PS happy new year





On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 at 21:11, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Writing in my volunteer capacity:
>
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022, 08:43 Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
>
>
> Honestly, the situation is more dire than you think. For example, until a
> couple months ago, we didn't have backups for the media files. There was a
> live copy in the secondary datacenter but for example if due to a software
> issue, we lost some files, they were gone. I would like to thank Jaime
> Crespo for pushing for it and implementing the backups.
>
> But I beat my drum again, it's not something you can fix overnight. I'm
> sure people are monitoring this mailing list and are aware of the problem.
>
>
> [My goal in this post is to ficus effort and reduce frustration.]
>
> Yes, people reading here are aware, and absolutely none of them expects
> this (i.e. multimedia technical debt and missing features) to be fixed
> overnight.
>
> What's lacking, as you pointed out, is ownership of the problem.  To own
> the problem, one must have *both* technical understanding of the issues
> *and* a mandate to devote resources to addressing them.
>
> It is this *combination* that we don't have at the moment. Lots of
> technical people are aware, and some of them quite willing to work toward
> addressing the issues, but they are not empowered to set priorities and
> commit resources for an effort of that scale, and the problems, for the
> most part, don't easily lend themselves to volunteer development.
>
> It seems to me there are *very few* people who could change status quo,
> not much more than a handful: the Foundation's executive leadership (in its
> annual planning work, coming up this first quarter of 2022), and the Board
> of Trustees.
>
> Therefore, the greatest contribution the rest of us could make toward
> seeing this work get resourced is to help make the case to the executives
> (including the new CEO, just entering the role) with clear and compelling
> illustrations of the *mission impact* of such investment. In parallel,
> interested engineers and middle managers could help by offering rough
> effort estimates for some components, a roadmap, an overview of
> alternatives considered and a rationale for a recommended approach, etc.
>
> But this would all be preparatory and 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikisource gains a public

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am really happy to have noticed that Wikisource books will be offered by
the Internet Archive in its Open Library project.

Obviously, it is well deserved that Wikisource gets a bigger public.

I have two questions:
* to what extent is the Wikimedia Foundation aware and has been involved
* are there other projects where by collaboration with other orgs we will
have a bigger impact?

Thanks,
  GerardM

https://blog.openlibrary.org/2021/12/20/introducing-trusted-book-providers/
___
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/W6G3JOA4FUGSFHRKOAFE6FIYKIPLSZSI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What Jimmy does or does not from within his own organisation has nothing to
do with the Wikimedia Foundation. You know that..
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 22:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Given the topic of human rights, I would like to point out that we have
> not had any reply on what happened to the $500k UAE award Jimmy Wales
> pledged he would use – every last penny – for human rights work with his
> Jimmy Wales Foundation.
>
> https://www.dailydot.com/debug/jimmy-wales-uae-prize-money/
>
> According to the Foundation's filed paperwork, only a far smaller amount
> ever arrived with said Foundation. It would be good to know that the
> remainder, too, was used in line with the public pledge made at the time.
>
> For further details see my earlier post to this mailing list:
>
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PKXEHWGOHOHZPYN7T2JBNJTTTHIFZJWW/
>
> Andreas
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:38 PM Yair Rand  wrote:
>
>> Criticism of the process:
>> * No public consultation or even announcement was done before the policy
>> was finalized. No opportunity to influence the outcome was given.
>> * The policy was preceded by a human rights impact assessment,
>> commissioned by the WMF. The report was given to the WMF in July, but has
>> still not been made public.
>> * No details are given on the mentioned "Human Rights Steering
>> Committee", including structure or membership.
>> * It looks like the policy wasn't even proofread before approval, and is
>> exceedingly ambiguous in parts.
>> * The policy is stated to act as a "North Star" guiding the efforts of
>> other parts of the movement as well, ignoring the WMF's actual position
>> relative to the other groups and where movement guidance actually comes
>> from.
>>
>> Given the level of disassociation between this process and Wikimedia,
>> it's hard to tell how to interpret these events. This looks to me like
>> another example of the WMF simultaneously marginalizing itself from the
>> movement while also pushing itself as a greater portion of activities. This
>> is a problem.
>>
>> (The merits of the actual text are separate from the process issues, and
>> this criticism should not be taken as a position on the correctness/value
>> of such a policy.)
>>
>> -- Yair Rand
>>
>> ‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 9 בדצמ׳ 2021 ב-10:25 מאת ‪Richard Gaines‬‏ <‪
>> rgai...@wikimedia.org‬‏>:‬
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce
>>> the approval of the Human Rights Policy
>>> 
>>> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
>>> 
>>> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
>>> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
>>> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>>>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
>>> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
>>> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
>>> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
>>> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
>>> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
>>> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
>>> coming weeks.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> --
>>> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
>>> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>> rgai...@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/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
>>> 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/GPDWKPOTFL37XW22QF7GEMBE22AL4GFJ/
>> 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
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Creating new Wikidata items for all Commons categories

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As long as we can not confidently search for pictures in any language I
really wonder what the point is of such an exercise. In my opinion we
should prioritise measurable effects for our users. Something like: "A nine
year old will find pictures in his or her language on all the subjects of
interest to them".

I have shown repeatedly that even a word like beaver will not get you much
of the furry animal, particularly when you search in other languages.
thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 at 00:10, Mike Peel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Over the last few years, over 3.6 million Wikimedia Commons categories
> have gained an infobox that displays information from Wikidata in the
> reader's language. I would like to see this expanded so that all Commons
> categories have a multilingual infobox.
>
> I've started an RfC about this at:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Creating_new_Wikidata_items_for_all_Commons_categories
>
> If you're interested in this topic, please comment there.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VRHAASU2EFZAZARC3VAOLPVGOJS6MOJ2/
> 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/Q3FBVLYKEDMC6BLRVFIDMIOOQ76FSNQP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 355, Issue 1

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The community as such does not have any standing. They are represented by
some members in the board. People may volunteer to be part of all kinds of
committees. When they do they do not represent anything but themselves. The
committees play a role because they have been giving standing by the board.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 13:08, Nosebagbear  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I don't believe I stated it had a remit under the law - indeed, I'm pretty
> confident I did not.
>
> Almost none of our bodies have legal personae, so that would have been an
> odd thing for me to say, so I'm somewhat confused on why you indicate I
> did.
>
> But we are a project that is built on our internally agreed
> responsibilities and relations - which includes our remits (the BOT, to the
> degree that even it has a legal remit, is fairly narrow). As an example,
> the UCOC drafting committee has a very clear remit, but not one that's
> enshrined in law.
>
> p.s. Mea culpa on forgetting to change the title - didn't want to change
> this one *now* as I don't know if that would split the thread. Happy for
> someone to change to an appropriate title.
>
> *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
>
> Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
> expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
> of the MCDC.
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, 
> wrote:
>
>> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3 (Gerard Meijssen)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:56:51 +0100
>> From: Gerard Meijssen 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Message-ID:
>> > aa-27gauajxy3yrj25ajbkpkrytk2-jjtsv...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="56b3ac05d305c5c3"
>>
>> Hoi,
>> Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a remit
>> under the law for anything? It is not and it has not.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear  wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Patrick,
>> >
>> > Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T
>> policy,
>> > directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all
>> the
>> > way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for
>> ratification
>> > far before the ArbCom letter.
>> >
>> > Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a
>> need
>> > for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made,
>> or
>> > that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?
>> >
>> > Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the
>> > input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process."
>> -
>> > there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the
>> > nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC
>> > drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole,
>> > probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
>> >
>> > *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
>> >
>> > Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter
>> viewpoints
>> > expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate
>> judgement
>> > of the MCDC.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>> >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>
>> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>> >>
>> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> &

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 348, Issue 3

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has a remit
under the law for anything? It is not and it has not.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:40, Nosebagbear  wrote:

> Dear Patrick,
>
> Firstly, you (and in this case, I mean, "I notified members of T policy,
> directly, in discussions where they were involved, as did others" all the
> way back in phase 1) were made aware of the community need for ratification
> far before the ArbCom letter.
>
> Which of these is the case: that the WMF only notified the Board of a need
> for actual community ratification when the Arbcom open letter was made, or
> that the Board declined to consider it as a need prior to that point?
>
> Secondly, why does the Board feel that they should be "consider[ing] the
> input received so far on what would make a fair and practical process." -
> there are only two bodies with a reasonable remit to be specifying the
> nature of any ratification method. In the weaker position is the UCOC
> drafting committee, and in the first place, the Community as a whole,
> probably by a meta-RfC. Please provide the reasoning for this process.
>
> *Richard (Nosebagbear)*
>
> Unless otherwise stated within this email, any Movement Charter viewpoints
> expressed represent my own position(s), and *not* the aggregate judgement
> of the MCDC.
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 21:13, 
> wrote:
>
>> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit
>>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimedia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment period for the
>> Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines and next step
>>   (Andreas Kolbe)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 21:12:54 +
>> From: Andreas Kolbe 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: [Marketing Mail] Re: Closing the comment
>> period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft
>> Guidelines
>> and next step
>> To: Patrick Earley 
>> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> cahrttw9h69ewso1v3m6hzgn4emuglb0gvx9bkd+q0hi6t_f...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="55427605d280b9bb"
>>
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> Thank you for your clarification. So if I understand correctly, there will
>> be no UCoC policy text review before sometime in 2023.
>>
>> As this is quite a long time away, would it be possible to provide some
>> answers to the questions I asked earlier?
>>
>>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H4FGTRCTKKCLJXFQVWFOCHMZCOFE2KBM/
>>
>> For example: According to the Universal Code of Conduct, are
>> Wikipedians/Wikimedians allowed –
>>
>> – To blog about what happens on Wikipedia?
>>
>> – To discuss edits traceable to, say, the Russian or US government on- and
>> off-wiki, without the permission of the people making these edits?
>>
>> – To discuss cases of individuals engaging in revenge editing or
>> subverting
>> Wikipedia for commercial or criminal ends (recall the recent Christian
>> Rosa
>> case), or to help the press with related enquiries (recall e.g.
>>
>> https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/
>> and the input made by User:Doctree to that article)?
>>
>> – To notify the authorities when they believe a crime has been committed
>> or
>> is about to be committed?
>>
>> Or should all of these actions categorically be considered harassment of
>> fellow contributors, and the contributors engaging in these actions be
>> subject to blocks and bans?
>>
>> I think it is important for people to understand the Code's intent
>> correctly.
>>
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:42 PM Patrick Earley 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Andreas,
>> >
>> > The review of the policy text is planned one year after the close and
>> the
>> > ratification of the enforcement outlines, which are still being revised
>> by
>> > the Drafting Committee.  Detailed information of the policy text review
>> > will be communicated soon, as the revised guidelines are published for
>> > comment and ratification.  The review will likely follow established
>> policy
>> > update formats, such as those used for the Terms of Use. [1]
>> >
>> > Patrick
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andreas Kolbe 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Patrick,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks. You say,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *The policy was ratified by the Board last February.[1] 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Dear Todd, thank you for the invite to read up on this document full of
"buzzwords and fury, signifying nothing". I did just that and not find what
you suggested, what I found is a determined effort to bring more equity and
diversity (you can look up the words in Wiktionary or any other dictionary
of your choice). That is a boon for all of us and a necessary departure
from the predominantly text based, English dominated culture we have.

At this stage children of nine will not use Commons to find pictures for
their schooling because whatever structure is English and search does not
translate for "hond", "kat"of "eenhoorn". It is an example of how a more
diverse and equitable movement leads to different priorities and
effectively leads to more inclusion. Something we need to firmly support.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Todd Allen  wrote:

> So, you linked to this:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Ensure_Equity_in_Decision-making#Establish_a_common_framework_for_decision-making
>
> What does any of that mean? Right now, it is a document full of buzzwords
> and fury, signifying nothing. Is there a buzzword-to-English translation of
> it available?
>
> Regards,
>
> Todd Allen
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter drafting
>> committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are
>> running for seven seats in these elections.
>>
>> As recommended by the Movement Strategy recommendations, the goal is to
>> assemble a Drafting Committee that will draft a Movement Charter to ensure
>> a common framework for decision making in the Wikimedia movement
>> .
>> The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities
>> vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates
>> through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the
>> Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1,
>> 2021.
>>
>> Voting is open from October 12 10:00 UTC to October 24, 2021 23:59 (Anywhere
>> on Earth ).
>>
>>
>>
>> Learn more about the candidates
>>
>> Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn
>> about each candidate to inform your vote
>> .
>> The statements are translated to a number of languages, so you can have
>> access to the information in many of your preferred languages.
>>
>> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
>> ” for this election. Click
>> yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you will
>> see which candidate is closest to you! The tool is available in ~9
>> languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Arabic,
>> Indonesian, Hausa).
>>
>>
>>
>> Voting
>>
>> Similar to the previous Board elections, we have chosen Single
>> Transferable Vote
>> 
>> for the voting system. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices
>> in order of preference. Learn more about voting requirements
>> ,
>> how to vote
>> ,
>> and frequently asked questions about voting
>> 
>> .
>>
>>
>> To cast your vote, please go to SecurePoll
>> 
>> .
>>
>>
>> We also offer two question and answer times, if you have any questions
>> regarding the Movement Charter and the voting process:w
>>
>>-
>>
>>Wednesday, 19:00 UTC, on Google Meet
>>-
>>
>>Thursday, 13:00 UTC, on Zoom (that’s the Conversation Time with
>>Maggie Dennis)
>>
>> Please write a short message to answ...@wikimedia.org if you want to
>> participate in one of these.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please help select people who best fit the needs of the movement at this
>> time. Vote and spread the word so more people can vote for candidates. Our
>> aim is to have a committee with Wikimedians that combine the diversity of
>> the Wikimedia Movement as well as a great mix of competencies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Kaarel Vaidla, on behalf of the Movement Strategy & Governance team,
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> --
>>
>> Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)
>>
>> Movement Strategy 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Andreas, you are entitled to an opinion. But it is your opinion. When
others say things about the WMF, what it is there for, its challenges, when
they build an argument you can and you do ignore it. The consequence is
that it invalidates your refutations and your opinion is only that at best.
A case in point is: Guillaume makes a statement about the WMF and you
reduce it to his opinion. In this way you take the liberty to ignore what
is said and continue with the same, same, same.

The Wikimedia list is not your platform, it is not about Wikipedia. The
whole of your point is as I perceive it, built on your perception  of a
"checkered past". Nowhere is it about what we as a movement will be in the
future, the challenges we face. What I miss in all of your writing is what
to do for our future, how are we going to tackle the biggest bias we face
(English, not gender). How are we going to tackle our biggest blind spot
(the non-AngloSaxon world).

As I pointed out before, your opinion is your own. The arguments of others
you ignore and you are entitled to your opinion. Sadly, your point of view
does not bring us forward.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 26 Sept 2021 at 17:33, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Guillaume,
>
> Thanks for a thoughtful, perceptive, enlightening and multidimensional
> post that's been a pleasure to read. I think we grow as people when we can
> see things from more than one perspective, and there is much in your post
> that is worth pondering.
>
> I will try to add some complementary perspectives in this post.
>
> There are two – closely related – assumptions in your mail that strike me
> as particularly worthy of being examined.
>
> First, you say, "as a movement, we need as much money as we can get to
> advance our mission".
>
> I would argue that this is not something that you objectively "need", but
> something that you "want". Which leads me directly into the second
> assumption, underlying your assertion that your co-workers "have literally
> spent years doing A/B tests to soften the tone and figure out the least
> alarming language possible to raise the required amounts. All that while
> enduring constant criticism of their work. They are heroes."
>
> The key word here is "required". You present your colleagues as people
> trapped in a system where they are condemned to desperate efforts to, as
> you say, figure out the "least alarming language" that will "do the trick"
> (while not getting them hated on too much).
>
> That means you are looking at the question of banner wording from one end
> only (one anchor, to use the phraseology you introduced in your post):
> whatever amount is "required" this year. In doing so, you tacitly accept
> and endorse the need for "alarming language" – you're effectively saying
> that reducing it to the level of the "least alarming language" possible is
> all your team can be asked to do, and enough to fulfil their ethical
> responsibilities.
>
> This isn't right. You are unmoored from the other end of the equation,
> i.e. to what extent the fundraising banners would still be considered
> consistent with your actual financial situation by an average person in
> full possession of the facts.
>
> This unmooring is how you end up, year after year, based on your A/B
> testing, with messages that prominently paint a picture of Wikipedia being
> threatened. These messages have been about "keeping Wikipedia online and
> ad-free", impressing on people the need to make "a donation this Sunday" so
> the WMF can "continue to protect Wikipedia's independence", and so on. They
> work not because donors share your ideas about the ever more comprehensive
> and costly global mission the WMF has set itself, but because they love
> Wikipedia and would not like to see it fail or disappear. It's as simple as
> that.
>
> You also elided the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation, in the 2020/2021
> financial year alone, took at least $65M, but perhaps as much as $85M more
> from donors than its own budget "required":
>
> – Actual takings were $157M+ for the Foundation[1] and $40M? for the
> Endowment (the Endowment stood at $62.9M on July 1 2020[2] and has now
> exceeded $100M, as we've just been told; the June 30 2021 year-end figure
> is still not available, as you still haven't published the fourth-quarter
> tuning session deck).
>
> – Revenue targets at the beginning of the financial year were $108M for
> the Foundation and $5M for the Endowment.[3]
>
> Clearly, the budgeted amounts could have been taken with "less alarming"
> language.
>
> I have asked before who sets these "required" amounts, and who directs
> staff to continue fundraising well after publicised targets are met. I have
> not received a straight answer. Where, please, does the buck, literally,
> stop? Who has the final word?
>
> And are Advancement managers' salaries, which appear to have a startling
> upward mobility (just like the CEO salary in the past five years), indeed
> tied to increases in 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Endowment reaches initial $100 million goal and welcomes new board members

[Gerard Meijssen]

ly owe the global south and other jurisdictions, would
> simply be axed.
>
> What this means, given that all these companies are based in the US, is
> that as their already overwhelming market share grows globally, the
> economic imbalance disadvantaging the global south – which is the root
> cause of unequal access to knowledge – will only grow. It's a bit like
> 21st-century colonialism: wealth streaming out of poor countries into a
> rich one.
>
> For both of these reasons, privacy and tax avoidance, I believe the WMF
> has absolutely no business aiding these companies to any extent where it
> would give them any additional advantage over regional or global
> competitors. Of course I acknowledge that it is impossible to avoid
> interacting with Big Tech, but where competitors such as DuckDuckGo are
> available whose values are at least partially more aligned with the WMF's
> own, they should be clearly preferred as WMF partners.
>
> For that reason I was really glad to read about a joint WMF/DuckDuckGo
> study the other day that shed some interesting light on another aspect of
> disintermediation. This study found that knowledge panels increase rather
> than diminish click-throughs to Wikipedia[5], much the opposite of what I
> and others thought a few years ago. While this is a single study whose
> conclusions may not necessarily hold true in all contexts, it is an
> interesting and encouraging result.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikidata=3876137=3875379
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights#Conclusion
> [3]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-13/News_and_notes
> [4] https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/fcgjp9ul/release/2
> [5]
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/09/23/searching-for-wikipedia-duckduckgo-and-the-wikimedia-foundation-share-new-research-on-how-people-use-search-engines-to-get-to-wikipedia
>
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 7:35 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Facts are in and of themselves not copyrightable. Collections of data may
>> be copyrighted.We choose not to and as a result Wikidata is the powerhouse
>> that it has become.The CC-by-sa license is our license of choice for
>> Wikipedia however, the way it has been enforced so far has been defensive,
>> we are quite happy when our material is used.
>>
>> At Wikidata we are long past the point where the majority of the data is
>> from a Wikipedia. From day one Wikidata has provided essential services to
>> every Wikipedia,  Wikidata can provide superior services to Wikipedia.
>> Because like Commons, we have to maintain the data only once and have it
>> available everywhere. Wikidata is instrumental in sychronising death
>> information among our projects. It has been shown over and over again to
>> have more complete information as can be found in Wikipedia lists and
>> categories. Wikipedians choose to stick with their arguably substandard
>> practices.
>>
>> The notion that a Google or an Amazon are not capable of extracting facts
>> from a Wikipedia is silly. They have the capacity and the skills and the
>> software to do just that. Wikidata provides them additional information
>> making their information more complete. They have their reasons to be model
>> citizens and contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation. We now provide paid
>> for services to them making their bot activity less of a strain to our
>> services and provide them a (paid for) service.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Sept 2021 at 04:32, The Cunctator  wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for not being explicit; the connection is that protection of
>>> copyleft would be inconvenient to major endowment donors such as Google and
>>> Amazon. WikiData is a Wikimedia project that converts copylefted content
>>> into (what Wikimedia asserts to be) copyright-free content.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:40 PM Andy Mabbett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 19:27, The Cunctator 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > It's really disappointing to me that the Structured Data work has
>>>> been used to blow up Wikipedia's copyleft.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Your message has nothing to do with the endowment
>>>>
>>>> 2. You offer no evidence that "the Structured Data work has been used
>>>> to blow up Wikipedia's copyleft."
>>>>
>>>> 3. You do not explain what you mean by "blow up Wikipedia's copyleft."
>>>>
>>>> If you wish to discuss copyright and/

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Thank you for your reply. I am grateful for the insight that you offered
and find that my notions have mostly aligned. They will align even more as
I consider it further.

There is one other aspect that you miss.. probably quite deliberately.
There are those that consider that Wikipedia is all that counts and English
Wikipedia at that. You find it in the reply "is there a commitment to
saveguard Wikidata", it is however widespread. I find that I have no more
tolerance for the "Wikipedia only" attitude. Yes, the consensus in English
Wikipedia can be what it may but when it is stupid, the consensus is
stupid. It takes good arguments to convince me otherwise.

When you then consider that the cost of "any nine year old child can find
pictures in Commons" has a cost of less than 25.000 Euro. It is mostly
evangelism and separating the existing code from the existing search
functionality. Just consider, with such functionality available, it will be
easier to raise funds globally. What will be left of the 25K is enough to
add functionality to find a building, a tree, a fireman and an ambulance
that is local.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 22:51, Guillaume Paumier 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> (Sending this as a personal opinion, albeit one informed by my work on
> revenue strategy in the past few years.)
>
> Discussions about fundraising in the Wikimedia movement often involve the
> same arguments over time. My theory, after observing and participating in
> those discussions for 15 years, is the following.
>
> Objections to Wikimedia fundraising (and, more broadly, revenue
> generation) tend to stem from three main sources:
> * the moral superiority of financial disinterest
> * outlandish budgets and fundraising goals
> * improper means used to raise money.
>
> The first one is relatively simple. A significant number of us find any
> relationship between money and free knowledge viscerally disgusting. We've
> been editing as volunteers for years, devoting our free time to the
> advancement of humankind through knowledge. We have done so through
> countless acts of selflessness. Our financial disinterest is
> inextricably woven into our identity as Wikimedians. The Foundation should
> only raise the minimum funds required to "keep the lights on." Anything
> more is an attempt to profit from our free labor, and that's revolting.
>
> This is not unlike discussions of business models in the libre software
> community; we can also see those arguments surface in discussions around
> paid editing. I will leave the moral argument aside, because little can be
> done to change individual identities and moral judgments of money. But
> let's name them explicitly, in hopes that we can separate them from more
> fact-based arguments, if we are willing and able.
>
> The second point of contention is how much we raise. To those of us who
> remember the early years ("May we ask y'all to chip in a few dollars so we
> can buy our second server?!"), raising $150+ million a year these days
> seems extravagant, and probably always will. The much smaller budgets from
> our past act as cognitive anchors, [1] and in comparison recent budgets
> appear greedily outsized. Instead of being outraged by the growth of the
> budget, we should instead ask ourselves how much money we really need.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
>
> And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can get
> to advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that it is
> also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the Board
> understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017, they
> directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to be
> able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow members
> of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also
> understood the scope of the movement's ambitions: the first guiding
> question for our work was how to "maximize revenue for the movement". [3]
>
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2017_-_Statement_endorsing_future_resourcing_and_direction_of_the_organization
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Revenue_Streams#Guiding_Questions
>
> People who attended the meeting of strategy working groups in Berlin in
> early 2018 might remember a thought exercise led by the Revenue Streams
> group. In it, we estimated that coming closer to our vision would probably
> require an annual budget for the movement in the vicinity of a billion
> dollars. There is nothing intrinsically outrageous about that amount, as
> long as the money advances the mission efficiently and equitably. The
> International Committee of the Red Cross had a global budget of $1.6
> billion in 2016.
>
> And that's the heart of the argument about fundraising goals; it's less
> about how much we raise, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Endowment reaches initial $100 million goal and welcomes new board members

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Facts are in and of themselves not copyrightable. Collections of data may
be copyrighted.We choose not to and as a result Wikidata is the powerhouse
that it has become.The CC-by-sa license is our license of choice for
Wikipedia however, the way it has been enforced so far has been defensive,
we are quite happy when our material is used.

At Wikidata we are long past the point where the majority of the data is
from a Wikipedia. From day one Wikidata has provided essential services to
every Wikipedia,  Wikidata can provide superior services to Wikipedia.
Because like Commons, we have to maintain the data only once and have it
available everywhere. Wikidata is instrumental in sychronising death
information among our projects. It has been shown over and over again to
have more complete information as can be found in Wikipedia lists and
categories. Wikipedians choose to stick with their arguably substandard
practices.

The notion that a Google or an Amazon are not capable of extracting facts
from a Wikipedia is silly. They have the capacity and the skills and the
software to do just that. Wikidata provides them additional information
making their information more complete. They have their reasons to be model
citizens and contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation. We now provide paid
for services to them making their bot activity less of a strain to our
services and provide them a (paid for) service.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sun, 26 Sept 2021 at 04:32, The Cunctator  wrote:

> Sorry for not being explicit; the connection is that protection of
> copyleft would be inconvenient to major endowment donors such as Google and
> Amazon. WikiData is a Wikimedia project that converts copylefted content
> into (what Wikimedia asserts to be) copyright-free content.
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:40 PM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 19:27, The Cunctator  wrote:
>>
>> > It's really disappointing to me that the Structured Data work has been
>> used to blow up Wikipedia's copyleft.
>>
>> 1. Your message has nothing to do with the endowment
>>
>> 2. You offer no evidence that "the Structured Data work has been used
>> to blow up Wikipedia's copyleft."
>>
>> 3. You do not explain what you mean by "blow up Wikipedia's copyleft."
>>
>> If you wish to discuss copyright and/or structured data, please start
>> a new thread; and be clear there about the point you wish to make.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>> ___
>> 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/ME3ZHE4EKPUG6XA3N53YWGZMCE7XBZKN/
>> 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/RWN3E4ORWWLDHQ7PBX675KBQV5BAUPBV/
> 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/BN5BMT6YPILRPMZJQX4MJQDUL7DXP7BV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As you present your numbers in isolation, you can make up any argument and
not address any of the points made in the original post and subsequent
replies. When you mention salaries, you do not compare them to the common
practices for remuneration and only when you do, can you argue that it is
"too much". You can point to the growth of activities in particular teams
and only when this does not provide the service as required you may have a
point. You argue that there is no problem with our infrastructure.. I
pointed out that we have a potential disaster in the underlying engine of
Wikidata and you ignore that.. The presentation of our text based data may
seem quite robust and still we have problems with the presentation of all
the signed languages, the diacritics of Macedonian needs attention, the
software that we use for bots and tools is not supported by the WMF, WMF
lacks the necessary bandwidth. Commons search has a rate of false positives
that is over 50% and for you everything is fine.

Your complaint is about our fundraising and the urgency it expresses. As I
said earlier, we are to maintain a balance between private monies and
institutional monies in order to retain our independence. We are
underfunded as it is, essential functionality does not get the attention
that is required.

The only way I can understand your argument is when you look at it from a
"Wikipedia only" point of view and as a nuisance. English Wikipedia could
maybe survive in isolation. As it is Wikipedia consists of hundreds of
individual projects and for all of them Wikidata and Commons is essential
infrastructure. We could and should do better in our support, even when our
only aspiration is to share "the sum of knowledge that we have".

I dismiss your arguments for lack of merit.
Thanks,
   GerardM


On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 15:28, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Comparing the Wikimedia Foundation's annual revenue targets for the past
> five financial years against actual revenue, I find that the Wikimedia
> Foundation exceeded its revenue target (and also its actual expenditure) by
> an average of $30 million per year.
>
> The figures (all excluding Endowment revenue) are as follows:
>
> REVENUE Target   Actual
> 2016/2017 $63,0M  $91,2M
> 2017/2018 $76,8M  $104,5M
> 2018/2019 $93,1M  $120,1M
> 2019/2020 $111,7M $129,2M
> 2020/2021 $110,5M $157,0M
> TOTAL   $455,1M $602,0M
>
> Sources:
> Planned revenue: Annual plans on Meta, available here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_annual_plans
> Actual revenue: Audited financial statements as summarised and linked
> here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics
>
> The times when Jimmy Wales promised the public that the Foundation would
> stop fundraising when its fundraising targets were met are clearly long
> past.[1]
>
> This being so, I wonder: the WMF Advancement team (including fundraising
> tech) currently comprises around 50 people.
>
> Are any of their salaries tied to their ability to increase revenue each
> year? This kind of incentive would, of course, arguably put them in an
> invidious position.
>
> As far as I am aware, only one Advancement salary has been included in
> recent Forms 990.[2] It increased from $168K in the year 2015 to $252K in
> 2019, the most recent year for which we have a Form 990 (both figures are
> base compensation only).
>
> That is an increase of exactly 50% in the space of just four years, and
> far in excess of inflation. Was this increase based on the parallel
> increase in WMF revenue over that time period?
>
> At any rate, what we see here are not the financials of an organisation
> struggling to maintain or update essential software, or struggling in any
> other sense. It's the financials of an organisation committed to growth,
> and testing how much growth is sustainable.
>
> That is fine, of course, but then that is what the fundraising banners
> should tell people.
>
> I mentioned résumés the other day. It was on my mind because I had come
> across Lila's profile page[3] on the Word Economic Forum website. This
> tells readers that Lila "led Wikipedia’s rapidly expanded regional presence
> to nearly 100 global organizations, doubled revenues and launched the
> Wikipedia Endowment to support modernization and expansion of knowledge
> access in perpetuity."
>
> Again, doubling WMF revenues is all well and good, but then let's be nice
> and upfront about it when asking people for their money.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://www.theregister.com/2016/12/16/jimmy_wales_wikipedia_fundraising_promise/
>  and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_215#Once_upon_a_time
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries and
> https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703
> [3] https://www.weforum.org/people/lila-tretikov
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:29 PM Vi to  wrote:
>
>> False urgency in fundraising has been a problem for 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are wrong. First, fundraising and budgeting is aimed at the future,
they aim to enable the needs defined in the present. When you refer to an
audit, particularly one that is two years in the past, it reminds me of
obligatory messaging for investment products in the Netherlands: "results
from the past do not predict results for the future". Apparently you are
not aware that the engine used for Wikidata/Wikibase will not suffice and
is likely to break our service. You ask about efforts from the past;
developers new at the time have analysed and optimised the performance of
MediaWiki (and related) code. It resulted in a huge improvement in our
service. MediaWiki used to work properly only for desktop computers, at
this time mobile phones are supported. However editing on a mobile is still
not very inviting.

You repeatedly state that the fundraising message is a lie. It is not, the
facts do not support your notions.

Fundraisers that lie find that they may gain more money for the moment. In
the long run it is detrimental for the fundraising capacity. I know, I
raised funds for charities.

On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 09:48, Vi to  wrote:

> * do fundraisers require a compelling message? *could be reworded into *do
> fundraisers need to lie?*
>
> Once again, you say that "Wikidata is about to crash", "we don't properly
> deliver our contents everywhere", but according to FY2019-2020 audit
> report
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/f/f7/Wikimedia_Foundation_FY2019-2020_Audit_Report.pdf>
> while inbalance increased of 23%, hosting expenditures increased of 2,7%,
> the "other" item (which includes, among many things, *funding of the
> Wikidata project*) increased of 15%, in-kind expenses, partially related,
> decreased of about 70%. Undeniably 32% growth in (combined) wages and
> awards (grants) items also impact infrastructure. These figures surely
> don't highlight an infrastructure which is about to collapse or, at least,
> not a sense of urgency towards preventing it from happening.
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong by pointing out how much money was spent
> on the priorities you highlight.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno sab 25 set 2021 alle ore 09:19 Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Please read carefully. I do point out that there is an existential threat
>> to "Wikipedia", I do point out that we need fundraising to stay
>> independent.
>>
>> I do point out that the fundraising message is on point.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 09:12, Vi to  wrote:
>>
>>> Once again this is not what the fundraising messages point out.
>>>
>>> This is just a quite shareable list of top priorities in your opinion.
>>>
>>> Vito
>>>
>>> Il giorno sab 25 set 2021 alle ore 09:00 Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> I presented two existential threats to our ecosystem. We have a
>>>> technical debt in the legacy software we use for our functionality. The
>>>> engine for Wikidata is not likely to survive, it desperately needs
>>>> replacement. When the question is: are we in dire straights, yes we are. Is
>>>> this about fundraising, hell yes. Do fundraisers require a compelling
>>>> message, they do. I remind you of this "branding" issue. We are raising
>>>> money for Wikimedia.
>>>>
>>>> The notion of a budget is to fulfill ambitions. We have gone over the
>>>> message, let's talk about the mission. It is about "sharing the sum of all
>>>> knowledge". Opening up Commons in a Wiki way to nine year old children
>>>> worldwide is easy, we already have the software and it will cost money
>>>> to implement properly. It needs an integral implementation that fits our
>>>> infrastructure. There are other examples that demonstrate that we do not
>>>> even "share the knowledge available to us". Increasing a budget to fulfil
>>>> ambitions is what you do to get things done. Fundraising is what we do to
>>>> pay the cost of enabling the fulfilment of what is budgeted.
>>>>
>>>> The Wikimedia Foundation has the best platform to raise funds. Much
>>>> more is possible. We can easily get more institutional money. However, it
>>>> is well known that the WMF retains its independence by keeping a balance
>>>> between public and institutional funding. Therefore the fundraising is
>>>> essential for "Wikipedia&qu

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please read carefully. I do point out that there is an existential threat
to "Wikipedia", I do point out that we need fundraising to stay
independent.

I do point out that the fundraising message is on point.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 09:12, Vi to  wrote:

> Once again this is not what the fundraising messages point out.
>
> This is just a quite shareable list of top priorities in your opinion.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno sab 25 set 2021 alle ore 09:00 Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Hoi,
>> I presented two existential threats to our ecosystem. We have a
>> technical debt in the legacy software we use for our functionality. The
>> engine for Wikidata is not likely to survive, it desperately needs
>> replacement. When the question is: are we in dire straights, yes we are. Is
>> this about fundraising, hell yes. Do fundraisers require a compelling
>> message, they do. I remind you of this "branding" issue. We are raising
>> money for Wikimedia.
>>
>> The notion of a budget is to fulfill ambitions. We have gone over the
>> message, let's talk about the mission. It is about "sharing the sum of all
>> knowledge". Opening up Commons in a Wiki way to nine year old children
>> worldwide is easy, we already have the software and it will cost money
>> to implement properly. It needs an integral implementation that fits our
>> infrastructure. There are other examples that demonstrate that we do not
>> even "share the knowledge available to us". Increasing a budget to fulfil
>> ambitions is what you do to get things done. Fundraising is what we do to
>> pay the cost of enabling the fulfilment of what is budgeted.
>>
>> The Wikimedia Foundation has the best platform to raise funds. Much more
>> is possible. We can easily get more institutional money. However, it is
>> well known that the WMF retains its independence by keeping a balance
>> between public and institutional funding. Therefore the fundraising is
>> essential for "Wikipedia" to retain its independence.
>>
>> What I point out is not new, it should be well known. To me your point of
>> view is bizarre. It is only about appearances and numbers without a context
>> in what we do
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 16:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Gerard,
>>>
>>> Do you think the banners *have* to paint a mental picture of Wikipedia
>>> being in dire financial straits for people to donate? With wordings like
>>> "We need you to make a donation this Friday so that we can continue to
>>> protect Wikipedia's independence"?
>>>
>>> Isn't it pretty bizarre to portray your financial situation in this way,
>>> when you're planning to increase your expenses by 40% from one year to the
>>> next, and are literally taking 10 times more money from the public per
>>> annum than you did ten years ago?
>>>
>>> It's not about the money per se – there are surely few people and
>>> organisations who would say that they couldn't do with some more money than
>>> the amount they have – but about whether you give the public and
>>> prospective donors a more or less accurate impression of your financial
>>> situation and your spending intentions.
>>>
>>> Do you think the current fundraising banners do that?
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 2:50 PM Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> No it is not. When we do not find a solution for the technical issues
>>>> for Wikidata it will crash and burn..
>>>>
>>>> The ferocity that some people display about the WMF fundraising
>>>> astounds me. We are operating one of the biggest websites in the world, it
>>>> is hugely problematic in that its bias for English prevents us from
>>>> providing a service that is of the same quality for everyone. The legacy
>>>> that exists in our code and the rising expectations are obvious signs that
>>>> we are under investing, not over investing. There is a limit to the growth
>>>> of our organisation as such I applaud the WMF even though it could and
>>>> should be so much better.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Vi to  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is exactly the previously mentioned idea of "collect money, then
>>>>> we will find a way to spend it".

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I presented two existential threats to our ecosystem. We have a
technical debt in the legacy software we use for our functionality. The
engine for Wikidata is not likely to survive, it desperately needs
replacement. When the question is: are we in dire straights, yes we are. Is
this about fundraising, hell yes. Do fundraisers require a compelling
message, they do. I remind you of this "branding" issue. We are raising
money for Wikimedia.

The notion of a budget is to fulfill ambitions. We have gone over the
message, let's talk about the mission. It is about "sharing the sum of all
knowledge". Opening up Commons in a Wiki way to nine year old children
worldwide is easy, we already have the software and it will cost money
to implement properly. It needs an integral implementation that fits our
infrastructure. There are other examples that demonstrate that we do not
even "share the knowledge available to us". Increasing a budget to fulfil
ambitions is what you do to get things done. Fundraising is what we do to
pay the cost of enabling the fulfilment of what is budgeted.

The Wikimedia Foundation has the best platform to raise funds. Much more is
possible. We can easily get more institutional money. However, it is well
known that the WMF retains its independence by keeping a balance between
public and institutional funding. Therefore the fundraising is essential
for "Wikipedia" to retain its independence.

What I point out is not new, it should be well known. To me your point of
view is bizarre. It is only about appearances and numbers without a context
in what we do
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 16:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> Do you think the banners *have* to paint a mental picture of Wikipedia
> being in dire financial straits for people to donate? With wordings like
> "We need you to make a donation this Friday so that we can continue to
> protect Wikipedia's independence"?
>
> Isn't it pretty bizarre to portray your financial situation in this way,
> when you're planning to increase your expenses by 40% from one year to the
> next, and are literally taking 10 times more money from the public per
> annum than you did ten years ago?
>
> It's not about the money per se – there are surely few people and
> organisations who would say that they couldn't do with some more money than
> the amount they have – but about whether you give the public and
> prospective donors a more or less accurate impression of your financial
> situation and your spending intentions.
>
> Do you think the current fundraising banners do that?
>
> Andreas
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 2:50 PM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> No it is not. When we do not find a solution for the technical issues for
>> Wikidata it will crash and burn..
>>
>> The ferocity that some people display about the WMF fundraising astounds
>> me. We are operating one of the biggest websites in the world, it is hugely
>> problematic in that its bias for English prevents us from providing a
>> service that is of the same quality for everyone. The legacy that exists in
>> our code and the rising expectations are obvious signs that we are under
>> investing, not over investing. There is a limit to the growth of our
>> organisation as such I applaud the WMF even though it could and should be
>> so much better.
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Vi to  wrote:
>>
>>> This is exactly the previously mentioned idea of "collect money, then we
>>> will find a way to spend it".
>>> Instead, we should be honest with donors and volunteers, the urgency
>>> portrayed by banners is not true, there's no risk of closing our projects.
>>>
>>> *Assumes that there is only one project* is true, but in terms of
>>> current fundraising communication.
>>>
>>> Vito
>>>
>>>
>>> Il giorno ven 24 set 2021 alle ore 14:50 Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> There are some people who repeatedly argue that we raise way too much
>>>> money. Given a set of assumptions an argument can be constructed to make
>>>> this point. In my opinion there is little merit to the argument. We do need
>>>> money to operate the Wikimedia projects and a positive outcome per year
>>>> enables us to do more.the next year. I have some ideas about raising money
>>>> and raising expectations.
>>>>
>>>>- We want to raise less money in the Anglo-Saxon world. When people
>>>>donate money everywhere they too will gain a sense of ownership. This 
>>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
No it is not. When we do not find a solution for the technical issues for
Wikidata it will crash and burn..

The ferocity that some people display about the WMF fundraising astounds
me. We are operating one of the biggest websites in the world, it is hugely
problematic in that its bias for English prevents us from providing a
service that is of the same quality for everyone. The legacy that exists in
our code and the rising expectations are obvious signs that we are under
investing, not over investing. There is a limit to the growth of our
organisation as such I applaud the WMF even though it could and should be
so much better.

On Fri, 24 Sept 2021 at 15:25, Vi to  wrote:

> This is exactly the previously mentioned idea of "collect money, then we
> will find a way to spend it".
> Instead, we should be honest with donors and volunteers, the urgency
> portrayed by banners is not true, there's no risk of closing our projects.
>
> *Assumes that there is only one project* is true, but in terms of current
> fundraising communication.
>
> Vito
>
>
> Il giorno ven 24 set 2021 alle ore 14:50 Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Hoi,
>> There are some people who repeatedly argue that we raise way too much
>> money. Given a set of assumptions an argument can be constructed to make
>> this point. In my opinion there is little merit to the argument. We do need
>> money to operate the Wikimedia projects and a positive outcome per year
>> enables us to do more.the next year. I have some ideas about raising money
>> and raising expectations.
>>
>>- We want to raise less money in the Anglo-Saxon world. When people
>>donate money everywhere they too will gain a sense of ownership. This 
>> sense
>>of ownership is to be distributed more equally around the globe
>>- With our projects owned more equitably around the globe, the notion
>>that "any child of nine year old can find pictures in Commons" is
>>reasonable and self-evident; the world pays for  results that
>>are globally relevant ..
>>- We need a delivery manager, his/her task is to research and define
>>what it is our projects deliver to their public. The objective is to
>>increase both quantity and quality of what is delivered by a project and
>>discuss with project communities what it is that can be done to improve 
>> the
>>service to its public. Commons does provide material to Wikipedia, that is
>>good but not  enough.
>>
>> Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Internet Archive have projects to
>> document all scientific papers / output. The Internet Archive provides an
>> important service to the Wikimedia Foundation and we can integrate the two
>> projects, reduce costs and have the WMF pay the IA for its services. Closer
>> ties with the Internet Archive provide many other benefits. One of these
>> benefits is that we can bring the Wikipedia references into a modern age.
>>
>> For Wikidata there is a technical limit in what we can achieve on the
>> current platform. Because of Wikidata the WMF is a very big fish in the
>> data pond. We need to (imho) pick up the challenge and develop our own
>> software. This will cost significantly and it demonstrates that we accept
>> that Free software is not Free as in Beer. With the IA as a partner, we may
>> find a partner in this endeavour.
>>
>> The notion that we raise too much money, the notion that there is no
>> urgency is a fallacy. It is all too easy to identify how our service is
>> lacking and where we can improve our service. The arguments why the WMF
>> raises too much money assumes that there is only one project, their project
>> and they consider that its status quo suffices. The question is, sufficient
>> for who,for what and for how long.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>> ___
>> 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/DEUD2GEI5CNSKGJLZKQB2JYPZVNSW6CF/
>> 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/

[Wikimedia-l] About raising money

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are some people who repeatedly argue that we raise way too much
money. Given a set of assumptions an argument can be constructed to make
this point. In my opinion there is little merit to the argument. We do need
money to operate the Wikimedia projects and a positive outcome per year
enables us to do more.the next year. I have some ideas about raising money
and raising expectations.

   - We want to raise less money in the Anglo-Saxon world. When people
   donate money everywhere they too will gain a sense of ownership. This sense
   of ownership is to be distributed more equally around the globe
   - With our projects owned more equitably around the globe, the notion
   that "any child of nine year old can find pictures in Commons" is
   reasonable and self-evident; the world pays for  results that
   are globally relevant ..
   - We need a delivery manager, his/her task is to research and define
   what it is our projects deliver to their public. The objective is to
   increase both quantity and quality of what is delivered by a project and
   discuss with project communities what it is that can be done to improve the
   service to its public. Commons does provide material to Wikipedia, that is
   good but not  enough.

Both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Internet Archive have projects to
document all scientific papers / output. The Internet Archive provides an
important service to the Wikimedia Foundation and we can integrate the two
projects, reduce costs and have the WMF pay the IA for its services. Closer
ties with the Internet Archive provide many other benefits. One of these
benefits is that we can bring the Wikipedia references into a modern age.

For Wikidata there is a technical limit in what we can achieve on the
current platform. Because of Wikidata the WMF is a very big fish in the
data pond. We need to (imho) pick up the challenge and develop our own
software. This will cost significantly and it demonstrates that we accept
that Free software is not Free as in Beer. With the IA as a partner, we may
find a partner in this endeavour.

The notion that we raise too much money, the notion that there is no
urgency is a fallacy. It is all too easy to identify how our service is
lacking and where we can improve our service. The arguments why the WMF
raises too much money assumes that there is only one project, their project
and they consider that its status quo suffices. The question is, sufficient
for who,for what and for how long.
Thanks,
   GerardM
___
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/DEUD2GEI5CNSKGJLZKQB2JYPZVNSW6CF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Encyclopedic Coverage of American Elections

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The point is not that shenanigans in US elections are not worthy of an
article, the point is that our bias towards the USA is such that we do not
even know who the government ministers are of countries like Eswatini.
Countries most "first worlders" do not know to pinpoint on a map.

It is the same as with male scientists; it is not that they are not
notable, it is that female scientists, equally notable, are not given a
place in our Wikipedias.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 15:55, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> I do feel US elections and their coverage is an international issue,
> especially in light of recent events that threaten democracy and could
> indirectly affect things like copyright on the internet. I do share
> concerns about “social media events” and it would be helpful to spell out
> how these could be covered in an encyclopedia when social media is not
> considered a reliable source for an article. Add to that a decline in
> subscriptions to local newspapers (I believe this is not only a US issue
> but an international problem) as well as geoblocking content of national
> newspapers and you have major issues with updates to Wikipedia election
> articles anywhere. I have no idea how to tackle these issues but have
> complete confidence in the various election-related WikiProjects so if
> there’s such a project on meta maybe they have already joined forces on
> this.
> Jane
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 21, 2021, at 1:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> 
> Hoi,
> What is painfully obvious is the bias that exists. For countries in Africa
> we do not even know all the government ministers past and present for the
> last 70 years let alone that we know about past elections. At that, it is
> fine with me that subjects like this are raised.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 09:19, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would add to the idea that this is an international mailing list where
>> most of the users are not from the US the idea that there are other
>> Wikipedias around that are not in English, so the coverage of details of
>> the US elections at the English Wikipedia should be discussed... at the
>> English Wikipedia.
>>
>> Thanks for your understanding.
>>
>> Galder
>> --
>> *From:* Risker 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:14 AM
>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Encyclopedic Coverage of American Elections
>>
>> There are already wikiprojects on English Wikipedia that work on
>> elections.[1][2]  I suggest you might want to continue this conversation
>> there, with people who have a strong interest in US elections, and a good
>> grasp on what is and is not likely to make a successful article. As noted
>> before, this is an international mailing list, and there are better places
>> to talk about American politics.
>>
>> Oh...incidentally. That photo had no impact at all. The election was
>> yesterday, and the results were pretty much as predicted at least a week
>> ago; there were no surprises.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society#Politics_and_government
>> [2]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_presidential_elections
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 01:45, Adam Sobieski 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the recent Canadian federal election [1], there was a last-minute
>> happening [2] in the news and on social media [3] which seems difficult to
>> precisely attribute to a responsible party. It appears that one or more
>> photographs were leaked to a news organization which probably does not want
>> to reveal their source. I am thinking about how best to include such
>> complex events and happenings in encyclopedia articles about
>> election-related strategies, tactics, events, and happenings.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the topic of US election-related encyclopedia articles, I think that
>> it will be easier and that there will be more interested Wikimedians as the
>> next election season approaches (2022) or, perhaps, as the next
>> Presidential election season approaches (2024). Then, instead of exploring
>> news archives, interested Wikimedians could add relevant events and
>> happenings to encyclopedia articles as they occur.
>>
>>
>>
>> My current plan for improving Wikipedia’s overall election coverage
>> includes participating, al

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Encyclopedic Coverage of American Elections

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What is painfully obvious is the bias that exists. For countries in Africa
we do not even know all the government ministers past and present for the
last 70 years let alone that we know about past elections. At that, it is
fine with me that subjects like this are raised.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 09:19, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I would add to the idea that this is an international mailing list where
> most of the users are not from the US the idea that there are other
> Wikipedias around that are not in English, so the coverage of details of
> the US elections at the English Wikipedia should be discussed... at the
> English Wikipedia.
>
> Thanks for your understanding.
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Risker 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:14 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Encyclopedic Coverage of American Elections
>
> There are already wikiprojects on English Wikipedia that work on
> elections.[1][2]  I suggest you might want to continue this conversation
> there, with people who have a strong interest in US elections, and a good
> grasp on what is and is not likely to make a successful article. As noted
> before, this is an international mailing list, and there are better places
> to talk about American politics.
>
> Oh...incidentally. That photo had no impact at all. The election was
> yesterday, and the results were pretty much as predicted at least a week
> ago; there were no surprises.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society#Politics_and_government
> [2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_presidential_elections
>
> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 01:45, Adam Sobieski 
> wrote:
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> In the recent Canadian federal election [1], there was a last-minute
> happening [2] in the news and on social media [3] which seems difficult to
> precisely attribute to a responsible party. It appears that one or more
> photographs were leaked to a news organization which probably does not want
> to reveal their source. I am thinking about how best to include such
> complex events and happenings in encyclopedia articles about
> election-related strategies, tactics, events, and happenings.
>
>
>
> On the topic of US election-related encyclopedia articles, I think that it
> will be easier and that there will be more interested Wikimedians as the
> next election season approaches (2022) or, perhaps, as the next
> Presidential election season approaches (2024). Then, instead of exploring
> news archives, interested Wikimedians could add relevant events and
> happenings to encyclopedia articles as they occur.
>
>
>
> My current plan for improving Wikipedia’s overall election coverage
> includes participating, alongside interested others, in US 2024
> Presidential election-related encyclopedia articles so that the quality of
> these prominent encyclopedia articles might inspire the broader community
> with regard to covering subsequent elections. If anyone has a better plan,
> please let me know.
>
>
>
> If there is interest, perhaps we could organize a community project, a
> Wikiproject [4] or a Task Force [5], to think about and to discuss these
> topics – and, perhaps, to collaborate to build templates or prototypes of
> enhanced election coverage – en route to 2024.
>
>
>
> In the interim, I can see whether I can find enough content to create and
> structure articles about these topics pertaining to recent US Presidential
> elections (2016 and 2020).
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election
>
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise
>
> [3]
> https://torontosun.com/news/election-2021/lilley-another-blackface-photo-embarrassing-to-trudeau-but-not-his-voters
>
>
>
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject
>
> [5]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/Task_forces
>
>
>
> *From: *Eduardo Testart 
> *Sent: *Sunday, September 19, 2021 12:31 PM
> *To: *Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject: *[Wikimedia-l] Re: Encyclopedic Coverage of American Elections
>
>
>
> Hi Adam,
>
>
>
> If this is a subject you care about, you are probably the right person to
> start writing those articles you would like to see.
>
>
>
> If you wait to see "how Wikimedians choose to create and structure them",
> you might very well never see the articles come to life.
>
>
>
> It's never too late to start editing 
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> El dom., 19 de sep. de 2021 09:55, Adam Sobieski 
> escribió:
>
> Thank you. It is interesting to consider how a more granular coverage of
> elections, coverage which includes notable mass media events, e.g., news
> stories and social media events, caused by and/or strategically reacted to
> by political campaigns, parties, and organizations, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article to check...

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please use Google when you do not know who you are talking to.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 19:09,  wrote:

> >Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the
> Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Oh, thanks.
>
> I don't know who he is.  His manner led me to believe he represented the
> WMF in some capacity.
>
> Someone who downplays the danger of far-right activism within education is
> either ignorant or some kind of nazi themselves.
>
>
> MC
> ___
> 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/DD6KSQJSMSOWOBDACDOEMTLLVKZOVWJW/
> 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/WH5THFG3AEXHJR62BFDQTQ5BYCHBASYY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article to check...

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Get your facts straight. Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the
Wikimedia Foundation.  Andreas has a set of hobby horses. That is fine but
it does not follow that we have to be grateful for them. Yes, there are
plenty of issues with all of our projects and at that, English sets a
pattern that is hardly beneficial for the smallest projects.
Thanks,
  Gerard


On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 07:43,  wrote:

> Mike,
>
> I am appalled by your sneering condescension of Andreas.
>
> This is a researcher and journalist who has worked diligently for a decade
> to identify, examine and expose the systematic failings which beset
> Wikipedia. He generously offers practical soultions to problems the WMF is
> unaware of.  It is unquestionable that he has knows more about and has done
> more to improve the encyclopedia than you.
>
> As a spokesperson for a charity that exists to promote knowledge, your
> sarcastic and dismissive attitude is utterly shameful.
>
> If you think only a few "insignificant" sites like Croatian or Japanese
> Wikipedia have areas run by ultranationalists, think again -- English
> Wikipedia has articles completely controlled by terrorist groups right now.
> I would tell you which ones but it seems you are are uninterested and
> unconcerned by extremist groups successfully pushing their agenda on this
> ostensibly educational website.
>
> Administrators and arbitrators are aware of the problem and have been for
> years. So far they have been unwilling or unable to act decisively.
> ___
> 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/YFHWL3KNL3AZMBXBMG33VOT6BZ2LEZXJ/
> 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/5CIVS2DJB7NRMH3CFSZN4ICPXLDKV4SO/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article to check...

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There were Wikipedias closed in the past before the recent issue at the
Croation Wikipedia because of content, language. It is not only recent, it
is more pronounced but not a shift
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 at 19:00, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really
> thinking of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
>
> What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual
> integrity of the *encyclopedic* content, hiring staff to address
> "misleading content", "disinformation", etc., rather than restricting
> itself to deletions required by law.
>
> The WMF's recent action concerning the Croatian Wikipedia surely is an
> example of this shift. The WMF had the means – but not the will – to do
> what it has done now, ten years ago.
>
> In a similar way, I understand that content added by ISIS sympathisers is
> a problem in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia versions that the WMF is now
> trying to address.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM Mike Godwin  wrote:
>
>>
>> Andreas Kolbe writes:
>>
>>
>>> It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com)
>>> quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues
>>> related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
>>>
>>> That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant
>>> departure from past practice when the WMF would disclaim all
>>> responsibility
>>> for content 
>>>
>>
>> WMF did not "disclaim all responsibility for content." Instead, WMF
>> disclaimed primary responsibility for content, and still does. When WMF was
>> understaffed, as it typically was during Wikipedia's first decade, we made
>> a point of steering certain complaints and legal demands to the editor
>> community as a default choice. The policy reasons for this choice were
>> straightforward. But WMF directly intervened on a number of occasions,
>> typically as required by law.
>>
>> Mike Godwin
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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/BBWU34FH2E24KBY7T7CUCULCIJJLHNSH/
>> 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/KOJL545IE3GD35VFMFROIWJNX6ZFRLVS/
> 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/KNOD7KUXT63R5QUUWL2DDPOY3YRY3RWM/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article to check...

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Given that I reply to your statement.. it should be obvious.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 13:12, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> With whom do you beg to differ?
>
> P
>
>
>
> *From:* Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijs...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 17 August 2021 09:32
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion
> article to check...
>
>
>
> Hoi,
>
> I beg to differ. If anything the WMF needs to focus us more on the
> imbalance that exists between the fundamental bias toward English versus
> all other languages. For me the easiest picking is to share in the sum of
> the knowledge that is available to us. To get there simple goals like "a
> nine year old is able to find pictures in Commons" are fundamental. As it
> is, this is not even considered.
>
> Thanks,
>
>GerardM
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 08:46, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> And it is based on a fundamental misconception of the legally mandated
> role of the WMF. Everything based on this false premise, fails.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Željko Blaće [mailto:zbl...@mi2.hr]
> *Sent:* 17 August 2021 06:18
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article
> to check...
>
>
>
> ...considering recent discussions on Wikimania and here, this is maybe a
> useful opinion piece from  https://
>  UNDARK.org/2021/08/12/wikipedia-has-a-language-problem-heres-how-to-fix-it/
>
>
> It is packed with good insights and while I do not agree with all this,
> the final sentence feels kind of brilliant: ... to achieve its stated
> mission to “help everyone share in the sum of all knowledge,” they might
> first need to create the sum of all Wikipedias.
>
>
>
> Best Z. Blace
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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/KYVKAVWN4EEFQ7OLAZYEPUXZA2PJLB7M/
> 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/UGJ4SMD76OOHM45VDGN7YP3H5T5DNDSD/
> 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/EJVMWC6X3VT6WG5ZL42H43S4RJG57UYQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article to check...

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I beg to differ. If anything the WMF needs to focus us more on the
imbalance that exists between the fundamental bias toward English versus
all other languages. For me the easiest picking is to share in the sum of
the knowledge that is available to us. To get there simple goals like "a
nine year old is able to find pictures in Commons" are fundamental. As it
is, this is not even considered.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 08:46, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> And it is based on a fundamental misconception of the legally mandated
> role of the WMF. Everything based on this false premise, fails.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Željko Blaće [mailto:zbl...@mi2.hr]
> *Sent:* 17 August 2021 06:18
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article
> to check...
>
>
>
> ...considering recent discussions on Wikimania and here, this is maybe a
> useful opinion piece from  https://
>  UNDARK.org/2021/08/12/wikipedia-has-a-language-problem-heres-how-to-fix-it/
>
>
> It is packed with good insights and while I do not agree with all this,
> the final sentence feels kind of brilliant: ... to achieve its stated
> mission to “help everyone share in the sum of all knowledge,” they might
> first need to create the sum of all Wikipedias.
>
>
>
> Best Z. Blace
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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/KYVKAVWN4EEFQ7OLAZYEPUXZA2PJLB7M/
> 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/L4FMGU2VGEE5JZ2VZZMW5W22KV2H35J5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Did we regress from a previous situation - yes
Is the software still available to us - yes
Do we have a serious issue with providing a service to our public - yes
Is it is just one issue or is it one of many issues - one of many
Has it improved over time, you tell me yes and you can point out the
veracity because of..
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 14:31, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Does some basic functionality work? Sure.
> Is it as good as Google? Nope.
> Is it as good as we can make it? Most likely not.
>
> BTW, we are not doing great in searches irrespective of
> multilingualism issues, but we have notably improved over time.
>
> best,
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak, "pundit"
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 6:33 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> The notion that search works because "there is somewhere a thingie that
>> you first have to select and oh it is a bit out the way" is an argument
>> that can only be made by someone who invested a lot in it. The sad thing
>> is, did you ever wonder if it worked because it does not. You did not
>> consider a public, a user story fulfilled.
>>
>> My user story is simply this: A nine year old seeks images of a subject
>> to illustrate some homework he has to do. He types in the name of the
>> subject and gets results he can choose from. The nine year old reads and
>> writes in any of the 200+ languages we support. The teacher of the child is
>> aware of the necessity of labels in Wikidata and checked them. In the
>> process helping anybody to find the subjects that are in the curriculum.
>>
>> Search is what the Wikimedia org provides. The problem with search has
>> been known for as long as Commons exists. The Commons community has not had
>> a material impact on search in all this time. Google does allow you to
>> search with good effect for a "თახვი" but what it brings up is not freely
>> licensed. It is  therefore on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation to be
>> aware of this problem and give it the attention that it requires.
>>
>> Let's be blunt; Google et all are increasingly good at the game of
>> providing information.The Wikimedia projects not as essential as they used
>> to be. We find this in our traffic numbers; we are dropping in the rankings
>> and we have no response.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 at 19:59, Mike Peel  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just a reminder that multilingual search already works for Commons
>>> categories, for example search for 'telescopio lovell':
>>>
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=telescopio+lovell=Special:MediaSearch=Go=page
>>>
>>> This is because the Wikidata Infobox on Commons displays multilingual
>>> information, and also includes search engine optimisation (i.e.,
>>> includes all language labels from Wikidata in the searchable source).
>>> We're nearly at 3.5 million categories using the infobox now (about half
>>> of all Commons categories...).
>>>
>>> It's a bit hidden out of the way now, though, since the default search
>>> is for images, and you need to click on 'Categories and pages'.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On 18/7/21 18:49:28, Mohamed ElGohary wrote:
>>> > I must say that in my experience along the years is that search is not
>>> a
>>> > very strong feature in all Wikimedia projects, commons or not.
>>> > Personally I use commercial search engines to custom search Wikimedia
>>> > projects, and I include the Creative Commons search
>>> > <https://search.creativecommons.org/> for photos.
>>> >
>>> > I would love if there are efforts to include multilingualism and
>>> better
>>> > search in Wikimedia projects. For Wikimedia Commons specifically, I
>>> > would love to see (more) cooperation with Creative Commons and other
>>> > like-minded entities for better search results for all languages.
>>> >
>>> > ircpresident
>>> > --
>>> > photo
>>> > *Mohamed ElGohary*
>>> > Lingua Manager and Board Member, Global Voices
>>> >
>>> > https://globalvoices.org/lingua <https://globalvoices.org/lingua>
>>> >
>>> > <http://globalvoices.org/author/Mohamed-ElGohary/>
>>> > <http://ircpresident.com> <http://facebook.com/GVlingua>
>>> > <http://twitter.com/GVLingua>
>>> > <http://plus.google.com/+Moham

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The notion that search works because "there is somewhere a thingie that you
first have to select and oh it is a bit out the way" is an argument that
can only be made by someone who invested a lot in it. The sad thing is, did
you ever wonder if it worked because it does not. You did not consider a
public, a user story fulfilled.

My user story is simply this: A nine year old seeks images of a subject to
illustrate some homework he has to do. He types in the name of the subject
and gets results he can choose from. The nine year old reads and writes in
any of the 200+ languages we support. The teacher of the child is aware of
the necessity of labels in Wikidata and checked them. In the process
helping anybody to find the subjects that are in the curriculum.

Search is what the Wikimedia org provides. The problem with search has been
known for as long as Commons exists. The Commons community has not had a
material impact on search in all this time. Google does allow you to search
with good effect for a "თახვი" but what it brings up is not freely
licensed. It is  therefore on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation to be
aware of this problem and give it the attention that it requires.

Let's be blunt; Google et all are increasingly good at the game of
providing information.The Wikimedia projects not as essential as they used
to be. We find this in our traffic numbers; we are dropping in the rankings
and we have no response.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 at 19:59, Mike Peel  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just a reminder that multilingual search already works for Commons
> categories, for example search for 'telescopio lovell':
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=telescopio+lovell=Special:MediaSearch=Go=page
>
> This is because the Wikidata Infobox on Commons displays multilingual
> information, and also includes search engine optimisation (i.e.,
> includes all language labels from Wikidata in the searchable source).
> We're nearly at 3.5 million categories using the infobox now (about half
> of all Commons categories...).
>
> It's a bit hidden out of the way now, though, since the default search
> is for images, and you need to click on 'Categories and pages'.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 18/7/21 18:49:28, Mohamed ElGohary wrote:
> > I must say that in my experience along the years is that search is not a
> > very strong feature in all Wikimedia projects, commons or not.
> > Personally I use commercial search engines to custom search Wikimedia
> > projects, and I include the Creative Commons search
> > <https://search.creativecommons.org/> for photos.
> >
> > I would love if there are efforts to include multilingualism and better
> > search in Wikimedia projects. For Wikimedia Commons specifically, I
> > would love to see (more) cooperation with Creative Commons and other
> > like-minded entities for better search results for all languages.
> >
> > ircpresident
> > --
> > photo
> > *Mohamed ElGohary*
> > Lingua Manager and Board Member, Global Voices
> >
> > https://globalvoices.org/lingua <https://globalvoices.org/lingua>
> >
> > <http://globalvoices.org/author/Mohamed-ElGohary/>
> > <http://ircpresident.com> <http://facebook.com/GVlingua>
> > <http://twitter.com/GVLingua>
> > <http://plus.google.com/+MohamedElGohary/>
> > <http://linkedin.com/in/ircpresident> <
> http://instragram.com/ircpresident>
> >
> > Key: 0x5D13669E Fingerprints: 7838 7FE7 E0E4 BF88 0024 2703 B452 E75A
> > 5D13 669E
> >
> > Amplifying Global Voices stories by the translation into dozens of
> > languages with the help of hundreds of volunteer translators. We are
> > Global Voices Lingua <http://globalvoices.org/lingua>!
> >
> > <http://globalvoices.org/donate>  Donate to Global Voices
> > <http://globalvoices.org/donate>
> >
> >> On 16-Jul-21 10:09:33 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hoi,
> >> You have it the wrong way around. Our projects have a function, they
> >> exist for us to share in the sum of all knowledge. When a search
> >> engine provides results to a public in any language, it does not make
> >> a difference to how Commons is run. Your claim that finding pictures
> >> is only allowed when a community allows for it exposes a bias that is
> >> fundamentally wrong. What Commons contains is freely licensed and
> >> consequently anyone can search it, use it.
> >>
> >> Your claim that people worked hard to make Commons usable in other
> >> languages is fine. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Wikimedia-l] Making Wikicite a success by putting the Wikipedia editor first

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
After a five year run, the Wikicite project has come to an end, it is a
success. To secure the accomplishments of the last five years, it is
vitally important to find a public for what comes next. The suggestion from
the Wikicite people is to support all Wikipedias [1]. This is a great
suggestion because like Commons and Wikidata, it brings the same kind of
data together and finds benefits in collaboration.

While this gets in place, we can put Wikipedia editors first by providing a
representation of current science that is about a Wikipedia article that is
evaluated. I did describe how this will work in a blogpost [2]. Today I
blogged about putting Wikipedia editors first [3] again but it comes with a
twist.

We have been collaborating with the Internet Archive for a long time, the
IA serves a vital role by ensuring that links to references remain
available through its projects. As it is, the IA has similar projects to
WikiCite. My suggestion is that we join hands, collaborate and have a
shared project that benefits both our audiences. For us it will
particularly be our Wikipedia editors and readers that benefit, it is
entirely reasonable to expect that it will improve the quality of our
projects as well.

What do you think?
Thanks.
   GerardM



[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite/Shared_Citations
[2]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2021/06/science-is-shaped-by-wikipedia-evidence.html
[3]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2021/07/making-wikicite-success-by-putting.html
___
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/YIKJTBGLRQ3HXVKKHKXAWSIXKD6CVEPI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You have it the wrong way around. Our projects have a function, they exist
for us to share in the sum of all knowledge. When a search engine provides
results to a public in any language, it does not make a difference to how
Commons is run. Your claim that finding pictures is only allowed when a
community allows for it exposes a bias that is fundamentally wrong. What
Commons contains is freely licensed and consequently anyone can search it,
use it.

Your claim that people worked hard to make Commons usable in other
languages is fine. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It
is the purpose of Commons that its images are actually used, used world
wide in any language. You claim that it is the community that allows for
re-use. It is not, it is the license. It is the purpose of the Wikimedia
movement to make the most of what we have and do. It is the responsibility
of the Board to ensure that we do.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:39, Fæ  wrote:

> It would be far more effective to make community and project proposals
> or run a wider community RFC about how the "common" projects work
> together rather than become a board member to make a difference in
> this area. The detail of how projects work and their policies is not
> something that the WMF board is well placed to dictate. Trustees are
> busy with WMF operational oversight and strategy, not lobbyists for
> how technical implementation might work.
>
> A board that starts dictating how projects must function, is probably
> a board that volunteers would never elect, if they have a choice.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:26, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in
> English for "beaver" you do not find  beavers. They are mostly false
> positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a
> beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not
> useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a
> search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and
> all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay
> Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have
> in a previous iteration).
> >
> > I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons
> that can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it
> does work in any language. The current search is however not functional
> when you "just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose
> files with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional
> search, I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely
> licensed resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it
> is essentially closed in all languages to the public.
> >
> > The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need
> a public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start
> with a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the
> attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that
> we have.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image=beaver
> > [2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hoi.
> >> > One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in
> my opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that
> all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about
> the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge
> that is available to us.
> >> >
> >> > For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do
> not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the
> organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects
> for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The
> point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language
> but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works
> equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in
> Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more.
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >   GerardM
> >>
> >> "Commons is not useful in any language but Eng

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You make your point and you are essentially wrong. When you search in
English for "beaver" you do not find  beavers. They are mostly false
positives related in one way or other to "beaver" but they do not depict a
beaver[1] . This is true for all languages. My point is that Commons is not
useful when people cannot find what they are looking for. Compare this to a
search using the Wikidata labels linked to "depicts" statements in any and
all languages, this is where they DO find beavers [2] (this app is by Hay
Kranen and it shows the same functionality special:mediasearch used to have
in a previous iteration).

I am totally aware that it is only a subset of the images at Commons that
can be found in this way. It however works for a general public and it does
work in any language. The current search is however not functional when you
"just" want to find a picture. When you argue that special purpose files
with a Spanish description are a reason not to provide a functional search,
I do wonder what Commons is for. Why have the biggest freely licensed
resource of media files when it has no functional search, when it is
essentially closed in all languages to the public.

The reason why I aim to be a member of the board is exactly that we need a
public for all the work that we have done. I do not mind when we start with
a minimal service that works over a service that does not bring us the
attention to Commons that it deserves. We do not truly value the data that
we have.
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=image=beaver
[2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q181191

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 13:42, Fæ  wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 17:32, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi.
> > One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my
> opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that
> all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about
> the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge
> that is available to us.
> >
> > For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do
> not subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the
> organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects
> for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The
> point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language
> but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works
> equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in
> Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
>
> "Commons is not useful in any language but English" is nonsense. The
> idea that displaying "labels" and imposed transclusions from Wikidata
> would make, say, a Commons image page Spanish description of a PDF
> book in Spanish redundant, and an English description is all that
> Commons should aim for, disregards the valued work that many Commons
> contributors make to keep the project multilingual.
>
> I would hope that the WMF board would understand how the projects
> function and their value to public reuse rather better than this.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> ___
> 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/Z2E2L77MJG27ZOTWY3NAFER5XPMRZ6R4/
> 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/GKRE55TSDNLCG6K6J5ARRLJO2DNWH4I5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In an ideal world, it is indeed the content of the Wikimedia projects that
our public sees. Each project represents a set of editors who contribute to
a project. In general, all well meaning contributors are welcome. Some
contributors contribute regularly, take pride in it and associate
themselves with the project. Some of them actually participate in
discussions on talk pages and contribute to the building of a consensus.
Then there are the policy tigers, that insist that they are best placed to
discuss policies for everybody else and insist that their consensus
represents the community. Recently, on the Croatian Wikipedia a group of
policy tigers were removed for their insistence of a nationalistic point of
view.

When the "community" is given precedence over everything else, we get into
hot water. Often their hard fought consensus does not stack up well with
the research done on communities in particular research done on Wikipedia.
Typically a project is represented by a community that insists on a bias
for their project. This is easily recognised in the arguments against
activities by the Wikimedia organisation. "We do not need that", "it is
against the consensus, see this or that discussion", we should implement a
policy and you can read it on "XX.wikipedia.org".

When we allow for a Wikimedia movement, it is much bigger than all these
communities combined. It is where out global aims play a role, it is where
we strategise for us as a whole. It is where marketing needs to be applied
particularly as it is noticable that our biggest project next to Wikipedia,
Commons does not get the public it deserves. It is where the predominant
restrictive view of Wikipedias as our key focus leads to regrettable
results. When we then consider lists, it is shown time and again that
English Wikipedia is not able to maintain all its lists and yet a
"consensus" prevents WMF from providing list functionality to other
Wikipedias because "it is complicated". Who will argue that the bottom 150
Wikipedias in size have the capability to maintain the lists they arguable
have a need for and who would deny a local community to accept the
functionality that is on a par if not better than what any Wikipedia offers
right now? Is it that complicated? Remember that "wiki" means, implies?

The Foundation or the organisation enables our movement. All our projects,
communities and chapters. It provides a setting where a consensus is sought
for all of us. It is how the 2030 strategy came about. Giving its
permanency, it is ideally suited to represent our whole to other
organisations and seek how we can best achieve our goal; sharing the sum of
all knowledge. It operates by checks and balances, it is where at this time
the board of the Wikimedia Foundation plays a key role.

When people consider it dangerous that it is the Wikimedia Foundation that
plays a key role in maintaining our values, I invite them to consider the
biases that exists in their communities and the insistence to see the
implied consensus applied on other communities and projects. My example of
lists is a relative innocent example.

In brief, we need marketing and we need to be humble of what a consensus
implies.
Thanks,
 GerardM



On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 19:29, Dggenwp  wrote:

> Certainly the projects have a role beyond content—in particular, they, not
> the foundation, are what the public sees. They are what it is needed to
> publicise (I don’t like to use the term “marketing “ — that’s the way the
> foundation speaks) and this is a key role of the chapters.
>
> The obvious role of the foundation, besides the basic central services, is
> to deal with its natural counterparts—formal organisations such as
> governments and copyright agencies.
>
> I recognise the need for coordination and the possible need to intervene
> to maintain minimum standards. But these are historically dangerous roles,
> for “protection “ against potential forces that might oppose our values has
> an ominous potential  also.—
> DGG
> Obviously I speak only for myself—assume the appropriate qualifications
> before every phrase
>
> On Jul 10, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Ciell Wikipedia 
> wrote:
>
> 
> Bill/Will mentioned this might be a new organisational chart
> of the Wikimedia
> Foundation. Of course, visuals differ depending on what you are trying to
> visualize.
>
> This one
> 
> for instance would be more along the lines of what you, Dgg, are
> mentioning: how the different parties are involved in our projects. This
> one
> 
> would be more about how content on the projects is governed, and the
> different layers in responsibilities we have. This one
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The purpose of a Wikipedia is to provide encyclopaedic knowledge to a
public. The purpose of the Wikimedia projects is to share in the sum of all
knowledge. What the Wikimedia organisation supports is the infrastructure
for our public to share in the sum of all the knowledge available to us and
enable our editing communities to expand on this.

We all have our role to play and it is not good to disparage others or to
think that what we do is possible without the support of the whole of the
Wikimedia movement. It is a bias and it is discriminatory in the essence of
the word. We are not here to build an encyclopaedia, we are here to share
in the sum of all knowledge in every language. We do it for our public and
that is why we need an organisation that enables and supports us in
achieving this. If I have one regret, it is that we do not have a marketing
department. Its function is to understand what more we can do to share in
the knowledge that we have. As we reach out widely, when we endeavour to
fulfill our aim to the fullest, we will grow our Wikimedia editing
communities and it will show in the distribution of the data that moves
from our servers into the world.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 23:16, Dggenwp  wrote:

> The projects are the route by  which content is added to Wikipedia. The
> purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose  is to have
> and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything
> except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can
> be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising
> themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is
> capable of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of
> value, primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be
> social clubs.
>
> The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what
> matters. The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining
> MediaWiki  (but that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount
> of essential funding, and the critically important political work of
> supporting freedom of the internet and of speech more generally. But our
> influence for this is because people in the world use the content the
> volunteers add to the projects. The structure must be organised around
> them. We are here to build an encyclopaedia.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Željko Blaće  wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much enlightening,
>> and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some time now.
>>
>
> I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher
> level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors.
>
>
>
>> I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For
>> instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research:
>> employees are equals, just with a different function in the
>> organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented in
>> a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one
>>  for
>> example.
>>
>
> Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent
> equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert.
>
> BTW.
> .svg file export would be best
> for the posibility of translation
> within Wikimedia Commons ;-)
>
>
> Best, Z.
>
>
>> Vriendelijke groet,
>> Ciell
>>
>>
>> Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi <
>> billtakato...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look
>>> like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new
>>> email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from
>>> there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems
>>> sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since
>>> improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have
>>> since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't
>>> allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous
>>> submission(s).
>>>
>>> This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look
>>> like in one year's time:
>>>
>>>  https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
>>>
>>> Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I
>>> am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> -Will
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi.
One reason why I am a candidate for the board of the WMF is that in my
opinion one function is lacking. There is no reflection of the fact that
all that we do is to share the sum of all knowledge. It is not only about
the creation of content but also about sharing the sum all the knowledge
that is available to us.

For obvious reasons, the contributors to the projects are heard. I do not
subscribe to the notion that the "projects" need to be in the
organisational chart. With 300 languages and potentially multiple projects
for each language it is impossible to have equity among these projects. The
point that I have made repeatedly: Commons is not useful in any language
but English, this does not need to be as there is software that works
equally well in any language dependent on the availability of labels in
Wikidata. This is just one example, there are more.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 01:04, Bill Takatoshi  wrote:

> Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look
> like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new
> email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from
> there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems
> sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since
> improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have
> since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't
> allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous
> submission(s).
>
> This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look
> like in one year's time:
>
>  https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
>
> Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I
> am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
>
> Thank you!
>
> -Will
> ___
> 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/DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2/
> 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/G5VTNLIQ6QB2P5TPGWTKR4CJ7UKI7VZF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Fae a few points..First board members are volunteers like you and all the
things that are asked of a candidate represents a significant amount of
time. In addition there are timelines and the notion of a process to
improve questions is not really feasible. Also I said it before, many of
the questions asked have nothing to do with the remit of a board member.
Effectively, issues are put before the board and the board typically asks
the WMF org for a proposal.

As to autonomy of communities, they exist within boundaries. In the past
projects have been put on notice, have been deleted and senior people from
a project have been banned (most recently at the Croatian Wikipedia).

Given that I am a member of the language committee, there are plans to do
away with Incubator and have projects provisionally created. When the
content of the project shows that it does not represent the language or
other significant problems it will be removed. This ensures a much easier
integration from the start for a starting project. NB a language will first
have to be considered "eligible".  After this, it will have the prospect of
activation given the policies of the Language committee.

As to funding of what you call external .. calling the paid-for API
external is disingenuous. We already provide this service, it is part of
our commitment to share in the sum of all knowledge. With this service we
provide a better service to commercial entities that ask for a service
level and are willing to pay for the additional service. This service
improves quality all around. As to payments to external parties. I am all
for it when it provides a real service to our movement. I would
for instance make Wikicite a shared project with the Internet Archive
because it would deduplicate services and the combination will improve
services to us and to them.

You call the process opaque. It is. It is because it is attempting to bring
more engagement from all over the world, the way it is done is new and
there is a difference between the operational reality and the expectations
during the planning phase. This is not a community process even though the
objective is very much to engage a wider public.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 08:18, Fæ  wrote:

> I'm surprised at how odd the "selected questions" read,[1] which will
> probably result in off-topic or wooly answers by the candidates unless
> they have "abstracts" somewhere to unpack the coded language.
>
> "What is your opinion on the claim of autonomy by Wikipedia
> communities and the attempts of the Wikimedia Foundation to regulate
> control over community?"
> - No idea what issues this is attempting to cover, exactly which
> claims about autonomy, is WMDE going to spin off to become a public
> library, is the WMF going to get rid of project sysops and replace
> them with contractors? The question could have been a lot more
> specific.
>
> "How should the Wikimedia Foundation engage with emerging
> WikiCommunities in the near future (next 2 to 3 years)?"
> - What emerging communities, what is a WikiCommunity? Many (external)
> communities exist that don't have specific Affiliate representation,
> is this what it is implying. I don't know.
>
> "What do you think about the Wikimedia Foundation using funds for
> purposes not related to Wikimedia projects?"
> - The WMF uses funds for all sorts of things unrelated to the specific
> projects, for example, the Commercial paid-for API is an external
> commercial service, it is not intended as a service to the projects
> and the projects never asked for it. It's weird to have an 'official'
> question that implies other stuff does not exist.
>
> Agree that the opaque process followed for choosing these questions,
> then having no community process for improving them, is a missed
> opportunity.
>
> Links
> 1.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> ___
> 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/6IMVPDSCBUP4KQGIVQAO54WI32UPVE5J/
> 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/U55RRSSDLG3SK7F6VG6JN62EGEQWIO6C/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi, some reflections:

You have to appreciate that fulfilling the role of a board member of the
Wikimedia Foundations is very time consuming. The candidates that may be
chosen from are all volunteers, they have a day job. The argument for
having only eleven questions as given to us candidates was: there is a
limit to the number of questions because otherwise it will require too much
of your time.

When I read the unfiltered questions, there are questions, actually
demands, on the time of board members question 52 is a good example.
Members of the board have fiduciary duties in their role. It is reasonable
to expect that more time will be required than what is advertised as the
time commitment. When people expect that individual questions are answered
in a specified timeframe, it becomes unrealistic given the number of
communities and the number of members in those communities.

There are also questions in there that are operational and will as a
consequence not be considered by the board. Eg question 47, 50.

Other questions are framed in a way that gives them a distinct American
slant. Question 55 for instance is important but then consider this: we
have a font for dyslexic people and never considered updating them with
support for cyrillic scripts. The request for funding for fonts for
SignWriting, the only font for sign languages was denied. My point is that
yes, this might be considered but the way it works is that the board
discusses proposals, maybe asks for proposals from the WMF org. The
question is not effective because it points to laws but does not show how
this is to be made practical.

The questions reflect what members of the community are interested in. In
my opinion, it should work the other way around as well. My objective as a
member of the board will be to share more of the knowledge that is
available to us. I want Commons to be searchable in any language, I want
the public to easily find available books from Wikisource in the languages
people know how to read. I want us to share information in lists that can
be used on any projects that has an interest in them (eg all the heads of
state, all the national ministers of all the countries of the world). What
do you think? To give it teeth, I want our traffic to reflect the diversity
of people and the language they know.

When people suggest that the communities have the primacy in their
projects. I respectively remind them of the projects that were closed,
projects where significant people in the community were removed. We have
policies, we have a strategy that binds us all. As a board member, we are
expected to subscribe to both.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 17:55, 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
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
First, I am a candidate for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. I have
taken time to see what people say, not react immediately.

For María to become a consultant, I am of two minds. She is probably best
placed to support the implementation of the strategy as defined. With both
the director and the chair of the board left in quick succession this will
help make the roadmap practical. On the other hand, I do agree with Jan
Bart and in addition it can be considered "ruling from the grave". Yes, the
strategy is to be implemented but we have to be aware of our missing public.

This is the reason for my candidature; we have not developed other
languages and we foster the false assumption that it is only communities
that build our projects. The functionality that we have may be wonderfully
localised but it is the software itself that does not truly support other
languages. This is often because functionality is based on the demands of
the biggest Wikipedias. It is easy to define user stories and show how a
difference can be made. Everytime when this subject was broached,
promises were made for the future. The numbers show that this bias is
entrenched; compare the world population with the population that speaks
English and it should be obvious that we have a gap that needs to be
narrowed. Yes, there are easy and obvious things we can cheaply do. I want
us to put a genuine effort, find a potential public, serve a new public and
in this way build our communities.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 23:23,  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> While this office hour will be attended by more than me, I want to be very
> clear what my intentions are, because I understand that some people may be
> concerned that I plan to show up to simply justify our decision. That’s not
> my goal at all. My intentions are to share perspectives, listen, and learn
> to inform the specific actions to take. Only after that will I make a
> decision about how best to proceed, in conversation and partnership with
> María, the other members of the Transition Team, and the Board. I am
> committed to making well-informed decisions that support the movement and
> my responsibility to it as quickly as possible.
>
> It is obvious that despite our best intentions, the Board and Transition
> Team did not have all the relevant facts and circumstances in mind when
> this decision was made. This is a separate issue from whether or not a COI
> exists, which I plan for us to discuss together on Tuesday. I will take
> tangible steps to address these issues now that they have been brought to
> our attention. I want to make sure we do that with proper reflection, to
> avoid worsening those mistakes with poorly thought-out solutions. I would
> like to partner to repair this together, and grow stronger as a result.
>
> I look forward to seeing many of you tomorrow for Movement Strategy
> conversations and then again to discuss these and other transition matters
> on Tuesday.
>
> Sincerely,
> Amanda
> ___
> 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/CSXTZ5B77SC5DP2M44SY6QJDNBQW7GK5/
> 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/RNSWAGOB46PHVRURBC2JEROMT7ILICRV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Why is a guideline on English Wikipedia the right place for a policy that
is of a global relevance?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 09:05, টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta 
wrote:

> Hello,
> This is something I have been thinking about for some time. This June–July
> we will see a couple of elections/selections. I think wherever a voting is
> in process, an effective canvassing/promotion policy should be there. We
> may need to notify our friend Wikimedians about our candidacy, that is
> understandable, but there should be behavioral guidelines on what is
> appropriate and what is inappropriate promotion/canvassing.
> This email thread is about the process, and I won't mention any specific
> example, however during every election/committee formation we see different
> votestacking attempts and efforts. In such a situation there is a
> possibility that if a candidate has many social media or contacts and
> friends (Wimimedian), they will end up getting more votes than someone who
> entirely relied on their nomination and performance.
>
> There is a behavioral guideline on a Wikipedia project:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing
> I don't think this is globally applicable, and I am note sure if we have
> one global policy.
> Hence,
> 1) We can work on  "Canvassing guidelines", discussing appropriateness,
> inappropriateness etc.
> 2) These guidelines should be effectively used and it would be great if
> the candidates/contestants read and acknowledge that they will adhere to
> the protocol/policy.
> Kind regards,
>
> ইতি,/Regards
> টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
> (মাতৃভাষা থাক জীবন জুড়ে)
> ___
> 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/OUHBTWFZSPAG6V42AFBI56WBTIMRA3FX/
> 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/27NSH4XDEKZWKTOS2BUO7BSWWEVTPWIJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Why I am a candidate for the WMF board

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
My blog has been mine for the last fifteen years and a bit. I have had no
interference from Blogspot whatsoever.

What I aim to achieve is more inclusion by opening up the knowledge that we
have. When we do, Commons will be approachable by children who can read in
their own language and who will ook and find many pictures of a shumba
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shumba#Shona>. When we do we gain a public
for all the finished works in a Wikisource. To do this is a strategic
choice because we have not done this so far.

When we consider inclusion, it makes sense to consider the people we do not
reach and consider what is easy to do to change that. It starts with
technical issues and outreach including marketing will follow quickly. A
lack of inclusion exists on many levels, we should choose to pick these low
hanging fruits as a priority.
Thanks,
   GerardM



On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 at 11:41, Željko Blaće  wrote:

> On 6/13/21, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2021/06/board-member-of-wikimedia-foundation.html
>
> Good for you Gerard. However it would be better if your inputs would
> not consistently direct away from Wikimedia infrastructure for
> communication and publishing to the one that is owned and controlled
> by blogspot.com ;-)
>
> Good luck!
> Z. Blace
> ___
> 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
> 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
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Why I am a candidate for the WMF board

[Gerard Meijssen]

  Hoi,
I have put myself forward as a candidate for the board of the Wikimedia
Foundation. What I hope to achieve is that as a global community, as a
movement, foundation, we will share more of "the sum of the knowledge that
is available to us".

In my opinion this fits in perfectly with our stated objectives, what it
takes is a reflection on what we can do with what we have for the other
250+ languages. I have a notion of what success will mean: it means that
our traffic will increasingly be not for English projects and yes, I want
our traffic in English to grow as well!

In a blogpost [1] I mention a few of the easy pickings. There could be so
much more. When you have an idea post it on Meta and let me know as well.

Success has many fathers, one mother.
Thanks,
   GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2021/06/board-member-of-wikimedia-foundation.html
___
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
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Flourishing of the Endowment

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I respectfully totally disagree.
My response you find on my blog..
Thanks,
 GerardM


https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2021/05/wikimedia-needs-your-support-because.html


On Mon, 24 May 2021 at 16:49, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi again, Julia and Pats,
>
> I've written an article for The Daily Dot, based on our conversations on
> Meta. You can find the article here:
>
> https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundraising/
>
> In response to my questions on Talk:Wikimedia Endowment, Pats pointed me
> to the FAQ at
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2019-2020_-_frequently_asked_questions#Why_is_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_increasing_its_cash_and_investment_balance
> ?
>
> and a link to that FAQ is included in the article's penultimate paragraph
> ("official answer"). If you would like to add any further comment to the
> article, please let us know, and we'll be happy to add it!
>
> To anyone who thinks the article raises an important issue about Wikimedia
> fundraising, I'd be grateful if you shared it online.
>
> Best wishes,
> Andreas Kolbe
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 8:30 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Hi Julia,
>>
>> That's great. One other question:
>>
>> Looking at the first quarter Advancement tuning session[1], the July 2020
>> – June 2021 fiscal year started out with a WMF fundraising year goal of
>> $108 million (+$5 million for the Endowment).
>>
>> $108 million is also the total Expense figure in the 2020/2021 annual
>> plan.[2]
>>
>> By the time of the second quarter tuning session[3], the WMF year goal
>> had increased by $17 million to $125 million.
>>
>> And according to that same page[3] the WMF had almost met that goal at
>> the end of the second quarter, standing at $124 million (a little over,
>> actually, summing the component amounts).
>>
>> The Endowment had taken $17.5 million by the end of the second quarter,
>> $12.5 million above its $5 million target.[3]
>>
>> I am reading this correctly, aren't I?
>>
>> Now, according to the public fundraising data Excel file[4], the WMF has
>> taken $11.5 million in the calendar year to date (i.e. in the fiscal year's
>> third and fourth quarters running from January to June 2021).
>>
>> So, if you were at $124 million by the end of December, and have taken
>> another $11.5 million since, would it be correct to conclude that the WMF
>> (excluding the endowment) is now at $135.5 million, i.e. $27.5 million
>> above the expense figure in the annual plan, and $10.5 million above the
>> revised, higher year goal?
>>
>> If so, why are you currently fundraising in pandemic-stricken Latin
>> America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay)?
>>
>> The WMF is a Foundation staffed by people living for the most part in the
>> world's richest countries. For example, it takes 200,000 people in India
>> donating the suggested 150 Rupees ($2) just to pay the annual compensation
>> of the WMF CEO.
>>
>> Based on the above figures, it seems the WMF has already taken tens of
>> millions more this fiscal year than it spent. And yet it's still
>> fundraising in countries that have been hit far worse by the pandemic than
>> the US and Europe. In Brazil the pandemic has been a disaster. Uruguay
>> currently has coronavirus case rates that are nearly 7 times higher per
>> capita than in the US.[5] In Argentina, they are 4 times higher than in the
>> US. In Brazil, Colombia and Chile, 2 to 3 times higher. In Peru, 1.5 times
>> higher.
>>
>> These are countries with weak economies that have suffered enormously,
>> whose social security systems are far less well equipped to help people
>> deal with this tragedy.
>>
>> And we're asking them for money? Is this really who we want to be?
>>
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_first_quarter_2020-2021_tuning_session_-_Advancement.pdf=9
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019/Annual_Plan_2020-2021
>> [3]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AWikimedia_Foundation_second_quarter_2020-2021_tuning_session_-_Advancement.pdf=11
>> [4] https://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-ytdsum.csv
>> [5]
>> https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/corona-virus-karte-infektionen-deutschland-weltweit/
>>
>> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:52 AM Julia Brungs 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> We investigated the question you raised about separating the endowment
>>> gift from other grants. Separating the endowment gift from other grants is
>>> not an audit (GAAP) requirement. But due to the nature of the expenses and
>>> our principle of transparency, we do disclose the purpose of the Endowment
>>> Fund and the amounts funded both in the fiscal year of the report as well
>>> as cumulative to-date in Footnote 6 of the audit report [1]. We can
>>> certainly add this to the FAQs going forward.
>>>
>>> Just as a reminder, many of the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Flourishing of the Endowment

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
First of all I totally agree that the endowment should function as a
guarantee that material donated to Commons by people and organisations
effectively guarantees its future existence and availability. With the
United States destabilised by fracturing democratic institutes, it follows
that at least one data centre outside of the United States has become more
and more a necessity. What the future brings for the USA has never been
this unpredictable.

The point of a repository like Commons is that it is to be used and usable.
For many years I have argued that Commons is effectively English only (my
most recent blogpost [1]).. Obviously the number of images at Commons that
include "Depicts" is far from complete but it DOES provide a gateway for
the public that uses a Wikimedia resource not in English (+50% of Wikimedia
traffic). At this moment Hay Kranen's tool provides the best service [2],
it used to be the native "Special:MediaSearch" until they merged it with
text search resulting in flooding the results with English results.

The effort needed to restore a dedicated search function based on the
"Depicts" statements is minor. It will open up Commons to a different
public. Having a wide and dispersed public is with ample funding the best
guarantee that Commons as a repository will persist.
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2021/04/how-to-find-pictures-of-it-means-beaver.html
[2] https://hay.toolforge.org/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q81091

On Fri, 7 May 2021 at 16:10, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> I have a slightly different take on the current purposes of the endowment.
>
> When the community was discussing the setting up of an endowment several
> years ago, I was one of those involved in our GLAM outreach who saw a big
> opportunity. At some point the endowment would be big enough that the WMF
> would be able to promise the cultural sector that Wikimedia Commons and or
> WikiSource would be around for the foreseeable future.
>
> For those of us who talk to museums, archives, libraries and anyone else
> in the cultural sector who has invested in digitising content, one of the
> big issues is future proofing. How can I deposit a digital copy of this
> material in such a way that it is likely to survive for the use of future
> generations. Whether or not an individual cultural organisation survives in
> the longterm, the ability to upload a copy of their digital collection to
> an institution that does have a credible plan for being around for the
> foreseeable future should be a huge positive.
>
> This is not a new issue. It wasn't a new issue over 800 years ago when
> multiple copies were made of the Magna Carta and deposited with different
> institutions. Four of those copies survive today. Handwritten copies on the
> finest sheepskin parchment are very different things to digital copies with
> an institution that has multiple servers in multiple locations, and an
> endowment that should be able to fund migrating that information to
> whatever the internet becomes in future centuries. But the principle is a
> good one, and a role that I think the WMF could usefully step into.
>
> If the endowment has grown to the point where the WMF could now announce
> that it can be confident of financing Wikimedia Commons and WikiSource for
> the foreseeable future, that doesn't mean that one penny need be tapped
> from that endowment while other fundraising is healthy. A guarantee can be
> issued on the understanding that it is unlikely to need to be redeemed for
> some years. Hopefully in those years the endowment could grow to the point
> where the guarantee could be extended to other projects such as Wikidata,
> WikiVoyage, Wiktionary and Wikipedia. But there is a case for prioritising
> Wikimedia Commons and WikiSource for such a guarantee, it would open more
> doors in the cultural sector and attract uploads of materials that could be
> used to improve Wikipedia and other projects..
>
> I suspect that the endowment is already big enough to issue such a
> commitment, if not, at the least the WMF should be able to set a target for
> how big the endowment needs to be for this to be possible.
>
> As for the more topical question of current fundraising and fundraising
> for the endowment, I for one would be happy with a compromise whereby in
> future donations would only be added to the endowment if they were
> specifically given for the endowment, and each years fundraising would stop
> when it had raised enough money to cover the following year's budgeted
> expenditure.
>
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>>
>> ___
> 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] Idea of a new project: Wikifacts ?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Jimmy has a project that does exactly that.

Having said that, what we could do is have a project investigating the
missing information in Wikidata. The bias in Wikidata is alive and well. I
doubt for instance that there is one city in Africa whose mayors are all
known in Wikidata.. For Northern America and European towns this is common.
We do not even know all the national ministers of African countries for the
twentieth and twenty first century.

Fact checking starts with having facts in dispute and we don't even have
many of the basic facts. That is a project that we could and should have.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 20:17, 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Trees and Wikimedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Wikimedia is now associated with a project where trees are planted.

In many ways the notion of planting new trees is great.

However, very often it is not. In Europe grazers are actively introduced to
prevent shrubs and trees from growing. Reasons for this abound. The first
is that it helps biodiversity. Second, trees often create a fire risk.
Third, when trees are in the seed bank, you do not have to plant them, they
will grow when they are left alone to grow. When they are not in the local
seed bank, trophic rewilding will introduce the species that distribute
seeds and/or you can plant trees as a starter for a seed bank.

When you really really want to make a difference, you protect marshes,
prevent peat from burning or being exploited. You can prevent water rushing
to sea by introducing leaky weirs/beavers and adding swales to prevent
water to rush downstream. There is plenty of literature to be found on
these subject in Wikidata. For Wikipedia there is a recent template that
links a reference in a Wikipedia article to the item for the paper in
Wikidata.

When you really care to understand a paper, you use the Scholia for a paper
to learn more about what the publication is about.. Yes, more effort to
expose scientific papers would be cool. This [1] is an example of a paper I
am working on at the moment.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1] https://scholia.toolforge.org/work/Q51696994
___
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] Translatable modules

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Would it be considered for projects that are not the initial target to opt
in.. I expect that particular in the smaller projects this will be really
welcome and beneficial.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 16:39, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> *Crossposting to Wikimedia-L, Wikitech-L, MediaWiki-L, and
> Wikitech-Ambassadors. You can reply to the mailing list, but the ideal
> place for further discussion is the talk pages of the wiki pages to which I
> link below.*
>
> There's a new proposal to localize Lua modules in a more modern, safe, and
> convenient manner: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Translatable_modules .
>
> In the foreseeable future it will only affect multilingual sites, such as
> Wikidata, Commons, Meta, and mediawiki.org, but at a later time it may
> also
> be deployed on Wikipedias and other projects.
>
> It will be great if experienced module developers could take a look at the
> project page, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Translatable_modules , and
> its
> subpages, especially https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Translatable
> modules/Proposed solutions . Your feedback will be very helpful in
> implementing this project in a way that really benefits all the editors.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, 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] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do not like the text. You first state a  problem that the policy is to
address. By flipping the order it becomes instantly more positive. The
objective is to instill the notion what normal behaviour is and that sadly
we have to insist on normal behaviour.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 22:18, Patrick Earley  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> , which the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> >,
> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6,
> 2020.
>
> The UCoC Drafting Committee
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >wants
> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your
> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be
> improved?
>
>
> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations
> so far.
>
>
> Please join the conversation
> 
> and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
>
> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct
> page
> , and the FAQ
> , on Meta.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
>
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>
> --
> Patrick Earley
> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> pear...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
We do not need a "centralised Wiki for NC files". What we need is
recognition of what we have and where we have it.

In the Wikification of media files, only the files at Commons have so far
been considered. In addition to the mediafiles that should be in Commons
because of their license, there are mediafiles that have all kinds of
licenses and may also be used under the "fair use" doctrine. When there is
one database for any and all mediafiles, many things become possible
including searching and finding files that are "not commercial"..

One significant benefit is that we can phase a fair use file out when there
is a freely available picture.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 15:32, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  Centralized Wiki for NC files will work. It's the same debate when we
> started to put metadata on Commons, it did not stop the process, it just
> made it slower and less efficient, but it remained kinda inevitable.
> It's the same background, the frustration and confusion of the current
> situation is projected to the future one, it's mostly a "passive"
> resistance with a little bit of patronizing attitude toward other
> communities. It happens also because the more some users assume this future
> scenario is inevitable, the easier it is for them to consider the present
> situation as inevitable as well and skip any responsibility, it's a little
> bit an identity element.
>
> Local users are not confused or irritated in general because they are
> moody, it's mostly because the Commons community is moody. Local
> communities are not three or four isolated users, they are structured, with
> a spectrum of established competences. The mass of users involved will come
> from that pool. I am pretty sure that if you build a repository without all
> the users who encouraged most of the dysfunctional attitude we have now on
> Commons, it's going to be better, if not fine. For some of us in the end
> the local user repeating a wrong concept to get a file kept is very similar
> to the Commons user doing the same to make it deleted, the same stubborn
> attitude with limited overall perspective that few people really wanted in
> the first place. These two profiles find a balance but it's not the best
> balance for the general workflow, it's a "social thing". Whatever disrupt
> the situation, give us some chance to improve that.
>
> Of course many users will show there to oppose. And if approved, for the
> first two or three years at every single minor misstep of the process they
> will jump there foretelling disasters: They usually find the time to oppose
> to this sort of requests, more than doing a lot of other tasks probably,
> and the concepts are usually the same. That's why its getting more and more
> difficult to give to it a big weigh.
> In any case, some way to centralize existing NC will be found. For
> example, think about Wikidata item for logos and connect them to local
> files. It will be more tortuous, in a way it's not noticed immediately,
> probably. Until we get there somehow, personally I skip many activities
> regarding NC including their conversion, and focus on something else. I am
> probably not the only one adopting more or less this attitude.
>
> Good outreach for me is not about a single aspect, is a method, and will
> always include a spectrum of results. The statement "no Wikipedia if you
> don't remove NC" is not really so effective, it sounds cheap especially
> after many years Wiki exists and people know what they want. For the
> high-quality material we miss, I think it's more about proposing a good
> project, a structured project and in that framework I can suggest to update
> some NC. I have refused to trick people to give files with no NC, I clearly
> tell them to understand the license. There are many files which were not
> uploaded initially, but those users ended up giving more new files later.
> If I could be a user with a flag for NC upload, I will put a very limited
> amount of files per year, but the process behind such files will be very
> valuable.
>
> A.
>
>Il martedì 14 luglio 2020, 09:41:05 CEST, Erik Moeller <
> eloque...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  James wrote:
>
> > I simply wish that such a position would convince more
> > organizations. WHO has repeatedly told me that we, as a non-profit, are
> > already free to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.
>
> I agree of course that this sort of institutional inertia can be
> incredibly frustrating, especially in cases like WHO -- a publicly
> funded international institution which should be putting its work in
> the public domain. For all its own institutional failings (and there
> are many, past and present), the US was at least able to get that much
> right in its copyright laws more than 100 years ago. I don't believe
> we should let publicly funded institutions that use restrictive
> licensing terms off the hook, and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So what is your alternative, what do you have as an alternative?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 20:24, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Hi Christel,
> I wish the committee well, and success in coming up with a workable
> policy. This is fine as long as no assumption is made that these people
> represent the communities in any way other than for themselves. They may be
> fine people and may even have excellent ideas and skills suited to the
> task, but they are not our representatives, and we expect to be consulted
> regarding the results of this work. I understand that this may be your
> intention anyway, but we have seen too many fiascos  resulting from a small
> group of people coming up with some proposal and WMF declaring this to be
> "movement policy" or something to that effect.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Christel Steigenberger
> Sent: 30 July 2020 19:49
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee -
> Call for participation
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> We are happy to announce that the Universal Code of Conduct drafting
> committee has been assembled. We had 26 volunteers apply, either by
> publicly signing up on the Meta page, or by sending an email. Volunteers
> from 18 different countries applied, speaking 11 different languages.
>
> We had Wikimedian applicants with different levels of experience on-wiki,
> from someone who started editing only last year to people who have been
> editing for more than 18 years and/or have more than 300,000 edits.
> Applicants held a variety of different roles within the movement, and also
> informed us about interesting and relevant experiences in their real-life
> careers. It was very hard to narrow down from this diverse and extremely
> qualified pool of applicants.
>
> For the final selection, two aspects guided the decision making - we want a
> committee that at the one hand will represent important parts of the
> movement. Prolific editors as well as Wikimedians whose strength is more in
> organizing events, wikimedians from different demographics, contributors
> from small and large wikis, and people holding different roles within the
> movement. We also wanted a group of people who will collaborate with one
> another effectively and create the best possible Universal Code of Conduct
> for the Wikimedia movement. Experience has taught us that committees that
> are too large find it difficult to work effectively, so we decided to cap
> the number of seats to 6 volunteer seats and 3 staff seats.
>
> More information on the Committee and its new members can be found on Meta
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >
> [1], and a timeline for their work is available on the main UCoC page
>  [2]. Please
> note that more chances for engagement are coming up during the community
> draft review period starting from August 24.
>
> Best regards,
> Christel
>
>   [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>
> Christel Steigenberger (she/her)
>
> Trust and Safety Specialist
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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] Freedom and speech.. broaching the subject of our Wikimedia bias

[Gerard Meijssen]

I have documenten my Wiki related activities for fifteen years on my blog
[1]. I write argued opinions centred around my experiences. I always invite
people to consider the arguments and argue their point.

At this point I find the Wikimedia Foundation increasingly intolerant of
considered opinions. I made the case for other projects, considered
remedies like bonuses for senior management for growth in other projects,
and I do consider it a bias when everything is centred around Wikipedia and
the English Wikipedia at that.
I find that I am censured when I want to post to this Facebook group and I
am censured when I post on Wikimedia-l. Read what I write, my arguments are
to make our movement a better place. Look up what I do and have done, with
2,770,630 edits I have been deeply involved in our projects. I am censured
because it is not ok for me to speak freely and say that our approach is
one of bias, a bias that is detrimental to our mission.
Thanks,
GerardM

PS it will be a relief when I find this posted on the mailinglist and when
my latest blogpost gets attention on Facebook

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/
___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
How can OTRS be part of Wikipedia, it is there for any and all projects.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Aron Manning
> Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
>
>
> I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
>
> > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> boomerang*.
> >
> > Yours sincerely, ...
>
> The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> thought about contacting OTRS since then.
>
>
> 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,
> 
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
HAPPY NEWS :)

We will learn a lot, experience many challenges and it does have the
potential to provide more of the information that is available to us.
Particularly in languages other than English the impact can be huge.

At a Wikidata conference in Berlin we had someone from PanLex present [1],
with the new project this is a collaboration that will make a big
difference.

Happy to see many parts of the puzzle find a place.
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1] https://mobile.wikidatacon.org/#_session-SE-14

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 18:04, Katherine Maher  wrote:

> (A translatable version of this announcement can be found on Meta [1])
>
> Hi all,
>
> It is my honor to introduce Abstract Wikipedia [1], a new project that has
> been unanimously approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
> Abstract Wikipedia proposes a new way to generate baseline encyclopedic
> content in a multilingual fashion, allowing more contributors and more
> readers to share more knowledge in more languages. It is an approach that
> aims to make cross-lingual cooperation easier on our projects, increase the
> sustainability of our movement through expanding access to participation,
> improve the user experience for readers of all languages, and innovate in
> free knowledge by connecting some of the strengths of our movement to
> create something new.
>
> This is our first new project in over seven years. Abstract Wikipedia was
> submitted as a project proposal by Denny Vrandečić in May of 2020 [2] after
> years of preparation and research, leading to a detailed plan and lively
> discussions in the Wikimedia communities. We know that the energy and the
> creativity of the community often runs up against language barriers, and
> information that is available in one language may not make it to other
> language Wikipedias. Abstract Wikipedia intends to look and feel like a
> Wikipedia, but build on the powerful, language-independent conceptual
> models of Wikidata, with the goal of letting volunteers create and maintain
> Wikipedia articles across our polyglot Wikimedia world.
>
> The project will allow volunteers to assemble the fundamentals of an
> article using words and entities from Wikidata. Because Wikidata uses
> conceptual models that are meant to be universal across languages, it
> should be possible to use and extend these building blocks of knowledge to
> create models for articles that also have universal value. Using code,
> volunteers will be able to translate these abstract “articles” into their
> own languages. If successful, this could eventually allow everyone to read
> about any topic in Wikidata in their own language.
>
> As you can imagine, this work will require a lot of software development,
> and a lot of cooperation among Wikimedians. In order to make this effort
> possible, Denny will join the Foundation as a staff member in July and lead
> this initiative. You may know Denny as the creator of Wikidata, a long-time
> community member, a former staff member at Wikimedia Deutschland, and a
> former Trustee at the Wikimedia Foundation[3]. We are very excited that
> Denny will bring his skills and expertise to work on this project alongside
> the Foundation’s product, technology, and community liaison teams.
>
> It is important to acknowledge that this is an experimental project and
> that every Wikipedia community has different needs. This project may offer
> some communities great advantages. Other communities may engage less. Every
> language Wikipedia community will be free to choose and moderate whether or
> how they would use content from this project.
>
> We are excited that this new wiki-project has the possibility to advance
> knowledge equity through increased access to knowledge. It also invites us
> to consider and engage with critical questions about how and by whom
> knowledge is constructed. We look forward to working in cooperation with
> the communities to think through these important questions.
>
> There is much to do as we begin designing a plan for Abstract Wikipedia in
> close collaboration with our communities. I encourage you to get involved
> by going to the project page and joining the new mailing list[4]. We
> recognize that Abstract Wikipedia is ambitious, but we also recognize its
> potential. We invite you all to join us on a new, unexplored path.
>
> Yours,
> Katherine Maher
>
> Executive Director,
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract
> Wikipedia/June 2020 announcement
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_Wikipedia
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Denny
> [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
> --
>
> Katherine Maher (she/her)
>
> Executive Director
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to 

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Dunning and Kruger have nothing to do with it; I am perfectly able to get
it wrong. What you do is dismissive and you do not make a point. That makes
it a fail by default.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 13:58, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Dunning and Kruger identified the effect, unfortunately they did not
> identify a cure.
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
>
> Hoi,
> Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
> warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
> argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
> exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
> what has been expressed?
>
> For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
> Wikimedian who I respect.
>
> When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
> expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
> are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> > choices
> > > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects
> and
> > > you make that plain in what you say.
> > >
> >
> > This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> > completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please
> stop.
> >
> > [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> > nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> > ___
> > 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>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
what has been expressed?

For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
Wikimedian who I respect.

When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> choices
> > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> > you make that plain in what you say.
> >
>
> This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.
>
> [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> ___
> 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] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
you make that plain in what you say. The problem with bias is that it has
consequences in how you approach issues. When Wikipedia "consensus" has it
that we do not collaborate with Wikidata, it follows that you will not
consider linking blue and red wiki links to Wikidata items and not to
Wikipedia titles. From a Wikipedia point of view it is perfectly acceptable
but no longer a great choice. From a Wikimedia point of view,
not considering options shows that there is no consideration for our
overall goal; sharing in the sum of all knowledge.

Wikimedia has multiple projects and we will have more impact when we
collaborate. Commons is searchable in any and all languages thanks to
Special:MediaSearch [1], when we expose it on every Wikipedia, it will be
easier to illustrate Wikipedias. Wikidata can rid Wikipedia of much of its
false friends problem and it can ensure that lists are better maintained.
Magnus has shown that this is true even for English Wikipedia and as always
English Wikipedia is only one of the Wikipedias.

When Wikipedia is mentioned, English Wikipedia is implied. It has something
like 50% of our traffic and it does represent less than 50% or our target
audience. I am all for improving the marketing of our projects but the bias
for and the toxicity of English Wikipedia makes me oppose it. In essence,
it is English Wikipedia that has to polish up its act, accept
opposing points of view from others before it becomes reasonable to accept
it as a flagship.
Thanks,
  GerardM



[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap=boomkikker

On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 at 23:06, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> Dear Natalia,
>
> I wouldn't say that it was a badly designed survey, more that it was a
> survey designed to constrain responses to three specific options. The
> problem is with the choice of those options and that the survey seems to be
> designed to push the community into a particular direction, rather than
> find out what direction if any the community wanted to go in.
>
> "No name change is necessary" is not the only missing option. I'm sure I am
> not the only person who accepts that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are
> sufficiently similar that it causes confusion, or who knows that some
> people assume that we are connected to WikiLeaks. Changing the name of the
> WMF to something that is a suitable parent for all the projects, not just
> Wikipedia, and that reduces confusion with WikiLeaks should be a relatively
> harmless thing for the WMF to do. There are only a limited number of
> projects that the WMF can take on at any time, and this wouldn't have been
> my priority. But if you are going to rebrand, then doing so without
> differentiating yourselves from WikiLeaks, and without maintaining some
> sense of being a parent for multiple projects not just one favoured child,
> does seem to me to be a mistake. So "if you want to change your name, don't
> change it to Wikipedia, Wiki or to something you can't trademark" is also a
> position, I suspect it is stronger than "no name change is necessary".
>
>
> Regards
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 02:27:11 +0300
> > From: Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > cakt1n5oks9e_vaez4lkizjrv_9p4oqjscc26fvyvykip13y...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> >
> > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed
> to
> > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> were
> > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> changing
> > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> what.
> > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> if a
> > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> been
> > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > August meeting.
> >
> > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> the
> > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> have
> > an in-depth discussion about this, before 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: "Movement"

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is abundantly clear that some identify only by their community. It is
abundantly clear that people in some communities do not recognise shared
values like "sharing in the sum of all knowledge".

It is also clear that the Wikimedia Foundation is not bound by what some in
a community insist on. It is exactly what was foreseen when the WMF was
incorporated. It is also why the WMF does not need to agree with what some
in a community express.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 08:02, Paul J. Weiss  wrote:

> [From my comments in the rebranding survey]
>
> "Movement"
>
> Please stop calling us a "movement". I am an active Wikipedia contributor,
> but I do not feel part of a movement. Know that I feel excluded when we are
> referred to as a movement. I would guess that most Wikimedians do not
> consider themselves part of a movement. I feel that I am part of the
> Wikimedia _community_.
>
> Note that in the English Wikipedia the title of the relevant article is
> indeed "Wikipedia community", _not_ "Wikipedia movement" (which is a
> redirect). In fact, the word "movement" does not appear in the main text of
> the article at all. "Wikimedia movement" is the title of its article, but
> it is described as "the global community of contributors to Wikimedia
> Foundation projects". A community of contributors is not the same thing as
> a movement. I would say that none of the definitions given in the
> Definitions section of the Social movement article apply to us.
>
> One significant problem to using "movement" is that some, including the
> WMF, exploit the connotations of the word towards social justice, or a
> "greater good", as a rationalization for behaviors that a community might
> not support (and in many cases our community has indeed opposed WMF's
> behavior). Another is the implication that there is basically a core set of
> beliefs and priorities that all those involved support. This is clearly not
> the case in the Wikimedia community. I also think there is an assumption
> that in a movement, there are institutions that those in the movement
> explicitly or implicitly authorize to speak for them. Again, clearly this
> is not the case in the Wikimedia community overall.
>
> Paul Weiss
> User:Libcub
> ___
> 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] Board Update on Branding

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please take a step back. The Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in a way
specifically designed to prevent the community from taking over. The
problem with the community is that there is no community as such; there is
a movement that includes different communities with different needs and
with different expectations. The bottom line is what we are there for. For
me it is sharing in the sum of all knowledge. Depending on how you look at
it we do a great job or we have the biggest job in front of us. I think we
have our biggest job in front of us.

The notion of Wikipedia something is from a marketing point of view easy.
It is the best known brand and it has a huge recognition, a huge positive
recognition. However, where we are weakest our brand is weakest and as such
it makes sense to go Wikipedia.  From a community point of view, it is
problematic. For me the most problematic part is that Wikipedia is
primarily associated with English Wikipedia and it prevents modernisation
even when it will improve its quality.

We should not burden our movement by identifying it with this
Anglo/American legacy.

In conclusion, the Wikimedia Foundation is structurally separated from by
those people who address themselves as the community. Like me, they are
not. Unlike me they do not consider why marketing has a place in our
movement and, it is more than just getting attention for the Wikipedia
product.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 08:01, Dan Szymborski  wrote:

> OK, you say that you take "full responsibility" for the situation. What
> exactly does "full responsibility" entail? How will the relations between
> the board and the communities differ compared to the moment *before* full
> responsibility was taken?
>
> Is the board changing the degree to which it will consider community
> opinions?
> Is the board allowing a wider set of possibilities of new names?
> Is the board granting the possibility of no change at all?
> Is the board inviting additional community representatives to the board for
> the limited purpose of deciding on a new name or whether to rename?
> Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
> with the community resigning from the board?
> Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
> with the community recusing themselves from further votes on this specific
> matter?
> Are you, the person who is taking "full responsibility," resigning from the
> board?
>
> As far as I see, absolutely nothing has changed. In fact, certain things
> have been made even stronger against the community. Why, in a plea to
> better communication is it necessary to remind the community that the board
> can do whatever they want?
>
> "However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
> name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it
> decides."?
>
> Imagine I'm driving with three friends in my car and we're deciding where
> to go for dinner. They all say "anything but pizza." I respond, "well, I
> have the keys and you're in my car, so it's pizza."
>
> After some grumbling, I tell them that their opinions are important and
> that they can pick the toppings for their pizzas. Well, not pick the
> toppings, but they can choose between "pepperoni," "extra pepperoni" or
> "half-pepperoni."
>
> Naturally, there's some consternation about why I'm doing this and how
> that's not exactly a choice. Then I remind them that I'm still picking the
> toppings too, but their input on whether we get pepperoni, extra pepperoni,
> or half-pepperoni is super-valuable and will be taken into consideration.
>
> But I take "full responsibility" for people being unhappy with dinner
> choice! Oh yeah, I absolutely get to decided whether we have pepperoni,
> extra pepperoni, or half-pepperoni, because, well, I have the keys and it's
> my car and it's too bad.
>
> But they're all super appreciated and their opinions are valuable!
>
> One thing I've learned from my years at ESPN/ABC is when I'm being fed a
> line of nonsense through the medium of vanilla corporate-speak. And, I'm
> sad to say, the community is being fed a massive heap of nonsense. None of
> this will change until such time the movement itself is treated like a
> *real* stakeholder, not simply the conveniently unpaid employees of a board
> with unlimited discretion to do whatever it wants, irrespective of any
> opinions of the community. Until such time as there's a state in which the
> board recognizes that they're the servants of the movements, the people who
> turn the steering wheel of the ship and not the captain, this state of
> affairs will continue to exist.
>
> Best,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:44 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> > [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for
> all
> > the frustration this whole 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do not translate but I do care. What I personally do is include data in a
structured manner. I do it for things I more or less care about.. It does
include awards, educated at, employed by, Ottoman history, Africa,
science.. The point in what I do is that much of these structures can be
represented in any and all languages, it is just a matter of adding labels.

People may think that I do not like Wikipedia but I do. People may think
that I do not like the WMF but I do. It is just that we could do better.
The best of us are all united in this. I also think that most of us do not
need to be told what to work on. For me the WMF is an enabler. It makes
things possible. I do not mind them to do different things from what I want
as long as I can do what I care about. I just want them to understand their
own/our bias.

As to the community, what community? Also opinions are a dime a dozen. More
relevant are the underpinning arguments and truly shelve those opinions
when we are done with these arguments.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 12:50, Dan Szymborski  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:58 PM Zack McCune  wrote:
>
> > Hi GerardM,
> >
> > Indeed!
> >
> >
> > As I mentioned in my earlier message, the process will be multilingual.
> We
> > want to ensure that as many people as possible from across the movement
> > have the opportunity to participate, so we are working hard to make that
> > happen. When it comes to naming in particular, we need to understand the
> > localization opportunities and challenges of the different proposals in
> > order to arrive at a system that works globally. We are having both the
> > survey and the proposals translated into Arabic, Chinese, French, German,
> > Russian and Spanish.
>
>
> To be perfectly honest, while I'm not a professional translator, it can't
> certainly can't take that many hours of work to translate "the board is
> going to pick whatever name they want, irrespective of anything the
> communities offer" into many languages.
>
> Seriously, why all the theater? The board cared little for how the
> community felt about the initial name change proposal, code of conduct, and
> crammed the 2030 project so aggressively down the throats of the community
> that even the most deluded as to the state of affairs saw it was pointless
> to offer any additional feedback. There's still no transparency for board
> conflicts-of-interest during the Fram incident or the capricious and
> arbitrary extension of the term of community board seats.
>
> Every single person reading this knows that the board is going to do
> whatever it wants anyway, so why insult the community with the pretense
> that any opinions of the community actually matter?
> ___
> 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] Wikimedia Foundation proposal to call ourselves as the Wikipedia Network, Wikipedia Movement or simply Wiki

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Today I wrote a "swot analysis" [1]. What I want us to achieve is an
increased effectiveness in our aim to share the sum of all knowledge.

What I write is stark. I allow for a situation where Mr Trump remains
president. I contrast on the one hand that room for growth (think audience)
is not in English but in our other languages and that our bias for English
prevents us from realising this. This same bias is also in "Wikipedians"
claiming that we do not need additional funds because "Wikipedia" of
their claim that it does not need it. The same bias is in research, papers
not about English Wikipedia have a hard time of being published so what
data is our strategy based on?

Thanks,
  GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2020/06/marketing-wikimedia-but-first-some-swot.html

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 12:23, Roman Bustria Jr.  wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> There is a proposal initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation to call ourselves
> the "Wikipedia Network", "Wikipedia Movement" or simply "Wiki".
>
> I strongly suggest that the Foundation should allocate time & resources
> with the Wikimedia community fully involved in *identifying and resolving
> the real problem *that brought the idea of creating the brands department.
> These include opening communication channels like what was done in our
> strategy 2030 process to ask recommendations on how we strengthen the
> Wikimedia identity (like having online and offline promotion of the
> "Wikimedia" identity)
>
> I was puzzled how this Brand project was not fully integrated in the 2017
> and 2018-2020 Movement Strategy Process.
>
> But hey, we can do a counter proposal and offer a better and more
> acceptable solution to this.
>
>
> As shared by the Florence in the other mailing list:
>
> 1) if you are not aware of the topic, and arguments behind the
> proposition >
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> 2) if you would like to read some feedback from the community, check
> this :
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia
> 3) to read the proposals :
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
> 4) to watch the presentation via youtube  :
> *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3zlBGHHHiY
> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Butch Bustria
>
>
>
> -
> The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only
> for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the
> intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or
> the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the
> original message and attachments.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> ___
> 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: transition to implementation begins

[Gerard Meijssen]

 Hoi,

The biggest problem of this strategy document that I see is that it is
oriented towards our own internals. This is best understood from the first
sentence: *People-centeredness means that every aspect of our Movement must
address the needs and challenges of the people who power it and whom it
serves, so that each one can contribute in their best way to the sum of
human knowledge.*

It does not mention what we do and why we do it. It follows that based on
this we cannot give priority to our biggest bias; what we do first and
foremost is service wants in English. This bias is huge and when we were a
company, we would recognise that around 50% of Wikipedia traffic is in
English. We would realise the extend that scholarly publications are in
English studying aspects of English Wikipedia. We would know that we do not
have much data on everything else. We would be aware of our other products
and strategise how to improve their market value. For our movement, market
value is in the number of people it serves. We would for instance know that
Wikisource books are marketed in India external to us and we would consider
what it takes to provide a proper interface so that people find what is
available to them thanks to a non-English community. A community we do not
notice nor respect.

We are so happy with American students (doing good work) on English
Wikipedia but we do not engage high school students, even primary school
students who could write in their language expanding Wikipedias often with
less than 10.000 articles.

We have an opportunity to turn this around. We have this notion that we are
going to do things differently in this strategy. We have the papers that
for many are too long to read and we have the Special:MediaSearch (publicly
available for two weeks now) that enables search in Commons in all our
languages. When we support it in the Wikiway, we will allow for it not to
be perfect. We will find that as we add items to pictures that we will find
more results or even only results.. Try to find هيلين كوبر using text based
search in Commons and compare the results.

As a product, Commons only serves our own needs. We do not know the number
of downloads of pictures we do not know the extend Commons has been
searched in other languages. This is true for Wikidata as well. We may know
the volume of queries it serves but in what language and how do we extend
the usefulness of Wikidata in languages other than English? What strategies
are in place is this a key performance indicator? How can we show that we
care?

With Commons enabled for search in any language thanks to the
Special:MediaSearch, we have the perfect tool to start address this bias.
We can measure in what language Commons is searched. We can measure the
number of labels added to Wikidata that help people find images. We can
measure the number of downloads from Commons that happen as a result. We
can then demonstrate the pent up need there is.

This will likely be very much driven by the Wikimedia Foundation itself.
There will be outcries from vested interests that it detracts from
other/their priorities. People will state that they are disgusted with us
giving priority in this way. But do realise, white black of yellow, when
your language is English you are well served and others are not. English is
only about 50% of our traffic and you would not say so from what we
advertise we do.

Thanks,

  GerardM
___
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] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
How will you cope in other languages, other scripts. Is engaging all over
the world NOT in English a consideration>
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 05:34, Zack McCune  wrote:

> Hi Tito -
>
> Your observation is fair and welcome. The project team will update the
> timeline on Meta-Wiki to reflect the latest rescheduling and our relaunched
> consultations.
>
> The priority is on completing the collaborative design activities of the
> project (naming, design, and style guides) in time for the birthday in
> January. The process of adoption will follow the completion of this work,
> so it too will be adjusted in the timeline.
>
> The project team is working to keep this timeline as accurate as we can
> amidst much global uncertainty, so I want to be the first to acknowledge
> that timing will likely remain at the monthly estimate level and may
> further change.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Zack
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > With kind permission, I would like to further explain my question (in
> case
> > it was unclear, and kindly assume good faith):
> > The resolution (linked above and at [1]) states that "the Board affirms
> its
> > support for the brand project and its strategic importance for the
> > movement, mission, and 2030 strategy, and the Board directs the
> Foundation
> > to complete this work by Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
> > – what is "this work" that is to be completed by January 2021?
> > I believe it includes implementation (first phase) as well? On Meta-Wiki
> > the /Timeline page mentions[2] "January 2021" as "Organizational
> > implementation: adoption by the Foundation with opt-in system for
> > affiliates.
> > I see an almost clear action point here that by January 2021 the opt-in
> > naming comes into picture for the communities, where the brand value of
> > Wikipedia will be experimented with a few communities/projects with
> direct
> > attention.
> > Wait, aren't we yet to start the review process?
> > Kindly note, other than the 3 or so models, I have noticed that there was
> > always another (robust) voice, and that's a "no".
> > Sincerely,
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline=20140879#Post-project:_Adopt_and_advance_brand_(pending_approval_from_the_Board_of_Trustees_and_executive_leadership)
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tito Dutta
> > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> remind
> > me over email or phone call.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 04:34, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > From the resolution page (
> > >
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020)
> > > :
> > > "... and the Board directs the Foundation to complete this work by
> > > Wikipedia's 20th birthday."
> > > — That is 15 January 2021. Interesting.
> > > It seems the option is now to select one of three (re)naming options.
> > > Actually, I was going to suggest a "movement-wide review" may need more
> > > than 14 days of time for affiliates, and communities etc. .
> > > Thanks
> > > User:Titodutta
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 00:47, Zack McCune 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >> As promised, we are back with an update and a new timeline to discuss
> > >> names
> > >> as a movement. We are excited to take on naming together beginning 16
> > >> June.
> > >> Here is an overview of what happened and what to expect:
> > >>
> > >> After additional weeks of legal review and a conversation with the
> Board
> > >> of
> > >> Trustees at their 22 May meeting, we have alignment to present three
> > >> naming
> > >> convention proposals for movement-wide review on 16 June.
> > >>
> > >> The Board of Trustees affirmed support for the project [1] and vetted
> > >> various naming options. They explored legal and financial implications
> > of
> > >> different approaches, and evaluated them based on their potential to
> act
> > >> as
> > >> compelling, unifying tools to elevate the work we are currently doing
> > and
> > >> ensure the future of our movement. Based on these assessments, the
> > >> movement-wide review will revolve around two naming convention
> proposals
> > >> centered on Wikipedia, one that is a Wiki/Wikipedia hybrid, and an
> open
> > >> response area where respondents can share their own naming proposals.
> > We
> > >> feel confident that the vetting process has led to solid proposals,
> > while
> > >> we also want to ensure we are open to your ideas  and are committed to
> > >> reviewing suggestions made in the open response area.
> > >>
> > >> While these weeks of work have reconfirmed that naming structures
> > centered
> > >> entirely on “Wiki” would not be legally feasible or financially
> > >> responsible, we were able to uncover ways in which 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Early thoughts regarding a global code of conduct and a GCC committee

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
To help you remember, we had such situations in the past, they were
resolved. It was ultimately the language committee who stopped Wikipedias.
Background it is this same language committee who is instrumental in
starting new projects.

On a different topic. Diversity and bias is very much topical at this time.
At the same time we, the Wikimedia Foundation (org and movement) are in a
position to diminish the bias against all the other languages. A first
iteration of Special:MediaSearch [1] is available on Commons. It allows you
to find a cat in Amharic or Chinese, Korean, Kannada, Kiswahili and Dutch.
It is the first iteration of the official multi lingual search support of
the WMF. It can be localised. With a bit of effort it becomes available on
all of our projects.

What it takes to make Commons usable;
* access of everyone to this search functionality
* localisation at translatewiki.net
* labels in commons
* pictures that are to are know depict

The most important thing that will make this happen; is recognition that
this requires commitment, it is considered that it is the primary objective
it is (motto: "All of @WikiCommons is available to every single person on
the planet"). It is important to understand that with finite resources,
your hobby horse may take a backseat. You should embrace it because "other
languages" matter.

PS oh yes, and it works best in English anyway.
Thanks,
 GerardM

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap=paka-kaya




[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap=paka-kaya

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 21:43, Pine W  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile. Occasionally it
> comes up in conversations, and it has been discussed as part of the
> 2030 strategy process (see
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20).
> I have a few early thoughts that I'd like to share.
>
> I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could
> be good in some limited but important circumstances:
>
> (1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct
> review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that
> removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other
> authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a
> relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's
> governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that
> peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order.
>
> In none of these cases am I suggesting that outsiders should attempt
> to get involved in content disputes or allegations of misconduct by a
> small proportion of a site's administrators or functionaries.
>
> By default, a global code of conduct committee should assume good
> faith regarding local consensus and/or the actions of a local
> arbitration committee, if they exist, and a global code of conduct
> committee should by default assume that any local consensus decisions
> and the decisions of a local arbitration committee are legitimate.
> These default positions may be changed if there is significant
> evidence suggesting that there should be a review of the situation by
> outsiders.
>
> (2) Where a steward, global sysop, Meta administrator, or other person
> in a similarly "meta" online position has allegedly misused their
> position, and other options have been exhausted or would involve
> publicly revealing evidence for which there is a very strong reason
> for privacy.
>
> (3) Where the current Ombudsman Commission (see
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission) has found fault
> with actions that are under its authority to review and recommends
> that individuals be sanctioned.
>
> (4) In the circumstances where, presently, WMF asserts a global ban.
>
> I would oppose the use of a global code of conduct or a global code of
> conduct committee for:
>
> (1) disputes which focus on one or a relatively small number of
> individuals. A global code of conduct committee could easily be
> overwhelmed by the number of cases, and I think that local
> administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a
> project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to
> address these disputes.
>
> (2) content disputes.
>
> (3) functioning as a thin layer of cover for WMF-driven actions or
> acting as an extension of WMF.
>
> (4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making
> people feel safe. The Internet is not a safe place, and no amount of
> heavy policing will effectively guarantee safety on a large scale.
> Also, heavy policing can have the effects of stifling uncomfortable
> debates and providing cover for incompetence and corruption. This is
> not to say that we should accept people trying to bully newcomers or
> publish political propaganda on content pages, but I think that these
> issues are best resolved locally and the norms for them are best
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2020 Community Spotlight Survey

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hey Chris,
The most inspiring thing, what will have a huge effect on our community
happened in the last week or so. It started with a proof of concept by Hay
Kranen [1]. It works and it brought search to Commons. Multi lingual search
to Commons. In the example you search for a "kamsalamander" in Russian.
Contrast that with the current Commons that is hardly usable and English
only.

After quite a bit of attention seeking, the official prototype of the multi
lingual search of the Wikimedia Foundation made its entry. Boy is THAT an
important experience. To given you one example, an English Wikipedia
article had the name in Urdu for a prominent Pakistani scientist. Adding
this label to Wikidata now enables people in Pakistan to find [2] مجدد احمد
اعجا ز .  People are looking for cats in Czech [3]... What this changes is
that Commons, the "collection of 61,807,201 freely usable media files to
which anyone can contribute" becomes "a collection of 61,807,201 freely
usable media files to which anyone can use".

It does not stop there. For any Wikipedia article, in any language, we can
now provide a pre filled search that will show what Commons has in
media files. Let this sink in...

It is a prototype and yes, it needs major improvements to make it sing.
That is however not what is important in a Wiki environment. It took months
for the original Commons to be usable as the place where images were to be
found and could be linked from Wikipedia articles. Special:MediaSearch is
already functional. Functional in all our languages. What will immediately
improve it are labels in Wikidata and "depict" statements on pictures.

When we are to know how important this is, collect statistics on the use
of Special:MediaSearch. Split this in the language it is used for and
market the hell out of this.. Expand our public, make Commons what it
should be; the most important resource of freely available media files.

This is imho the most important new functionality since Wikidata.
Thanks,
   GerardM

[1]
https://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/sdsearch/?locale=ru#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q138539
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap=%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%AF%D8%AF+%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF+%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AC%D8%A7+%D8%B2
[3]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap=Ko%C4%8Dka


On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 21:22, Chris Koerner  wrote:

> Hello Wikimedians around the world
>
>
> In these difficult times many of us miss the chance to connect in person
> with other Wikimedians. We miss the events and meetings where we could
> learn from and about each other. So we thought to use this time to learn
> from each other more about the great people that make up our communities.
> We would like to give some of them a bit of a spotlight in our virtual
> spaces like our blogs and social media in the absence of physical
> connection points.
>
> Do you know a community member who has accomplished something new or
> inspiring in the last year? Someone who you think the rest of the community
> should know about? If so, please take a few minutes and nominate them in
> the survey below.
>
> Let us know about their inspiring work, whatever form it took, online or
> offline. This can include but is not limited to adding important content
> directly to one of our projects, encouraging and supporting others in
> adding content, teaching the public about Wikipedia or other Wikimedia
> projects, building partnerships, or organizing events and helping your
> local community thrive. We are also curious to learn about the different
> ways people enrich our movement!
>
> Use the following link to take the survey.
>
>
>-
>
>https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0plqKWa1o1ztZ1b?target=ML-l
><
> https://wikimedia-dot-yamm-track.appspot.com/Redirect?ukey=1_JszED7z9mHJlC_7Re2_Ii-c3PTOYUhX6BxcSj15bCM-336432506=YAMMID-66517761=https%3A%2F%2Fwikimedia.qualtrics.com%2Fjfe%2Fform%2FSV_0plqKWa1o1ztZ1b%3Ftarget%3DML-l
> >
>
>
> Thank you in advance for helping us highlight more wonderful people and
> accomplishments from all over the world!
>
> Your privacy is important to us and is governed by the linked privacy
> statement. In this survey, we will request your contact information and
> that of the individual you are nominating. Please be sure that the person
> you are nominating understands you are providing us with their information.
> We will use this information to get in touch with nominees, should they
> meet our selection criteria. We will retain this contact information
> indefinitely unless you or the person you nominate request its deletion or
> update it in a subsequent survey; please see the privacy statement
> <
> https://wikimedia-dot-yamm-track.appspot.com/Redirect?ukey=1_JszED7z9mHJlC_7Re2_Ii-c3PTOYUhX6BxcSj15bCM-336432506=YAMMID-66517761=https%3A%2F%2Ffoundation.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2F2020_Community_Spotlight_Survey_Privacy_Statement
> >
> for details.
>
> Kind regards,
> Chris Koerner (he/him)
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have been playing with the tool for some time and it is already great; it
works and it is a great basis to expand on. Expand its functionality and
data quality.

I added a label in Urdu in Wikidata for "Mujaddid Ahmad Ijaz" and once the
synchronisation was done, I found a wealth of pictures for him. That IS
powerful and demonstrates how labeling in Wikidata improves results in
Commons. I looked for "Frans Vera", a Dutch ecologists, not really finding
him in a lot of noisy results. There was one picture of him, I linked it to
his Wikidata item and after the synchronisation he was the first result.
That IS powerful because it shows how the linking to Wikidata of pictures
improves results.

As it is, it has important qualifications over Hay's tool and what Hay has
done is breaking ground. Now we know about the official proof of concept;
it has important advantages;
* it is internationalised and gets localised daily.
* it is already included in Commons so it will/must scale.
* it is supported by the WMF

One key question for me is; do we know its use. Do we know in what language
it is used? When people start using it for real, will we know? Commons has
enormous potential and it is now for us to make this a reality. One
challenge will be to convince me to use it. I do want to be convinced and I
am seeking for the arguments but in the end the proof of the pudding is in
the eating.

Keegan, I understand that as a technical guy you prefer to take it slowly,

For the WMF this is probably the biggest opportunity to remedy much of its
bias against all the "other" languages. I will blog and write about my
experiences because this has the potential to transform us into a truly
multi lingual movement as we now have ties that binds everything together.
Ties that are in and of themselves are useful in any language.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 18:57, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:12 AM Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> >
> > It’s worth remembering that this functionality is built in to Commons,
> > it’s just not as user-friendly. From the example below, if you put
> > "haswbstatement:P180=Q191931” into the Commons searchbox, you will get
> the
> > same results. Thanks to the structured data on commons project+team!
> >
> >
> This is true.
>
> The Structured Data team is working on a media search prototype that is
> similar in function to Hay's tool. It's in the very earliest of early
> stages, that is to say that it works, and the team would like to hear
> feedback.
>
> Have a look over the project page if you're interested to see what a tool
> like Hay's could look like on Commons itself:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Media_search
>
> Comments welcome on the talk page, I'm slowly spreading the word about
> this.
>
> --
> Keegan Peterzell (he/him)
> Community Relations Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> 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] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have been a professional developer for much of my working life. From what
I know of what Hay has done, I know you are wrong depending on the approach
taken. Building this functionality can be an iterative process, it does not
need to be all singing all dancing from the start. At one time the WMF used
the agile methodology and you can break up a project like this in parts,
functional parts.

* The first part is a hack to replace the current code with
internationalised code and have it localised in Translatewiki.net.
* You then want to build in functionality that measures its use. It also
measures the extend labeling expands in Wikidata because of this tool. In
essence this is not essential.
* As the tool becomes more popular, it follows that the database may need
tuning to allow for its expanded use

* A next phase is for the code to be made into an extension enabling the
native use in MediaWiki projects.  This does not mean Commons, it may be in
any language projects that cares to use it. It is particularly the small
languages (less than 100.000 articles).
* Given that measurements are in place, it then follows that we learn what
it takes to expand the usage of images. Not only but also for our projects.
For a first time the small languages take precedence.. The primary reason
is that for those languages there are few pictures that they find when they
google or bing.
* When there is an expressed demand for bigger languages < 1.000.000
articles, we add these on the basis of a first come, first served basis.
This is to ensure a steady growth path in the usage.
* Once we understand the scaling issues, we can expand to Commons itself
and any and all projects.
* Once we consider sharing freely licensed media files a priority, we can
speed the process up within the limits of what is technically feasible.

At the same time, we keep the standalone function available. It will serve
a subset of our potential public. This will help us understand the pent up
demand for a service like this. When the WMF is truly  "agile" in its
development, it is a business decision what priority it gets. Much of what
I describe has been done by us before; it is not rocket science. The first
phase could be done within a month. Scaling up the usage and integrating it
in existing code and projects may indeed take the best of a year. Again,
that is not so much a technical but much more a business consideration. As
always, technical issues may crop up and they are refactored in an agile
process.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 20:36, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
>
> I mostly agree with you. However, I disagree with this:
>
> > This proof of concept is largely based on existing WMF functionality so
> it
> > takes very little for the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt the code, do it
> > properly particularly for the Internationalisation.
>
> Turning prototype code into production code is never trivial. When you’re
> writing a prototype, you get to skip all performance and edge case
> concerns, and you don’t need to integrate it into existing code, you’re
> just interested in getting something working. I hope (and expect) that the
> WMF will make improvements to Commons’ multilingual search in the future,
> but it’s definitely not a “very little” amount of work that needs doing,
> it’s a year or more worth of developer time.
>
> 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] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Gerard Meijssen]

of users that even
> now are not interested in dealing with such long-term issues of Commons and
> any effort will wait a lot to get a clear feedback.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il domenica 24 maggio 2020, 15:38:36 CEST, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  Hoi,
> Mike you are absolutely right but you are missing the point that I am
> trying to make. Yes, what is exposed by Hay's SDSEARCH tool is based on all
> the work that was done before and as such it relies absolutely on the work
> that has been done before. Without it, this tool would not be possible.
> This work is key for us to move forward.
>
> What is so vitally important about this proof of concept is that it readily
> opens up Commons depending on a localised user interface. Even when that is
> not available search, it is possible based to search based on the
> availability of labels in a language. This proof of concept dramatically
> shows that nothing more is needed to open up Commons to a multilingual
> public.
>
> This proof of concept is an invitation to adopt this approach and make it
> available in properly internationalised code as part of a multilingual
> Commons user interface. It invites people to participate and with some
> social engineering it the shore that turns the ship in making Commons a
> much more positive place. Why, because making Commons usable even useful is
> what we have not done for all the languages but English. When people are
> happy to use Commons, they are more likely to participate and join its
> community.
>
> So far we could not care less as long as it was used in our own projects.
> The challenge that I present to you is to make Commons *my goto place* for
> illustrations for my blog. When you can convince me, you convince the
> world.
>
> Remember our approach is that of a wiki. It does not have to be perfect, it
> has to empower us to move forward.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 15:12, Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It’s worth remembering that this functionality is built in to Commons,
> > it’s just not as user-friendly. From the example below, if you put
> > "haswbstatement:P180=Q191931” into the Commons searchbox, you will get
> the
> > same results. Thanks to the structured data on commons project+team!
> >
> > Also, around half of the Commons categories now have multilingual labels
> > embedded in them through the Wikidata Infobox, which means that if you do
> > an ordinary search for a phrase in a different language, you should find
> > the correct commons category if it exists. E.g., try searching for
> > “Telescopio Lovell”, or "洛弗尔望远镜". The infobox also has a link at the
> bottom
> > of it that you can click on to search depicts statements for that
> > category’s topic without having to look up the QID first.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > > On 24 May 2020, at 10:30, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Two more localisations became available, one for German and one for
> > > Swedish. I have asked Alolita if she would help us with a localisation
> in
> > > an Indian language. Anthere, would you be so kind and reach out so that
> > we
> > > have a localisation in an African language as well.. (French would also
> > be
> > > good to have :) )
> > >
> > > In the mean time I have linked pictures of the kakapoa to its Wikidata
> > > item, you can search for it in Maori.
> > >
> > > For me the point of this proof of concept is that we already can expose
> > > material in any of our languages. We can make this available and
> promote
> > > the addition of "depicts" statements in Commons and labels in Wikidata.
> > In
> > > a true Wiki way it brings additional functionality to any and all of
> our
> > > users.. It will improve over time.
> > >
> > > When we are to know the extend of its usefulness, we need continuous
> > > statistics (we have them for Reasonator as well, just as an example).
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:33, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hoi,
> > >> Florence I totally agree that proper internatonalisation, localisation
> > is
> > >> key. What is key for me is that this already provides an easy and
> > obvious
> > >> search function for mediafiles that have a link to a Wikidata item.
> > Just to
> &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Mike you are absolutely right but you are missing the point that I am
trying to make. Yes, what is exposed by Hay's SDSEARCH tool is based on all
the work that was done before and as such it relies absolutely on the work
that has been done before. Without it, this tool would not be possible.
This work is key for us to move forward.

What is so vitally important about this proof of concept is that it readily
opens up Commons depending on a localised user interface. Even when that is
not available search, it is possible based to search based on the
availability of labels in a language. This proof of concept dramatically
shows that nothing more is needed to open up Commons to a multilingual
public.

This proof of concept is an invitation to adopt this approach and make it
available in properly internationalised code as part of a multilingual
Commons user interface. It invites people to participate and with some
social engineering it the shore that turns the ship in making Commons a
much more positive place. Why, because making Commons usable even useful is
what we have not done for all the languages but English. When people are
happy to use Commons, they are more likely to participate and join its
community.

So far we could not care less as long as it was used in our own projects.
The challenge that I present to you is to make Commons *my goto place* for
illustrations for my blog. When you can convince me, you convince the world.

Remember our approach is that of a wiki. It does not have to be perfect, it
has to empower us to move forward.
Thanks,
   GerardM



On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 15:12, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It’s worth remembering that this functionality is built in to Commons,
> it’s just not as user-friendly. From the example below, if you put
> "haswbstatement:P180=Q191931” into the Commons searchbox, you will get the
> same results. Thanks to the structured data on commons project+team!
>
> Also, around half of the Commons categories now have multilingual labels
> embedded in them through the Wikidata Infobox, which means that if you do
> an ordinary search for a phrase in a different language, you should find
> the correct commons category if it exists. E.g., try searching for
> “Telescopio Lovell”, or "洛弗尔望远镜". The infobox also has a link at the bottom
> of it that you can click on to search depicts statements for that
> category’s topic without having to look up the QID first.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 24 May 2020, at 10:30, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > Two more localisations became available, one for German and one for
> > Swedish. I have asked Alolita if she would help us with a localisation in
> > an Indian language. Anthere, would you be so kind and reach out so that
> we
> > have a localisation in an African language as well.. (French would also
> be
> > good to have :) )
> >
> > In the mean time I have linked pictures of the kakapoa to its Wikidata
> > item, you can search for it in Maori.
> >
> > For me the point of this proof of concept is that we already can expose
> > material in any of our languages. We can make this available and promote
> > the addition of "depicts" statements in Commons and labels in Wikidata.
> In
> > a true Wiki way it brings additional functionality to any and all of our
> > users.. It will improve over time.
> >
> > When we are to know the extend of its usefulness, we need continuous
> > statistics (we have them for Reasonator as well, just as an example).
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:33, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> Florence I totally agree that proper internatonalisation, localisation
> is
> >> key. What is key for me is that this already provides an easy and
> obvious
> >> search function for mediafiles that have a link to a Wikidata item.
> Just to
> >> stress the point, this is a wiki, we do not need a fully functional
> search
> >> engine (for all the Commons files); that is what we aspire to that is
> what
> >> we work towards.. That will take years. But with a proper search tool, a
> >> tool that makes it EASY to use Commons, it may fool me into using
> Commons
> >> for my blog.
> >>
> >> To show you that it works, I just looked for "baisikeli
> >> <https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/baisikeli#Swahili>" and made a
> screenshot
> >> [1]. The screenshot is with other files showing the evolution of this
> tool
> >> in a Commons category [2]
> >>
> >> Important to notice is that the tool DOES invite you to localise the
> >> labels to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Two more localisations became available, one for German and one for
Swedish. I have asked Alolita if she would help us with a localisation in
an Indian language. Anthere, would you be so kind and reach out so that we
have a localisation in an African language as well.. (French would also be
good to have :) )

In the mean time I have linked pictures of the kakapoa to its Wikidata
item, you can search for it in Maori.

For me the point of this proof of concept is that we already can expose
material in any of our languages. We can make this available and promote
the addition of "depicts" statements in Commons and labels in Wikidata. In
a true Wiki way it brings additional functionality to any and all of our
users.. It will improve over time.

When we are to know the extend of its usefulness, we need continuous
statistics (we have them for Reasonator as well, just as an example).
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:33, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Florence I totally agree that proper internatonalisation, localisation is
> key. What is key for me is that this already provides an easy and obvious
> search function for mediafiles that have a link to a Wikidata item. Just to
> stress the point, this is a wiki, we do not need a fully functional search
> engine (for all the Commons files); that is what we aspire to that is what
> we work towards.. That will take years. But with a proper search tool, a
> tool that makes it EASY to use Commons, it may fool me into using Commons
> for my blog.
>
> To show you that it works, I just looked for "baisikeli
> <https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/baisikeli#Swahili>" and made a screenshot
> [1]. The screenshot is with other files showing the evolution of this tool
> in a Commons category [2]
>
> Important to notice is that the tool DOES invite you to localise the
> labels to French, Swahili et al for best results!!
>
> A minor observation, there are all kinds of things that could change in
> the user interface. Key is that this is a prototype. It is showing us how
> we can make Commons work for us.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Appelmoes3.png
> [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hay%27s_SDSEARCH
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 01:21, Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 24/05/2020 à 00:23, Erik Moeller a écrit :
>> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:10 AM Gerard Meijssen
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hay Kranen created a proof of concept where Commons is searched for
>> >> pictures that (per standard) use a "depicts" statement.
>> > This is a beautiful proof of concept; thank you for sharing it,
>> > Gerard, and thank you, Hay, for developing it. It really illustrates
>> > the power and importance of the Structured Data efforts.
>> >
>> > To pick a different example, imagine that you want to illustrate an
>> > article about the importance of wheelchair accessibility at your
>> > university. You might try a major search engine like Google Images.
>> > Try replacing the word "wheelchair" with translations in other
>> > languages. Note how the result sets are different, and how you may get
>> > a much smaller set of results in languages with a smaller Internet
>> > presence.
>> >
>> > https://www.google.com/search?q=wheelchair=isch (English)
>> > https://www.google.com/search?q=kitimaguru=isch (Swahili, far less
>> > relevant and smaller set)
>> >
>> > In contrast, the use of Wikidata items means that, as long as a label
>> > exists for a given language, you can search in _any_ language and get
>> > the same images:
>> >
>> > https://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q191931
>> >
>> > The fact that the UI of this tool is currently English is an
>> > implementation detail; even with Hay's implementation, you can type in
>> > "kitimaguru" and get the same results as in English.
>>
>>
>> Sorry Erik, but I do not follow you here...
>>
>> For some reasons, it is true for "kitimaguru", but if I search for
>> "lamp" (EN) versus "lampe" (FR), or "key" (English) versus "clé"
>> (French), I really do not get the same results at all and of course, it
>> does not proposes me the same Qs.
>>
>> I love that functionality, do not get me wrong, I am delighted to see it.
>>
>> But except for English speakers (and now Dutch speakers it seems), it
>> can not be used.
>>
>> So wonderful proof of concept. But please... let's have all languages
>&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Florence I totally agree that proper internatonalisation, localisation is
key. What is key for me is that this already provides an easy and obvious
search function for mediafiles that have a link to a Wikidata item. Just to
stress the point, this is a wiki, we do not need a fully functional search
engine (for all the Commons files); that is what we aspire to that is what
we work towards.. That will take years. But with a proper search tool, a
tool that makes it EASY to use Commons, it may fool me into using Commons
for my blog.

To show you that it works, I just looked for "baisikeli
<https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/baisikeli#Swahili>" and made a screenshot
[1]. The screenshot is with other files showing the evolution of this tool
in a Commons category [2]

Important to notice is that the tool DOES invite you to localise the labels
to French, Swahili et al for best results!!

A minor observation, there are all kinds of things that could change in the
user interface. Key is that this is a prototype. It is showing us how we
can make Commons work for us.
Thanks,
   GerardM

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Appelmoes3.png
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hay%27s_SDSEARCH

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 01:21, Florence Devouard  wrote:

>
> Le 24/05/2020 à 00:23, Erik Moeller a écrit :
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:10 AM Gerard Meijssen
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> Hay Kranen created a proof of concept where Commons is searched for
> >> pictures that (per standard) use a "depicts" statement.
> > This is a beautiful proof of concept; thank you for sharing it,
> > Gerard, and thank you, Hay, for developing it. It really illustrates
> > the power and importance of the Structured Data efforts.
> >
> > To pick a different example, imagine that you want to illustrate an
> > article about the importance of wheelchair accessibility at your
> > university. You might try a major search engine like Google Images.
> > Try replacing the word "wheelchair" with translations in other
> > languages. Note how the result sets are different, and how you may get
> > a much smaller set of results in languages with a smaller Internet
> > presence.
> >
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=wheelchair=isch (English)
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=kitimaguru=isch (Swahili, far less
> > relevant and smaller set)
> >
> > In contrast, the use of Wikidata items means that, as long as a label
> > exists for a given language, you can search in _any_ language and get
> > the same images:
> >
> > https://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q191931
> >
> > The fact that the UI of this tool is currently English is an
> > implementation detail; even with Hay's implementation, you can type in
> > "kitimaguru" and get the same results as in English.
>
>
> Sorry Erik, but I do not follow you here...
>
> For some reasons, it is true for "kitimaguru", but if I search for
> "lamp" (EN) versus "lampe" (FR), or "key" (English) versus "clé"
> (French), I really do not get the same results at all and of course, it
> does not proposes me the same Qs.
>
> I love that functionality, do not get me wrong, I am delighted to see it.
>
> But except for English speakers (and now Dutch speakers it seems), it
> can not be used.
>
> So wonderful proof of concept. But please... let's have all languages here
> !
>
> Florence
>
>
> >
> > It would be wonderful to see this functionality developed further, and
> > to ultimately make this kind of search functionality central to the
> > user experience for Wikimedia Commons, so that speakers of any
> > language are  given _meaningful_ access to freely reusable media.
> >
> > Warmly,
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > ___
> > 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>

[Wikimedia-l] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Hay Kranen created a proof of concept where Commons is searched for
pictures that (per standard) use a "depicts" statement.. The search is
limited to existing labels in Wikidata and to the search has as its result
whatever is available in commons..

Use for instance "appelmoes"  and you get six results [1], [2].

At this time you can get a "detail" screen and it provides standard
functions available. The functionality can be prettified. Essential is that
everything will be internationalised /  localised. The other thing is that
I hope is that functionality like this becomes standard Commons
functionality...

On a more philosophical note, we are a WIKI, it follows that we will work
to make more and more pictures searchable in this way and that we get more
and more labels in all of our languages. It is however NOT necessary that
from the start it needs to be perfect. Please do not let perfection be the
enemy of the good. Improvements is what we should aim for and perfection is
what we aspire to.
Thanks,
   GerardM

Oh and again Hay, thank you so much.

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q618345
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Appelmoes.png
___
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] Commons

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Dear Ziko, your proposal is business as usual. The biggest question we
should ask is not what do we do but WHY do we do it. When we decide that
Open Content is there to be used, it follows that it is a key performance
indicator to know to what extend we serve a public and what public we
have, could have and how we can expand our public.

The current notion that people where we only consider how many people see
images in Wikipedia makes Commons objectives secondary to Wikipedia. We do
not care if people can find pictures in Commons and to be brutal I have
given up, I do really want Commons to serve my needs as a blogger. We do
not know the number of people who download our content, we do not know what
people think of the usability as a resource of freely licensed material. We
only consider Commons at the front end (ingestion) and not at the backend

We should care because THAT is our mission.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 11:31, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
> I would like to support Roland's and other's remarks that Wikimedia Commons
> has some serious problems and needs improvement in many ways. Some of these
> problems are very difficult to overcome, such as a better, multilingual
> search because we don't have all the necessary meta data.
> Other problems could be dealt with in a short time. For example, the main
> page (or main pages, in the different languages) has too many items and
> links. General and less general links; links to content by topic; links to
> other Wikimedia wikis, links to mainpages in other languages. Some of this
> is repeated in the left side bar. All together, also with general wiki
> function links - I counted 291 links or things to click on!
>
> My ideal would be a clean page
> * with a short explanation what the site is or does,
> * and then three, four or five big items to click on: for example, "search
> content", "contribute content", "learn more".
> Is it a realistic dream of me that we would see such a clean-up within the
> next 5 or 50 years?
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am So., 17. Mai 2020 um 17:25 Uhr schrieb Alessandro Marchetti via
> Wikimedia-l :
>
> >  "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif
> > summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a
> way
> > that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow,
> if
> > you want it.
> >
> > We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because
> > of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep
> the
> > other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We
> > don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even
> > reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they
> almost
> > never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need
> people
> > that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the
> > contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We
> don't
> > need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form
> > entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted
> > 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete
> > ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good
> > faith.  We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is
> on
> > line instead of simply asking the uploader.
> >
> > However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created
> > over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a
> > rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary.
> > Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent
> majority
> > of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on
> > and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with
> > the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's
> only
> > fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should
> > be the one to clean the mess.
> > A.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <
> > ymb...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> >  Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
> > earlier this year:
> >
> >
> >
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866
> >
> > However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
> > nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there
> are
> > way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
> > nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
> > allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
> > blocked on other projects, does not help either
> >
> > Best
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Just consider this, there are still many pictures in the English Wikipedia
that could be in Commons because of its license and regularly there are
pictures in Commons that are deleted because there license is not
compatible with Commons. At Commons a revolution is taking place because
the basic building blocks for it to become truly useful are in place. We
are all invited to include "depicts" statements effectively linking them to
Wikidata, to multilinguality, and make images findable.

It is relatively straightforward to replace license information with
wikidata and use it for a purpose. There is one tiny proviso; it means that
English Wikipedia material has to be dealt with in the same way. Preferably
in the same database. It then follows that all the true freely licensed
material is part of Commons and its policies, for the rest there are the
exemptions, the material that is allowed for use in English Wikipedia is
part of English Wikipedia and its policies. When you then look for material
to use in whatever project, the license limits what you can use, what you
find. For material that we want to include that has an incompatible
license, we find that we cannot use it in our projects and we may choose if
and how we expose it to the world.

Effectively what fits the Commons policies is usable at all our projects,
the other stuff relies on the license involved. An example, an original
that is reduced in size to fit the "fair use" criteria has a place but is
not available. Obvious exceptions the care takers of our material.

The biggest benefit I see is that we bring together what is divided and
bring options to the pruning process of Commons that enable it to recognise
stuff that has a place in "fair use" situations. It opens up our content
linguistically and it will definitely make us more inclusively for a world
beyond the two U-s.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 17:25, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif
> summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way
> that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if
> you want it.
>
> We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because
> of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the
> other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We
> don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even
> reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost
> never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people
> that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the
> contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't
> need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form
> entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted
> 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete
> ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good
> faith.  We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on
> line instead of simply asking the uploader.
>
> However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created
> over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a
> rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary.
> Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority
> of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on
> and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with
> the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only
> fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should
> be the one to clean the mess.
> A.
>
>
>
>
>Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <
> ymb...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
> earlier this year:
>
>
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866
>
> However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
> nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
> way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
> nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
> allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
> blocked on other projects, does not help either
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> > contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> > covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> > 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
To me this is similar to the argument why we do not really raise funds in
some countries that "are poor". Some people are poor, certainly, but many
others are not. The argument that we can afford has a relation to our
aspirations, ambitions what can we do better, more particularly in the
countries where people are stuck in their homes. If anything this is the
time to adapt to changing circumstances. People are at home, there is this
"captive audience" with many people that are helped mentally when they have
something worthwhile to do.

We can reach out for readers, editors and donors.
Thanks,
   GerardM


On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 14:58, 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 'help' to
> > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >1. Annoying ads (John Erling Blad)
> >2. Re: Annoying ads (Benjamin Ikuta)
> >3. Re: Annoying ads (Robert Fernandez)
> >4. Re: Annoying ads (Pierre-Yves Beaudouin)
> >5. Re: Annoying ads (Nick Wilson (Quiddity))
> >6. Re: Annoying ads (Samuel Klein)
> >7. Re: Annoying ads (Paulo Santos Perneta)
> >8. Re: Annoying ads (Paulo Santos Perneta)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:55:50 +0200
> > From: John Erling Blad 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads
> > Message-ID:
> >  > 5ggwunkrfg6ejjsn6sb1rbf1h_fnyphpd_wjr5ot...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> > got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> > locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> > Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way
> over
> > the top.
> >
> > /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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What you prove is that we maintain a static artifact that does improve with
time. What you prove with your reply is that you do not care for the
mission, for the quality of Wikipedia but only care to maintain a status
quo that is no longer good enough.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 23:16, Todd Allen  wrote:

> There certainly is a lot to reflect on, isn't there?
>
> Maybe you can do some reflecting on the fact that those "long-time
> contributors" were, in many cases, working on Wikipedia before most people
> had ever even heard of it (when I first started working on it, "What's
> Wikipedia?" would be a question I was often asked if I'd mention it;
> haven't heard that for a while though), and have been working to build,
> maintain, and improve it ever since. So maybe there's a reason we care a
> great deal about it.
>
> And maybe there's a good reason to listen to the people who literally built
> the thing, made it into what it is, and still day to day keep it going.
> Maybe we know what we're doing. I think we rather proved it.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:00 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When I read something like this, it takes me aback. Yes, people may have
> an
> > opinion, they may even express it and they even may be wrong. Who cares
> > really. There is enough to dislike in branding, we are not cattle. From a
> > marketing perspective there may be a point. The point would be to bring
> all
> > that we do together, bring it together so that what it is we are and what
> > is we do better understood by an audience, an audience that we want to
> > entice to like us enough to become part of our Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > The problem is that the "long time contributors" don't like change. They
> > have invested so much in whatever it is they think makes our projects
> work
> > that they do not see the forest from the trees. They forget what our
> > primary aim, is and fail to appreciate that all conventions are there to
> > support the aim of sharing in the sum of all knowledge. This week
> Wikipedia
> > administrators killed off the ListeriaBot because it defied a
> convention. A
> > convention that they could not explain to me does harm to our public. A
> > convention that exists because it was conceded to English Wikipedia that
> > they could have non free images exclusive to its project. When challenged
> > that they do not care about Wikipedia's quality, that manually maintained
> > lists average out to be not as well maintained as Listeria list there was
> > silence. They did not care because it did not address their need that
> their
> > convention had to prevail.
> >
> > "Long time contributors", administrators are the ones expecting others to
> > share their sentiment about everything what is bad. I don't. Katherine
> > Maher brought an end to a period of stagnation. My impression is that at
> > the Wikimedia Foundation things look up. I love it that the WMF wants to
> > expand and I totally agree that English Wikipedia, its best known
> product,
> > the brand that is known by many is exactly what is not bringing us
> > together.
> >
> > I prefer people like Mackenzie Lemieux or Jess Wade any time over the
> "long
> > time contributors".. PS with a blog going back 15 years, with 2,606,298
> > edits I qualify as a long time contributor..
> >
> > So if your opinions are as good as the reflections you have on the
> quality
> > of Wikipedia, I do not care about your opinions. By my calculations there
> > is on average error rate of 4% in lists because of false friends. Magnus
> > blogged how manually maintained list are anything but well maintained
> > lists. The key point of branding in the marketing sense is that it is to
> > bring out the best of what is on offer.
> >
> > The basis of what we have on offer is in what we aim to achieve and, for
> me
> > our aim is to share in the sum of the knowledge that is available to us.
> > Everything that is in its way of achieving this needs reflection and imho
> > there is a lot to reflect.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:59, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >
> > > David Gerard wrote:
> > > >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
> > > >
> > > >So this has been dictated from above - the "community consultation" is
> > > >window dressing for a decision that's long been made.
> > > >
> > > >Hence the nonsensical claims

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When I read something like this, it takes me aback. Yes, people may have an
opinion, they may even express it and they even may be wrong. Who cares
really. There is enough to dislike in branding, we are not cattle. From a
marketing perspective there may be a point. The point would be to bring all
that we do together, bring it together so that what it is we are and what
is we do better understood by an audience, an audience that we want to
entice to like us enough to become part of our Wikimedia movement.

The problem is that the "long time contributors" don't like change. They
have invested so much in whatever it is they think makes our projects work
that they do not see the forest from the trees. They forget what our
primary aim, is and fail to appreciate that all conventions are there to
support the aim of sharing in the sum of all knowledge. This week Wikipedia
administrators killed off the ListeriaBot because it defied a convention. A
convention that they could not explain to me does harm to our public. A
convention that exists because it was conceded to English Wikipedia that
they could have non free images exclusive to its project. When challenged
that they do not care about Wikipedia's quality, that manually maintained
lists average out to be not as well maintained as Listeria list there was
silence. They did not care because it did not address their need that their
convention had to prevail.

"Long time contributors", administrators are the ones expecting others to
share their sentiment about everything what is bad. I don't. Katherine
Maher brought an end to a period of stagnation. My impression is that at
the Wikimedia Foundation things look up. I love it that the WMF wants to
expand and I totally agree that English Wikipedia, its best known product,
the brand that is known by many is exactly what is not bringing us
together.

I prefer people like Mackenzie Lemieux or Jess Wade any time over the "long
time contributors".. PS with a blog going back 15 years, with 2,606,298
edits I qualify as a long time contributor..

So if your opinions are as good as the reflections you have on the quality
of Wikipedia, I do not care about your opinions. By my calculations there
is on average error rate of 4% in lists because of false friends. Magnus
blogged how manually maintained list are anything but well maintained
lists. The key point of branding in the marketing sense is that it is to
bring out the best of what is on offer.

The basis of what we have on offer is in what we aim to achieve and, for me
our aim is to share in the sum of the knowledge that is available to us.
Everything that is in its way of achieving this needs reflection and imho
there is a lot to reflect.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:59, MZMcBride  wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
> >https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
> >
> >So this has been dictated from above - the "community consultation" is
> >window dressing for a decision that's long been made.
> >
> >Hence the nonsensical claims of massive community support by fiddling
> >the numbers, employing literal wiki spammers to do the consulting,
> >etc.
>
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is bad. There are dozens of examples
> illustrating why this is true, but this forcible rebranding is a
> particularly good demonstration of the rot.
>
> The people most directly responsible here are Katherine Maher and Heather
> Walls. They're both subscribed to this mailing list, they both understand
> that this decision would upset long-time contributors, and they both
> simply decided to ignore any complaints in favor of attempting to siphon
> more money from donors and force their "vision" on the broader movement.
> You don't see either of them defending themselves or their actions here
> for a reason. They didn't both forget how e-mail works or how the wikis
> work, they've intentionally chosen to plug their ears and march forward.
>
> What's more offensive, in my opinion, than this forcible rebranding effort
> is that they've spent and will continue to spend hundreds of thousands of
> dollars on it. It would be bad enough to make this unilateral decision and
> implement it with the existing bloated staff, but instead they've hired
> agencies and consultants and wasted additional hundreds of thousands of
> dollars in donor money on this sham exercise.
>
> But don't worry, highly deceptive advertising is back on the projects, in
> mid-April, to ensure continued funding of this and other charades.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The fact that it is considered major enough to address how Snøhetta became
blocked on English Wikipedia is ok. What is also does is confirm the bias
towards English Wikipedia. I am pretty sure that in the briefing of
Snøhetta personnel it was NOT mentioned that other projects may have
different policies, they substantially differ.

For me this whole process seems like a traintrack leading to a train wreck.
Wikipedia is not what *we *do, it is the brand Wikimedia is best known for.
Remember bias is not experienced and appreciated by the people who are
associated with what is dominant. I stated before how Wikipedia bias has
prevented us to move forward with our other "brands" and projects. I would
like some response on that.
Thanks,
GeradM

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 00:16, Samir Elsharbaty 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Brand Project Team felt it was important to address the concerns and
> questions around Snøhetta and the English Wikipedia, and have now added an
> FAQ about it. [1] Please refer there for the full details about the block
> and what is being done. The project team is in the process of updating the
> project materials, including the FAQ, so feel free to add those pages to
> your watchlist to stay up to date on the latest information.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Samir
>
> [1] https://w.wiki/LEF
>
> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > This does have feeling of a company creating a financial relationship
> with
> > the Foundation as way to bypass or backdoor a community ban thats been
> > reviewed already.   Over the years I've worked with many users who been
> > blocked and help them become productive contributors but before they
> start
> > making recommendation or decisions about who we are there needs to be
> > something done to get them back to good standing with the community first
> > untiil thats taken place.It's like asking the fox to rebuild the hen
> > house,  I just dont see how I could support anything they recommend.
> >
> > After the dollars, and t=volunteer time that has been pumped into the
> 2030
> > strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should have
> > been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its comprehensible
> not
> > to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we will be
> > doing anything for the next 10 years.
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 03:20, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an unwillingness
> > > to work with Wikipedia properly:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far,
> it
> > > looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we
> > operate,
> > > or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin
> > > their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of
> buzz,
> > > little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong,
> > and
> > > they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block
> > > evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the community.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
> > > > you, Essie.
> > > >
> > > > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> > > > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of
> resources
> > > > (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
> > > > good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> > > > Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself
> as
> > > > the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
> > > > affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
> > > > occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think
> that
> > > > the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
> > > > given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
> > > > unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
> > > > months.
> > > >
> > > > I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
> > > > in its current form.
> > > >
> > > > Given the choice, I would freeze this 

[Wikimedia-l] The Corona dead

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Obviously with a pandemic people die including notable people. As I am used
to do, I have a query, a Listeria list that will update the latest
information based on what we know in Wikidata.

Given that it is not restricted to any one Wikipedia, we will know the
notable dead from any and all Wikipedias.

It is easy enough to have this list on your Wikipedia..
Thanks,
   GerardM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/The_Corona_dead
___
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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I would rather answer a different question: What would it take for us to
share the sum of all knowledge available to us to any and all people in any
and all languages they can read.

The benefit of such a marketing approach and not an antagonistic approach
is that English Wikipedia may do what it does, it may even fit in with what
is shown to work. When we are to share the sum of all the knowledge
available to us, we seek out where this information is and, how we open it
up best to our public. Let me be clear, so far the English Wikipedia has
been my go to project to liberate information to Wikidata. Once it it
there, it becomes easier to provide proper disambiguation and prevent false
friends to pop up later. Maintenance is easier; you do it only once for any
and all our projects.

We have come a long way in getting to the point where Commons is truly
multilingual.. My favourite example is "appelmoes" [1]. What we now really
need is have marketeers to opening Commons up to a public. We should talk
to Google and seek synergy, Commons is valuable when people are to use
legal material for illustration. They have to find it first.

The same goes for Wikisource, what is available for use to a public. How do
we leverage what we have and find all this hard work a public.

We do need research. We do need marketing research and we need a marketing
approach to getting the sum of the knowledge that we have to a public. I do
not want to argue the rights and wrongs of English Wikipedia. I trust them
to appreciate that they are part of the Wikimedia mission to get the public
well informed and provide our information with a neural point of view.
Never mind where this information is or in what language.
Thanks,
   GerardM



[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch=haswbstatement%3AP180%3DQ618345=1=1=1=1=1=1

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 16:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> The question then is whether it is the community of English Wikipedia
> exerting this influence, or WMF failing to allocate resources fairly, and
> if so, why? Is it just that the massive internet presence of English
> Wikipedia exerts an irresistible gravitational attraction on the resources
> like a black hole?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Aron Demian
> Sent: 15 March 2020 12:25
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> My 2 cents: Imho the pressure from English Wikipedia on other projects of
> the movement is very realistic in many kinds of matters, that I've
> experienced myself too. Other projects are not independent socially or
> culturally, the rules, practices, expectations and editorial behaviour is
> strongly related to that on enwp with all its positive *and* negative
> benefits. Often the negative benefits seem to outweigh the positive,
> unfortunately.
>
> Aron
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:17, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing
> > community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
> > Wikipedias.
>
> En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its
> > editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP.
> > Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for content,
> > within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to
> > emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
> > If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
> > subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
> > other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that
> they
> > should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence
> > from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
> > communities of those projects for consideration.
> > If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
> > not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
> > community who have no authority over Commons.
> > As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
> > confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
> > sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Back your pardon. I do not blame the English Wikipedia for the
shortcomings of other Wikipedias. It does a reasonable job at informing an
English reading public. The point that I make is that we do not consider
how the bias towards English Wikipedia prevents us from reaching out and
sharing in the sum of all knowledge.

There is documentation that Cebuan Wikipedia articles are well presented
and provide a more complete coverage of the knowledge domains it covers.
Also please remember that all US places were added to English Wikipedia by
bot.

When I document bias, it is for you to understand that this bias exists. I
stopped writing in English Wikipedia because the American perspective was
more relevant that an international perspective.

At stake in this thread is making Wikipedia a central brand. I indicated
earlier that those living the English Wikipedia reality are not aware of
the negative effects of its bias. In effect you tell me to do something
about it. Well, I have been blogging about Wikimedia for the last 15 years
[1] and I learned that documentation may be relevant but it is unlikely to
make people see what is in front of them.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:16, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing
> community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
> Wikipedias. En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply
> with its editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for
> en:WP. Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for
> content, within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they
> choose to emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
> If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
> subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
> other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they
> should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence
> from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
> communities of those projects for consideration.
> If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
> not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
> community who have no authority over Commons.
> As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
> confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
> sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
> but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
> English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
> English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
> the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
>
> Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
> informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
> a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
> maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
> gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
> conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
> other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
> job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
> result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
> knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
> conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300
> > projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia
> > with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
> > projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to
> be
> > highly toxic".  Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you
> using
> > the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> > objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.

Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300
> projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia
> with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
> projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to be
> highly toxic".  Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you using
> the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a
> unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects
> and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.
>
> When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
> English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
> effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
> English Wikipedia.
>
> * Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for projects
> other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
> * New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, the
> notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the architecture
> * It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than Wikipedia,
> specific functionality is hardly ever developed
> * In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English notability.
> Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly requested
> for use with Wikidata
> * there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. Many
> Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose
> because we do not seek an audience for them
> * even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is really
> good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other languages.
>
> It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may be
> that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will
> welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its
> consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to share
> in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not
> what English Wikipedia deems notable.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 18:33, Essie Zar  wrote:
>
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> > project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> > these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> > when your email went out.
> >
> > As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> > the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> > around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> > assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> > Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> > complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> > Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandri

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a
unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects
and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.

When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
English Wikipedia.

* Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for projects
other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
* New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, the
notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the architecture
* It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than Wikipedia,
specific functionality is hardly ever developed
* In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English notability.
Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly requested
for use with Wikidata
* there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. Many
Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose
because we do not seek an audience for them
* even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is really
good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other languages.

It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may be
that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will
welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its
consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to share
in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not
what English Wikipedia deems notable.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 18:33, Essie Zar  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> when your email went out.
>
> As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
> City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
> improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
> convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
> movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
> branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.
>
> In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
> Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
> been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement.
> The
> process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
> volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
> foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
> workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
> answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
> developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
> movement.
>
> Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
> the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
> you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
> concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
> built or selected by workshop participants.
>
> Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
>
> Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the project
> talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be
> available on Meta starting next month.
>
> Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single
> concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around naming
> (expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are
> scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can
> continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.
>
> We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in Snøhetta's
> open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of the
> channels mentioned.
>
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> Finally, we want to 

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Benjamin is it fair to expect that you are a Wikipedian first and a
Wikimedian second? The problem with perception is that it differs from
where you stand. One of the easiest things to solve on all the Wikipedias
are false friends but hey I stand with data and the Wikipedia perception is
that it is not much of a problem (statistically it is).

When people write scientific papers about Wikipedia, English Wikipedia is
to be included on penalty of not finding a publisher (a quote from a Dutch
professor at a Wikimedia conference).  When the last resort for keeping
images on Commons, OTRS, has a not so public policy where for images to be
accepted the English Wikipedia notability policy is expected. What does it
take for you to alter your perception. What does it take for us to
understand how big this bias is and how insidious its effects are?

Perception, opinions provides the worst guidance because they allow you to
deny the facts that are in front of you.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:32, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

>  Like Peter, I do not see a clear connection to the proposed rebranding.
> Threads of this sort would be more constructive if they were framed in a
> way that does not unnecessarily tie in every other issue one might have
> with the movement, and that does not imply that anybody with a different
> perspective must be evil or incompetent.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:06 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> >- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
> >
> >
>
> A file must not say it is *exclusively* for the use of Wikipedia, because
> such a condition is incompatible with the license we demand.  And there
> must be an actual license--"Wikipedia can use my picture" is the classic
> submission that requires us to ask for a proper licensing declaration.  But
> there is certainly no problem if somebody submits a file for the *purpose*
> of use on Wikipedia.  That is one of the most common motivations for
> submitting files.
>
>
>
> > Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
> photos
> > of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that
> > taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
> have
> > been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for
> the
> > subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
> OTRS,
> > the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo
> > they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying
> > assumption is that that isnt possible.
> >
>
> It does appear to be standard practice to ask who took a photograph,
> because in a great many cases, it was not the person submitting the file,
> and many people do not realize that the photographer, rather than the
> subject, owns the copyright. (As Gerard says, "understanding of copyright
> and licensing is dim".) I don't think anybody treats "the picture looks
> good" as creating an irrebuttable presumption that it is not a selfie, but
> different users do have different views of how not-a-selfie-looking a given
> file is and of how much verification should be performed more generally.
>
>
> OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
> > definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected.
> The
> > very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt
> > get overwhelmed and backlogged  contributes to the fact that the grey is
> > treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
> >
>
> My impression is that most agents go to reasonable (and sometimes
> excessive) lengths to give people submitting files a chance to show that
> they have the rights to do so.
>
> Emufarmers
> ___
> 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] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Commons is a project with a specific purpose. It is to host all media that
fits the use of any other project. As it is English Wikipedia notability
standards are used to justify why files are not to be kept on Commons. This
is contrary to its very purpose, it is not acceptable and it is not for the
Commons community to decide otherwise.

When at OTRS a license is given for the unfettered use of media respecting
an approved license, there is no argument, no rule inside OTRS itself that
is applicable particularly when that media is explicitly asked for on
another project.
Thanks,
   Gerard

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:39, Gnangarra  wrote:

> Scope is a Commons community decision,
> OTRS is solely about licensing
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:30, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO
> do
> > what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is
> NOT
> > covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the
> > notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the
> original
> > copyright holder is that as well.
> >
> > Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and
> > consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order
> > for OTRS to function for all of us.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > to quote Gerard
> > >
> > > There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as
> put
> > > > forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
> > >
> > > for purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright
> laws,
> > > both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
> > > transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in
> regards
> > > to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
> > > consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that
> > action
> > > of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue
> > in
> > > the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved
> in
> > > the process.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
> > > > understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a
> > reference
> > > > is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing
> rules
> > > and
> > > > regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly
> > > unfit
> > > > for purpose.
> > > >
> > > > Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on
> > > > Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated
> what
> > > OTRS
> > > > adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that
> it
> > > is
> > > > NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
> > > >
> > > > Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude
> is
> > to
> > > > be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is
> easier
> > to
> > > > say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
> > > >
> > > > OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know
> > > > selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
> > > copyright
> > > > and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with
> > > > material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available
> under
> > a
> > > > WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a
> > > > secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere
> > with a
> > > > more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of
> > > > copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
> > > result
> > > > is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule
> > > > should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at
> > the
> > > > time and any and all issues NOT involving the cop