Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It is not
obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what
jurisdiction is appropriate.

Not easy and often not actionable. So imho we neef to assess a situation
first and do what works. Chapters cannot be involved so this is often the
only optoom.
Thanks,
 GerardM


Op za 18 feb. 2017 om 12:11 schreef Tim Landscheidt 

> Robert Fernandez  wrote:
>
> > […]
>
> > And to this I would add that these are not issues of community governance
> > at all.   The WMF should not interfere in matters of community governance
> > like policy issues regarding article content, etc.  But when we are
> talking
> > about issues regarding off-wiki harassment, sexual predators, etc., why
> > should this fall under the banner of community governance as it has
> nothing
> > to do with writing an encyclopedia?  These are legal, real world issues
> and
> > should be handled by professionals and/or law enforcement.
>
> > […]
>
> No, they should be handled by law enforcement.  What other-
> wise can happen can be currently seen by looking at the
> Catholic Church in Australian, or the USA Gymnastics team,
> or the British soccer teams, or, or, or.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> 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] What is our impact and how do we measure it?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are many area's where Wikipedia is biased. Obviously we take the
gender gap seriously but there is also a bias towards the Western world. It
is very much in the very basics of our community. Why should we study the
bias in a field like economics? When we were to study it what kind of
impact should we study? Remember there is this "neutral point of view" and
remember Wikipedia is not about "original research" and that is what you
are calling for.

So consider what is it that makes any subject of relevance so that our
board has to study this, why could we not leave it to the researchers ...
or should we not first study the existing bias in our research ?
Thanks,
GerardM


Op do 23 feb. 2017 om 18:24 schreef James Salsman 

> Another fact to consider is that both doctors and patients have been
> obtaining most of their medical information from Wikipedia for years:
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-
> healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/
>
> Christophe, does the Board agree that the Foundation should study bias
> in the wikipedias' economics articles and its impact on society?
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:01 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a
> large
> > proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
> >
> > http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf
> >
> > On a related note, I tried to reply off-list to the Foundation official
> who
> > recently claimed that my assertion that systemic bias in the English
> > Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications
> was,
> > "framed with a leading question," and "filled with a good deal of
> > speculation," by asking what she thought of the evidence I presented on
> how
> > the "Fair Tax" article and the other Mises-influenced walled garden
> articles
> > had been successfully gamed into appearing first in the automatically
> > generated set of "related articles" on articles with an opposite economic
> > perspective, such as "Making Work Pay tax credit," but there was no
> reply.
> >
> > Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study?
> I've
> > asked the Chair of the Board of Trustees to do so, but there hasn't been
> a
> > reply to that either.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:57 PM Chris Keating <
> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> For a while now I've been thinking about different ways to define and
> >> measure the Wikimedia movement's impact. This started for me with
> various
> >> conversations about different iterations of the WMF's Global Metrics and
> >> different rounds of FDC bids, but it turns out to be wider than that.
> >>
> >> This is a big and thorny topic and one where we seem to have come up
> with
> >> a
> >> lot of implicit answers without spending much time thinking about in any
> >> detail, so I've written up my thoughts as a meta-essay here:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Thinking_
> about_the_impact_of_the_Wikimedia_movement
> >>
> >> I'd be really interested to hear other peoples' views!
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> (User:The Land)
>
> ___
> 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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please explain..
To me it is not politica but Common sense.
Thanks,
GerardM

Op wo 1 mrt. 2017 om 22:18 schreef Rogol Domedonfors 

It seems to be in line with the new Values statement: "we seek to
continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our world".
Of course that's political.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.
>
> I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
> after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
> political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
> or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
> confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
> 'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
> should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
> (visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
> balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).
>
> Is this perhaps still work in progress?
>
> On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
> Wikipedians as a background.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon :
>
> > Hi James.
> >
> > You can find out more about the Endowment here:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
> > > "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
> > > or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
> > > very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
> > > https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
> > >
> > > Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
> > > eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
> > > the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
> > > should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
> > > volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
> > > understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
> > > Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
> > > raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
> > > culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
> > > censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
> > > given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
> > > personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
> > > in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
> > > Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
> > > Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
> > >
> > > Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
> > > income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
> > > it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
> > > equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
> > > -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
> > > investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
> > > meet?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand 
> wrote:
> > > > An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a
> rather
> > > > bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
> > > starts
> > > > off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
> > > school-age",
> > > > followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic:
> "That
> > > > means 10 million children are away from their homes, their
> communities,
> > > and
> > > > their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is
> unique,
> > > but
> > > > every single one loses time from their important learning years.
Many
> > of
> > > > them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages
and
> > > > cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's
> vision
> > > and
> > > > how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we
> have
> > > an
> > > > entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly
> > written
> > > in
> > > > a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian
> > Andreas
> > > > Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> > > > declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,”
> he
> > > > says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
> > > statistics
> > > > about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the
> world,
> > > > followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> > > > founder linked.
> > > >
> > > > So, thi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Visiting the United States is no longer an option for many people. The
current situation is absolutely not only about immigration it is also about
visiting. When a nationalised person of Iranian ancestry has family in
Iran. Can he or she still visit his family and come back? Can his family
still visit him? The situation is reminiscent of what happens in North and
South Korea.

Really, people do not appreciate half of what is happening in the USA. I
seriously ask myself if I could visit the USA and not be harassed. I am
Caucasian, from the Netherlands and I am a Muslim. When we do not see that
a large part of our community can no longer visit "the land of the free"
and call this political, we do not appreciate what we stand for. When
people find that the position they take is one where the notion that
America is no longer the land of the free, where white extremism is free to
burn mosques and kill based on the difference in the colour of their skin
is acceptable, they are welcome to find a problem with what Wikimedia as a
worldwide movement stands for.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 2 March 2017 at 00:44, Florence Devouard  wrote:

> I must say I also find the political message behind this a bit too heavy.
> It lets me a bit unconfortable.
>
> That most of the themes reported here are not Mr Trump cup of tea is quite
> obvious. That the whole page is a message against the president, I get it.
>
> But in some cases, I think it is really lacking subtility or a bit too
> manipulative. And that is not so cool.
>
> For example... the message "one in six people visited another country in
> 2016"... illustrated by "SeaTac Airport protest against immigration ban.
> Sit-in blocking arrival gates until 12 detainees at Sea-Tac are released.
> Photo by Dennis Bratland.CC BY-SA 4.0"
>
> Really... "visiting a country" is a quite different thing from
> "immigrating".
>
> I think the choice of picture inappropriate.
>
> Florence
>
>
>
> Le 01/03/2017 à 21:15, Lodewijk a écrit :
>
>> I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.
>>
>> I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
>> after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
>> political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
>> or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
>> confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
>> 'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
>> should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
>> (visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
>> balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).
>>
>> Is this perhaps still work in progress?
>>
>> On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
>> Wikipedians as a background.
>>
>> Best,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> 2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon :
>>
>> Hi James.
>>>
>>> You can find out more about the Endowment here:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
>>>
>>> Seddon
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
 "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
 or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
 very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
 https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html

 Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
 eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
 the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
 should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
 volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
 understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
 Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
 raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
 culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
 censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
 given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
 personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
 in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
 Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
 Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf

 Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
 income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
 it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
 equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
 -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
 investing? Does anyone know when

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.

No, we do not have to show the other side when this is based on a lie. We
can inform about the lie but it is not as if we have to present it for
anything but a lie.
Thanks,
 GerardM


Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia 

> I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that is
> to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever possible).
> One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the things
> I think 
> is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the
> politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
>
> The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do so,
> I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and the
> letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016 was
> the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may sound
> good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the refugee
> crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects of
> taking in refugees on a nation’s economy.
>
> We need a change in tone. Instead of selecting one-liner facts, we need to
> find a way to convey the idea that the Wikimedia movement values the
> diversity of opinions, that we value working together to understand each
> others’ opinions and present them fairly. One thing that comes to mind for
> me is linking directly to the Wikipedia articles about these issues. If
> Wikipedia is truly the place that is "there when you need factual
> information, not opinion or advocacy” [1], why not show it off?
>
> In any case, it helps to reiterate that “Articles must not take sides, but
> should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies
> to both what you say and how you say it.” [2]
>
> Mz7
>
> [1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/jimmy-wales-letter.html
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (“this
> page in a nutshell”)
>
> > On Mar 2, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact
> with civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore
> politics only until they affect you directly.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
> > Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 2:33 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"
> >
> > Like SJ I love the imagery and and style. As for the rest, I come here
> to get away from politics, so it is a little unsettling to see the WMF get
> so overtly political even though part of me revels in the sentiments. I too
> worry how unsettling that would be for those who don't share the politics
> presented.
> >
> > I care about visa and migration rules, I cared about the subject before
> I wound up with an 18 month delay from my wedding to when I was able to get
> my wife a visa to join me in London, but that's irrelevant to this
> movement. The concern about the Trump travel ban is a stark contrast to the
> level of fuss the WMF has made in the past about the many people who have
> been unable to get visas to attend Wikimania. I don't know how many WMF
> staff were caught by the travel ban, but several dozen Wikimedians have
> been unable to attend Wikimanias in the last few years due to visa
> restrictions. It wouldn't surprise me if more Wikimedians were refused
> visas to attend Wikimania in DC whilst Obama was President than are known
> to have been caught by the Trump ban. If so it either looks like the WMF is
> being political, or that it cares more about staff than volunteers; neither
> would be a good message. One of the good things about South Africa as the
> > 2018 venue is that it is possibly our most visa friendly venue since
> Buenos Aires. If as a movement we are going to make a fuss about travel, I
> would like to see that lead by a commitment to at least host every other
> Wikimania in countries where almost any Wikimedian could get a visa.
> >
> > Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with
> the second sentence:
> >
> >
> > *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
> increased by 170 million .*
> > This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Sources may take sides. Absolutely. It is exactly by producing
"alternative" facts that some sources define themselves. Once it has been
established that a sourced statement is actually a lie, it becomes clear
cut. We do not write articles to accommodate whoever, when they lie and it
is clear, it is what we are to report. When people have an opinion where
you can disagree but where there is no established absence of truth it
follows that we should provide a NPOV, a neutral point of view.

We may indicate given positions but to deny the truth is to deny for
instance that slavery was at the basis of many US universities, and and and.

When 25% of our public are students learning about the world, we have to
have our facts straight. We know many things for instance that measles can
kill and we should never say otherwise. To accommodate that point of view
is being complicit in the consequences.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 2 March 2017 at 23:37, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Facts, sources do not take sides. When Wikipedia has to write articles
> > differently to accomodate alternative facts we have a serious problem.
> >
>
> It's not as clear cut as you say it here. :) A couple of things to share:
>
> * Sources/references may take sides. In Wikipedia, many editors have
> decided that they want to express all "claims" as long as they are
> supported by references/sources (with some constraints on the references).
> This is true in at least one other project: in Wikidata, you have the
> notion of provenance which means potentially contradicting statements can
> exist at the same time. This is a good thing, for many reasons, one of
> which is that it empowers people to see many sides and educate themselves.
>
> * In a world in which many of your questions have a clear and direct answer
> (at least on the surface) offered to you by a quick search, a project such
> as Wikipedia is admired by at least some of our readers as a place to
> explore, learn, dig deeper. What we have learned is that 25% of English
> Wikipedia readers read Wikipedia for intrinsic learning, 20% read it
> because they are bored (some percentage can be common between these two
> categories). These people spend more time on each page than the other
> motivation groups, they seem to be reading more than just a few
> sentences.[1] Wikipedia is one of the very few places left on the web for
> deep learning, thinking, seeing all sides and all views, and forming an
> opinion the way /you/ as an individual see things, after learning about all
> sides. This is very empowering and something to protect.[2]
>
> Leila
>
>
> [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379
> [2] As you may know, as an Iranian living in the U.S., me and my family are
> heavily affected by the recent political changes. I sympathize with all of
> you, who like me, are affected, but that's outside of the scope of this
> thread and maybe something to chat more about in an upcoming event when we
> meet in person. :)
>
>
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> >
> > Op do 2 mrt. 2017 om 16:17 schreef Mz7 Wikipedia <
> mz7.wikipe...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > I don’t think any of us are arguing we should “ignore politics” (that
> is
> > > to say, try to avoid mentioning it or referring to it whenever
> possible).
> > > One of our values as a movement is recognizing that there are many
> > > different perspectives on many different issues (which is one of the
> > things
> > > I think <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values/2016_discussion/
> > Synthesis>
> > > is trying to get at). Our goal is neither to ignore nor to engage in
> > > politics, or even to declare what the “truth” is, but to *explain* the
> > > politics and to explain what different people think the truth is.
> > >
> > > The Annual Report fails to capitalize on this idea. It attempts to do
> so,
> > > I think, with headings like “Providing Context Amid Complexity”, and
> the
> > > letters from Katherine Maher and Jimmy Wales. But one-liners like “2016
> > was
> > > the hottest year on record” are exactly the kind of things that may
> sound
> > > good on the surface, but they do not nearly capture the “context amid
> > > complexity" of the issue at hand. For example, “half of refugees are
> > > school-age” isn’t significant to someone who already recognizes the
> > refugee
> > > crisis’s impact on families, but is concerned about, say, the effects
> of
> > > taking in refugees on a nation’s econ

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
 this is neither Commons nor German Wikipedia   We know that
each subset of the Wikimedia Community may have its own arguments and its
own consensus. By allowing for such a discussion new arguments may arise.
That is useful.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 5 March 2017 at 13:33, Steinsplitter Wiki 
wrote:

> This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp, thus
> i see no need to discuss it here again.
>
> The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> speaks for itself.
>
> --Steinsplitter
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
>
>
> 
> Von: Wikimedia-l  im Auftrag von
> rupert THURNER 
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> business
>
> case 1:
> 
> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> 
>
> personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> not ready for proper online usage.
>
> rupert
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
> in
> > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
> > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> >  aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> > of
> > hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
> or this
> > website that was asked  to
> > pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> > contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> > behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia"
> to
> > find more examples and stories.
> >
> > Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard :
> >
> >> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> >> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> >> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> >> what we're actually talking about here?
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You seek cultural change but what is it that you want to change? You are
outspoken and as others commented an edge that is more than
confrontational. My appreciation is one where I fail to see the connection
with what we do, it is only about how we do it. That is in my opinion
overrated.

In many ways, I have found that our community is overly self observed. They
care mostly about their patch and when changes happen they are possessive;
they hardly care about how together with a more communal effort we make
more progress. I give you one example; I got in contact with people who
(take) care of the Black Lunch Table. We discussed the issues with the
project and we worked to manage the project largely using Wikidata. So all
the 900+ people including the "red links" where added to Wikidata. After a
discussion at Wikidata we now use "catalog" with "Black Lunch Table" to
indicate the items involved. The benefits: in stead of three Wikitables
that have to be maintained, Listeria does all three based on the same data.
We found that many other Wikipedias have articles on the people identified
by the Black Lunch Table and the same queries should work on those
Wikipedias as well. The consequence is that more time can be spend on
actually caring about the project, the articles and even the data.

My point is that community is NOT about how we are supposed to do things
because if we had to ask the community for this experiment, we would have
no answer. It is because true people from the community, people who make a
difference for the projects themselves were involved, they allowed for the
experiment and are starting to see their benefit and the benefit for us
all. Now THAT is a cultural change and my challenge is old; I want to
discuss quality with Wiki people and I want us to do better. When we do
better, we will be better able to recognise fake facts.

For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to
support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or is
their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us stick in
the mud as it stifles initiative?
Thanks,
  GerardM



On 5 March 2017 at 11:21, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> Pine,
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:45 PM, you wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > The way that you phrase your questions sometimes comes across to me as
> > having an edge than is more confrontational than I think is necessary,
> and
> > I am finding the tone to be a distraction from what is, I think, our
> mutual
> > goal of trying to align WMF more with the community. Sometimes carrots
> work
> > better than sticks. I have a long list of changes that I would like WMF
> to
> > make, but cultural change is a long term process, and sometimes patience
> > works better than demands.
> >
>
> Unfortunately cultural change is unlikely to happen against a background of
> perpetual unwarranted self-congratulation and complacency.  A clear
> articulation of areas needing improvement and suggestions for ways of
> improving may not always make for comfortable reading, but I make no
> apology for presenting that position.  I would have been happy to have been
> able to be more detailed in my suggestions, but it seems to me that the
> Foundation is, and has been for some time, unable or unwilling to
> acknowledge, let alone respond to or engage with, the attempts by numerous
> community members to initiate a serious engagement.  Perhaps your
> experience in this area has been better, and if so, I would be pleased to
> hear from you what your successes have been and how you have achieved them.
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> 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] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As far as I am concerned we have working and workable procedures. The
problem that I see is that the primacy is not with the "community" in
everything. We have multiple communities and there is no single subset that
can claim sovereignty over everything with the possible exception of the
board of the Wikimedia Foundation. Who has an explicit role in this.

What I have observed is that there is too much discussion that can be
characterised with "turf war" and too little discussion about what it is we
do and how we can improve on it. Quality of the content of our projects
trumps what some of the community want every time. We are so engrossed in
what we do and for most of the vocal ones it is English Wikipedia so much
so that we accept its resolutions as resolutions. They are often baked in
the software and to be honest that is extremely problematic.

When you start with our primary objective; sharing the sum of all
knowledge, the experiment performed on the Volapük Wikipedia is of extreme
interest. It generated a lot of articles using translation software and the
result was a lot of interest including people reading it. Fast forward and
you find articles created based on DATA for Wikipedias that are actually
useful. These articles provide a purpose and are read. People still object
because their role as an editor is diminished and "who is going to update
when the data is wrong?".  Issues like this can be solved but they do not
get attention by the WMF staff because of "the community". They do not get
attention from the "community leaders" because obviously it would not play
well with "their" community.

Just consider what we are about. Are we about what we aim to achieve or are
we about whatever "community" and the interplay with its "adversary"  the
Foundation? I do care about what we aim to achieve, I resent the
inattention our objectives get.
Thanks,
 GerardM



On 6 March 2017 at 20:07, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> Gerard
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM, you wrote:
>
> >
> > For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to
> > support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or is
> > their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us stick
> in
> > the mud as it stifles initiative?
> >
>
> A fallacious dichotomy, as no doubt you were well aware.  We need to
> establish working and workable procedures that allow Community and
> Foundation to engage together in planning at the level of long-term
> strategy and medium-term technical roadmap so that the WMF are able to
> deliver quality products that support the mission effectively.  Do you
> think we have those already?  Or do you think we can do without them?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> 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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
With all respect, the summary is not a summary. Wading through long, long
more of the same is not helpful. We have had more of the same here on this
list.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 8 March 2017 at 06:45, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Risker wrote:
> >I am very curious. Why is it that there seems to be so much resistance to
> >this draft code of conduct?
>
> You may find these links helpful:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> February/086595.html
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Summary_of_criticisms
>
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] Maps for Haiti

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
A lot of effort has gone into getting ready to support OSM in our projects.

What I want the Wikimedia Foundation is to allow the use of OSM maps in the
Haitian Wikipedia because existing maps are largely not in sync with the
reality in Haiti. As I understood from information at the website of
Doctors without Borders, much of the infrastructure is gone and it is
problematic to know what exists. They rely on OSM.

By providing the best maps to the Haitian Wikipedia we provide a relevant
service. I understand that we do support OSM in Wikivoyage.

Could we please support OSM maps in the Haitian Wikipedia.
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] Maps for Haiti

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What the current state of play is that the WIkimaps people have it that it
cannot be done. That it will be denied.

So no. Could we have it and if so, THEN we may ask he Haitian community if
they want it. The same thing applies to other Wikipedias that want to show
maps of Haiti.
Thanks,


On 8 March 2017 at 10:31, Yongmin H.  wrote:

> That's something local community has to decide and when they decide to do
> so, they will have to submit their request to phabricator. See [1].
>
> [1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes
> --
> Yongmin
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> https://wp.revi.blog
> Please note that this address is list-only address and any non-mailing
> list mails will be treated as spam.
> Please use https://encrypt.to/0x947f156f16250de39788c3c35b625da5beff197a.
>
> 2017. 3. 8. 18:19 Gerard Meijssen  작성:
>
> > Hoi,
> > A lot of effort has gone into getting ready to support OSM in our
> projects.
> >
> > What I want the Wikimedia Foundation is to allow the use of OSM maps in
> the
> > Haitian Wikipedia because existing maps are largely not in sync with the
> > reality in Haiti. As I understood from information at the website of
> > Doctors without Borders, much of the infrastructure is gone and it is
> > problematic to know what exists. They rely on OSM.
> >
> > By providing the best maps to the Haitian Wikipedia we provide a relevant
> > service. I understand that we do support OSM in Wikivoyage.
> >
> > Could we please support OSM maps in the Haitian Wikipedia.
> > 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Maps for Haiti

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
That is a subset of the functionality available to Wikivoyate ...
https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/San_Francisco/SoMa#Get_in
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 8 March 2017 at 11:09, Marco Chiesa  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > What the current state of play is that the WIkimaps people have it that
> it
> > cannot be done. That it will be denied.
>
> I don't understand your point. To be honest, I don't understand the
> relation between Wikimaps (I understand it's this:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimaps ) and
> OpenStreetMap
> >
> > So no. Could we have it and if so, THEN we may ask he Haitian community
> if
> > they want it. The same thing applies to other Wikipedias that want to
> show
> > maps of Haiti.
>
> On the Italian Wikipedia we can see OSM maps of Haiti (see
> https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti on the top right the link "Mappa"
> will popup the OSM map of Haiti); I guess the community asked at some
> point.
> I don't know how it works on mobiles, and whether it would work on
> Wikipedia Zero programs, but on a technical level it is definitely
> doable.
>
> Marco
>
> ___
> 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] Occupation of Women on WikiData

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I love data. There is one fact to consider; most of the items in Wikidata
have few statements [1]. Another associated thing is that once there is a
sufficiently representative part of the data, statistically the numbers
shown by Envil Le Hir will remain similar; there will be no significant
change. However, given that people like myself have been hard at work
adding data from Wikipedias, particularly the English Wikipedia, the bias
of these Wikipedias will have transfered to Wikidata.

There are two types of data; what interests the English Wikipedia editors
and the extend categories have been added to the "outlier" articles. The
consequence is that while I love the stats I expect that with more interest
for the subjects that are not common, we will find that the numbers for the
countries that get less attention will change significantly more than for
the subjects that are the bread and butter of the more popular Wikipedias.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse

On 8 March 2017 at 14:01, Florence Devouard  wrote:

> This is a tool done by Envel Le Hir using WikiData and published today.
>
> I actually inspired him the idea during a conference, when talking of my
> desire to get generic data about women professionnal occupation. My main
> argument is that I felt many of the added biographies about women were
> about actors, singers, or football players. Much less about politicians and
> business. But it was a "guess" and I wanted more hard data.
>
> And apparently... he got busy
>
> http://tools.dicare.org/gaps/gender.php
>
> Ok.
> Hard data (1950-2005 birth dates):
> * 80% of the biographies of porn actors are about women.
> * 98.3% of beauty pageant contestants are about women.
> * 24% of politicians are about women
> * 8.4% of computer scientists are about women.
>
> Or ... In Algeria... the more popular occupation of women by far is...
> Volley Ball !
> In France... actors.
> And in Guinea... well... hard to say... only 17 biographies about Guinean
> women anyway.
>
> Florence
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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] Using non-free elements vs our values (Apple Maps vs Wikipedia iOS app)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What I do not understand is why?  We have had maps and nearby functionality
for a very long time 2014 based on Wikidata [1]. It has the benefit of
being of use in any of our languages much more than what Apple has to
offer. This was developed at the Hackathon in Vienna.

OSM maps have as a benefit that they serve countries like Haiti much better
[2]. It is why Doctors Without Borders use their maps and not others [2].

A third reason is that by concentrating on the Apple API and kits we are
not developing for the majority of smart phones.

A fourth reason is that it will enhance the cooperation with the OSM
community.

A final reason is that we are already Wikidatafying Commons; this will have
a geo location part as well and consequently I do not see any advantages in
anything but a Wikidata approach to maps because through queries we can
target Wikipedia articles in a language. A final argument, it will drive
more people to add labels in Wikidata in the language where our coverage is
now not so good. Including English in China.
Thanks,
  GerardM

PS I do have an iPhone.

[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/05/wmhack-maps-and-wikidata-ii.html
[2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2011/03/need-for-up-to-date-maps.html

On 11 March 2017 at 03:59, Jonatan Svensson Glad 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I'm not one who usually writes on these lists, but since it seems like a
> good way to get others opinions (and ince I've already formed my own), I
> thought it was a good way to see what others had to say and think.
>
>
> The mobile team for the iOS app (who are all awesome!)  has recently
> released (in beta) a version of the app which incorporates Apple Maps a one
> of it's main feature, to find articles nearby.
>
>
> "The Wikipedia iOS app has released a beta version (5.4.0 1081) which uses
> Apple maps as its map data source. This is not an easy decision and has
> already sparked some discussion of whether this is acceptable given our
> project's values."
>
>
> These maps are not free (non-libre) and is in my strong opinion against
> our values. We only create and publish things which are freely licensed
> (with fair use imagery being the only exception, after a board resolution
> regarding EDP's).
>
>
> Some reasons why this was done can be read here:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Maps_service
>
>
> I was asked if we could use non-free elements as long as we said it was
> non-free and you may not be allowed to re-ue it, and I responded with "If
> we can't find enough editors for Wikipedia, would it ever be alright if we
> copied text from Britannica, as long as we said it was from Britannica, and
> that reusers can not use it" i.e. just because we can't make something,
> doesn't mean we should use something else (non-free thing) to reach our
> 'wants', if it causes us to  loose what is... 'us'.
>
>
> I'm seeking imput and opinions from you all whether this i allowed or not
> our according to values, which states:
>
>
> "An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging
> the development of free-content educational resources that may be created,
> used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this
> mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to
> allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use,
> and reuse.
>
> At the creation level, we want to provide the editing community with
> freely-licensed tools for participation and collaboration. Our community
> should also have the freedom to fork thanks to freely available dumps.
>
> The community will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be
> distributed freely throughout the world, viewable or playable by free
> software tools."
> ___
> 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] dmoz.org

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is not going to be absorbed in Wikidata. We did not even do that for
Freebase to my regret.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 12 March 2017 at 09:03, carl hansen  wrote:

> I see dmoz.org is going offline in few days after a couple decades. It is
> a
> community-written project. Will it be absorbed into wikidata? Sort of a
> snapshot-in-time of the web. Get it while you can, at
> http://rdf.dmoz.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] Using non-free elements vs our values (Apple Maps vs Wikipedia iOS app)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
One point about OSM is that it provides a better service in situations that
are sub optimal. The infra structure for Haiti is diminished and it is in
OSM where people are actually working hard to provide the best map service.

We have had nearby function in Labs for a very long time, I have read the
article and I find what has been decided, it does not provide me with the
reasons for it. As far as I am concerned you chose to go this way.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 15 March 2017 at 01:18, Joshua Minor  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> My name is Josh Minor, and I am the Product Manager for the Wikipedia iOS
> app. I wanted to speak to a couple specific issues and misunderstandings
> raised by this email thread.
>
> First, please take a look at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Maps_service which
> provides some background on this decision. Jonatan linked to it, and it
> covers several of the concerns raised on the thread and gives our
> reasoning. I'd also suggest subscribing to this ticket:
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T157763 which Jonatan filed, and where
> you can track efforts and issues with replacement maps.
>
> A few clarifying points:
>
> 1. The Places tab[1], and its use of Apple’s maps tiles, is not part of the
> articles or article display, it is a navigational aid to help you find
> articles. This doesn’t mean it’s exempt from considerations raised here,
> but just want to clarify that this is not about editor created maps in
> projects, but rather an app-specific discovery mechanism.
>
> 2. The feature doesn’t violate our privacy policy[2] and was reviewed by
> Wikimedia Foundation's Legal department before entering beta. The App’s
> access to the users’ geolocation to recommend nearby articles, with the
> users’ explicit consent, is already part of both apps. The new feature
> merely adds a different way to visually view nearby articles - the user
> must, as before, still provide explicit consent for the App to access their
> geolocation. Users can always turn on or off the provision of their
> geolocation via their iPhone location settings.
>
> The feature also makes requests to Apple’s map tile servers for display on
> the App. These tiles may or may not be near the actual location of the
> user. It doesn’t involve sending Apple the articles you read or anything
> about your Wikipedia usage. Apple has public statements and documentation
> to explain[3] how their maps service preserves privacy by using a
> randomized and frequently changing device ID to request the maps, by not
> tracking users over time, and by not  building map usage profiles of users.
> Overall, Apple’s data collection practices are governed by their privacy
> policy [4], which  users must agree to order to use their iPhones.
>
> We plan to further expand the explanation in the FAQ/privacy section of the
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Maps_service page
> in
> the next day or so.
>
> 3. As stated by others on this thread, the issue at hand is the feasibility
> and usability of a libre maps tile server, and impacts on users and how it
> reflects (or doesn’t) the values of Wikimedians. The rest of the work on
> this feature (such as the time spent on search, visually clustering items
> on the map, a list view of nearby landmarks, and the Wikipedia article
> pins) will be applicable, independent of the map provider. In fact, I’d
> estimate the engineer doing the work spent more time on hacking to try to
> make a combination of MapBox and Wikimedia tiles work, than he did/will on
> integrating/removing Apple maps.
>
> 4. This feature was announced on the Wikimedia Blog[5], described in an
> initial MediaWiki.org page[6], all work was documented and tracked on
> Phabricator (including an initial tech investigation, the request to remove
> Apple Maps during development, and the overall feature[7]) and then the
> decision to push into beta with Apple Maps further documented on
> MediaWiki.org[8].
>
> In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the feedback and the
> opportunity to engage in a civil discussion about these important issues.
> Again, if you are interested in the next steps, I’d invite you to subscribe
> and comment on the phab ticket https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T157763
> or
> the MediaWiki.org page.
>
> [1] Design specification: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T130889
> [2]
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/
> Maps_service#Privacy
> [3] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203033,
> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056,
> http://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/
> [4] http://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policy/
> [5] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/17/wikipedia-mobile/
> [6] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Nearby
> [7] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/ios-app-feature-places/
> [8] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Maps_service
> __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I noticed the notion about "quality in Wikidata". The approach is very much
in line with what is the norm in Wikipedia. This is inot the right approach
for Wikidata. Many of the items in Wikidata can be of high "quality"; ie
the statements have a source and there are enough labels but the true value
of these items are in the use of these items as statements in other items..
(for instance a university indicates that someone studied there).  Another
quality point is that for authors a VIAF statements allows for the linking
in Wikipedias in external sources. This is of a high importance, it makes
Wikidata useful and, if that is not of a quality consideration what is?

One other aspect of Wikidata is that it is still highly immature. Just
consider the statistics for labels and statements [1] . This is only the
first month where less than 10% of our items have no statement.. We talk
about quality but quality should have a practical meaning. Just saying this
or that item is so good, it makes for stamp collecting. The point of a
stamp is not to collect them it is to send mail. Quality means that we know
how many articles have been written in one or more editathons. It is in
finding for a collection of items that it is better known what award,
schooling has been achieved by the people that was written for. It is in
using Wikidata to indicate what categories could be in what Wikipedia
article.

Quality needs to be actionable. What is the use of static quality?
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse

On 17 March 2017 at 02:19, Pine W  wrote:

> Sharing some good news, both about the progress of ORES and (my primary
> inspiration for sharing this email) significant improvements in article
> quality thanks to WikiProject Women scientists. The latter has been
> designated as the Keilana Effect.
>
> Pine
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Aaron Halfaker 
> Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update
> To: Application of Artificial Intelligence and other advanced computing
> strategies to Wikimedia Projects 
> Cc: wikitech-l 
>
>
> Hey folks!
>
> I should really stop calling this a weekly update because it's getting a
> bit silly at this point.  :)   But if it were a weekly update, it would
> cover the weeks of 42 - 46.
>
> *Highlights:*
>
>- 3 new models: Finnish Wikipedia (reverted) and Estonian Wikipedia
>(damaging & goodfaith)
>
>
>- We estimated and agreed on funding for ORES servers in the next year
>with Operations
>
>
>- We published a paper about vandalism detection in Wikidata and a blog
>post about the massive effect of some initiatives on coverage of Women
>Scientists in Wikipedia.
>
>
> *New development:*
>
>- We added recall-based threshold metrics to the new draftquality model
>which should help tool devs know what which new page creations to
> highlight
>for review[1]
>
>
>- We added optional notices for ORES pages which will help us visually
>distinguish our experimental install in WMFlabs from the Prod install (
>ores.wikimedia.org)[2]
>
>
>- We added basic language support for Finish (Thanks 4shadoww)[3] and
>deployed a 'reverted' model[4]
>
>
>- We lead a discussion in Wikidata about "item quality" that resulted in
>a Wikipedia 1.0 like scale for Wikidata quality[5,6] and designed a
>Wikilabels form to capture the gist of it[7]
>
>
>- We enabled the ORES Review Tool on Czech Wikipedia[8]
>
>
>- We configured ChangeProp to use our new minified JSON output to save
>bandwidth[9]
>
>
>- We extended the Estonian language assets (Thanks Cumbril)[10] and
>deployed the 'damaging' and 'goodfaith' models[11,12]
>
>
>- We enabled a testing model for 'goodfaith' on the Beta Cluster to make
>it easier for the Collaboration team to run tests with their new filter
>interface[13]
>
>
>- We created a new "precache" endpoint that will allow us to
>de-duplicate configuration with ChangeProp and handle all routing in
> ORES
>locally[14]
>
>
> *Resourcing:*
>
>- We completed a 2 year estimate of ORES resource needs and discussed
>funding (capital expendature) for ORES in the coming fiscal year[15].
> This
>will allow us to continue to grow ORES both in number of models and in
>scoring capacity.
>
>
> *Communications:*
>
>- Amir improved the KDD paper based on review feedback[16] and got it
>published[17]
>
>
>- We published a blob post about our measurements of WikiProject Women
>Scientists[18,19] -- "The Keilana Effect"
>
>
>- Thanks to Cumbril's work, the Estonian labeling campaing was
>finished[20]
>
>
> *Deployments:*
>
>- In early February, we deployed a new set of translations to Wikilabels
>(specifcally targeting Romanian Wikipedia)[21]
>
>
>- In mid-February, we deployed some fixes to ORES documentation and
>response forma

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I so agree but when it is quality that is to be achieved let it be a
guidance that helps us to achieve quality.

Wikidata should bring things together. I do not aim to achieve the quality
as described because it fails in achieving things that are actionable and
have a measurable effect on the quality of Wikidat as being complimentary
to Wikipedia.

Arguably the quality that Wikidata brings is not realised because of
Wikidata items are considered in the same way as articles. They are not.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 17 March 2017 at 13:06, Richard Nevell 
wrote:

> Having guidance on quality helps people learning about Wikidata understand
> what they should be aiming for.
>
> The paper on vandalism detection in Wikidata sounds interesting, where can
> I find it?
>
> Richard
>
> On 17 March 2017 at 09:09, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I noticed the notion about "quality in Wikidata". The approach is very
> much
> > in line with what is the norm in Wikipedia. This is inot the right
> approach
> > for Wikidata. Many of the items in Wikidata can be of high "quality"; ie
> > the statements have a source and there are enough labels but the true
> value
> > of these items are in the use of these items as statements in other
> items..
> > (for instance a university indicates that someone studied there).
> Another
> > quality point is that for authors a VIAF statements allows for the
> linking
> > in Wikipedias in external sources. This is of a high importance, it makes
> > Wikidata useful and, if that is not of a quality consideration what is?
> >
> > One other aspect of Wikidata is that it is still highly immature. Just
> > consider the statistics for labels and statements [1] . This is only the
> > first month where less than 10% of our items have no statement.. We talk
> > about quality but quality should have a practical meaning. Just saying
> this
> > or that item is so good, it makes for stamp collecting. The point of a
> > stamp is not to collect them it is to send mail. Quality means that we
> know
> > how many articles have been written in one or more editathons. It is in
> > finding for a collection of items that it is better known what award,
> > schooling has been achieved by the people that was written for. It is in
> > using Wikidata to indicate what categories could be in what Wikipedia
> > article.
> >
> > Quality needs to be actionable. What is the use of static quality?
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php?reverse
> >
> > On 17 March 2017 at 02:19, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Sharing some good news, both about the progress of ORES and (my primary
> > > inspiration for sharing this email) significant improvements in article
> > > quality thanks to WikiProject Women scientists. The latter has been
> > > designated as the Keilana Effect.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: Aaron Halfaker 
> > > Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:14 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] The Revision Scoring weekly update
> > > To: Application of Artificial Intelligence and other advanced computing
> > > strategies to Wikimedia Projects 
> > > Cc: wikitech-l 
> > >
> > >
> > > Hey folks!
> > >
> > > I should really stop calling this a weekly update because it's getting
> a
> > > bit silly at this point.  :)   But if it were a weekly update, it would
> > > cover the weeks of 42 - 46.
> > >
> > > *Highlights:*
> > >
> > >- 3 new models: Finnish Wikipedia (reverted) and Estonian Wikipedia
> > >(damaging & goodfaith)
> > >
> > >
> > >- We estimated and agreed on funding for ORES servers in the next
> year
> > >with Operations
> > >
> > >
> > >- We published a paper about vandalism detection in Wikidata and a
> > blog
> > >post about the massive effect of some initiatives on coverage of
> Women
> > >Scientists in Wikipedia.
> > >
> > >
> > > *New development:*
> > >
> > >- We added recall-based threshold metrics to the new draftquality
> > model
> > >which should help tool devs know what which new page creations to
> > > highlight
> > >for review[1]
> > >
> > >
> > >- We added optional notices for ORES pages which will help us
> visually
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Status of the Code of Conduct for technical spaces

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please ..

From my perspective we should not talk about secondary topics like this. We
should certainly not be this aggressive. I said it before and I say it
again. When you are interested in what we aim to achieve talk about WHAT we
can do to do better and let HOW we can do better from an organisational
point of view be only supportive of our objectives.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 19 March 2017 at 13:45, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> "Jethro"
>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Well, folks are free to ignore invitations to comment; there are indeed a
> > lot of discussion notices for various matters, so I don't blame them if
> > they world rather volunteer their time in other places.
> >
>
>
> > But they cannot then also argue that they didn't know about it. If people
> > want to know what's going on in our projects, it's their responsibility
> to
> > follow places where announcements are posted and read them.
> >
> > - Chris
> >
>
> Really?  As a Community Organiser within the Community Engagement part of
> the Foundation, do you not believe that the Foundation has some kind of
> responsibility too?  Perhaps the Foundation, with its tens of millions of
> dollars and hundereds of staff, and its ownership and control of the means
> of communcation, might consider whether it can organise its engagement with
> a disparate community on a more sophisticated basis than telling the
> volunteers that it's their responsbility to know how to engage effectively
> with the Foundation?  Let me ask to to reread your comments from the point
> of view of a volunteer whose work builds the projects and ask yourself
> whether the attitude embodied in your comment is not just ever so slightly
> sub-optimal?  Are you completely satsifed that there is nothing at all that
> the Foundation could or should do to improve the engagement it has with the
> community?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> 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] Communicating plans and consultations

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Would you be so kind and answer the question Lodewijk asked. We are all
aware that things are not perfect but what is it that can be done to
improve it?
Thanks,
GerardM

On 20 March 2017 at 10:58, Fæ  wrote:

> In practice what we (Wikimedians) see from WMF communications programmes is
> widely spread announcements and sometimes an anonymous survey, again widely
> spread. This is literally not 'communication', it is 'broadcasting'.
>
> For communication to be meaningful, your message must not only be sent to
> the right stakeholders, but it is essential for the communication to be
> two-way. This is why I find it especially frustrating to see generic posts
> from the WMF sent by bots with no named person being the contact point. At
> least with most emails sent to email lists, these are from a named person
> and community members can respond to it, often with later replies from a
> WMF employee.
>
> Fae
>
> On 20 Mar 2017 09:51, "Peter Southwood" 
> wrote:
>
> Might it be useful to analyse the community before trying to get
> communication out of them? Then efforts can be directed to be more
> representative of the various parts. OK, I understand that to analyse them
> it needs some communication. But that is a specific and directed
> communication. Work out what might be useful to know and ask everyone.  Put
> a survey link on talk page for logged in users, and a banner  for IP users.
> We get this anyway for fundraising. Before going full scale, test the
> survey on a small group, to find out what is wrong with it, fix the worst
> problems, and be sure to allow comments and feedback.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Lodewijk
> Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017 11:04 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Communicating plans and consultations
>
> Hi Pine,
>
> it's always easier of course to tell other people what they have to change,
> which is why I'm asking the opposite question too :) What can we change, on
> our end, to make communications easier for the WMF, for community members
> that want to reach out, for chapters and other affiliates. All these are
> having a hard time to get useful input from the community.
>
> There seem very few generally accepted approaches to that:
> - using some mailing list, or some kind of forum that serves a part of the
> community you think would be most relevant (such as this mailing list, the
> wikitech mailing list etc).
> - Going all out and doing a full scale consultation/RfC with banners and
> everything. Gives you lots of comments.
> - Doing a broad and translated approach through village pumps etc - gives
> you a broad reach over languages, but within those languages still reaches
> a specific part of the community.
>
> Those methods are typically either very expensive, or not very effective.
> And I'm only talking about getting input here, not even about 'informing'
> everyone.
>
> So what can we, as a community, change to facilitate better exchange of
> ideas, experiences and provide input?
>
> Best
> Lodewijk
>
> PS: I apologize to the people who read this kind of email for the n'th
> time, it's not the first time I talk about this, I guess :)
>
> 2017-03-20 7:40 GMT+01:00 Pine W :
>
> > Attempting to summon Chris Schilling over here from the other thread. (:
> >
> > I think that some kind of analysis about optimal use of consultations
> > and surveys would be beneficial, and I'd welcome seeing something like
> > that in the next Annual Plan. Perhaps there might even be a
> > consultation or survey about consultations or surveys, which I know
> > sounds ironic but may be helpful in figuring out how much is too much
> > or too little, timing, locations, etc.
> >
> > Information management is a big deal. We have watchlists, email,
> > social media channels, Echo, and lots of other tools, but even so --
> > or perhaps because -- there are so many channels, it's easy to drown.
> > I imagine that holds true for both staff and community members, and
> > I'd welcome some initiatives to improve the situation. Perhaps someone
> > will have some ideas that they can submit to IdeaLab.
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > 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] Using non-free elements vs our values (Apple Maps vs Wikipedia iOS app)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Technical considerations are imho less relevant. What trumps it is
functionality. Our maps have to be good everywhere and as far as I know OSM
is superior in places where there is profit to be made from maps.

Current maps world wide and historical maps are what we need. How would you
use the Apple maps for a map of the Ottoman empire?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 21 March 2017 at 15:22, Dan Garry  wrote:

> Hey Magnus,
>
> There are a few other factors to consider in addition to those listed. For
> example, development cost. Our maps tile service is not compatible with the
> iOS app out of the box. This isn't surprising; Apple wants you to use
> things like Apple Maps rather than your own solution. Android is, by its
> nature, a more open platform, so I am not too surprised that it was easier
> to integrate our tile server into the Android app than the iOS app. Sadly,
> it's not as simple as just switching over to OSM-based tiles; on the
> contrary, it's a significant amount of work.
>
> Now, using our tile service would also have required the iOS app to use the
> MapBox SDK. This is the size of all their other third party libraries
> combined, significantly increasing app download size. The size of your app
> can significantly reduce downloads [1]. Switch a single feature over to a
> different set of map tiles, and possibly decreasing downloads of the app,
> seems like a dangerous and counterintuitive tradeoff to me.
>
> So the question is, given all this, is switching over the nearby feature to
> use OSM-based tiles instead of Apple Maps worth it? In the long run, if
> these problems could be solved, I'd say it absolutely is worth it. But, in
> the short term, the work would take significant time and effort, and could
> actually decrease app usage by decreasing the app download rate; that
> tradeoff doesn't seem worth it to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> Disclaimers: These are my opinions only. I worked on the apps in the past,
> but haven't for two years; my statements about development costs may be
> wrong, and the apps folks may well disagree with me about things. I work in
> the department responsible for Wikimedia maps, but have only worked on the
> team working on maps for a couple of months.
>
> [1]: https://segment.com/blog/mobile-app-size-effect-on-downloads/
>
> On 15 March 2017 at 09:25, Magnus Manske 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Josh, all,
> >
> > I am not one hell-bent on "FOSS or death"; I tend to use whatever works
> > best.
> >
> > That said, the cost-benefit analysis of using Apple Maps seems to boil
> > down:
> > * Apple Maps has slightly better rendering (didn't check, but I assume)
> > * Apple Maps uses less mobile bandwidth
> > * Apple Maps is not free (as in freedom)
> >
> > Now, looking at these points:
> >
> > * Somewhat better quality is not an argument. If it were, we would have
> > stayed with Britannica, and skipped that whole Wikipedia nonsense.
> > Wikipedia became better, in part, because people actually used it, saw
> the
> > issues, and fixed them. And OSM rendering might be not quite en par with
> > Apple Maps, it is quite usable, in my experience.
> >
> > * Less bandwidth usage is not an argument either. I doubt we are talking
> > about a significant percentage of an average users' data volume here. If
> > Android users can afford the bandwidth, so can people who buy an iPhone
> > (source: used to have iPhone).
> >
> > * The price tag is the "non-freedom". As far as I can tell, this would be
> > the very first Wikimedia "product" that incorporates non-free technology
> > and data. It sets a precedence. It also has the potential to poison the
> > otherwise great relations between the Wikipedia, Wikidata, and OSM
> > community. It says "OSM is not good enough (at least for Apple users)"
> > quite plainly. How would we feel if OSM started to remove Wikidata tags
> and
> > replace them with Britannica links?
> >
> > All in all, IMHO, the cost is too high for the (at best) flimsy benefits.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Magnus
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:52 AM Joshua Minor 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > My name is Josh Minor, and I am the Product Manager for the Wikipedia
> iOS
> > > app. I wanted to speak to a couple specific issues and
> misunderstandings
> > > raised by this email thread.
> > >
> > > First, please take a look at
> > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Maps_service
> > which
> > > provides some background on this decision. Jonatan linked to it, and it
> > > covers several of the concerns raised on the thread and gives our
> > > reasoning. I'd also suggest subscribing to this ticket:
> > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T157763 which Jonatan filed, and
> where
> > > you can track efforts and issues with replacement maps.
> > >
> > > A few clarifying points:
> > >
> > > 1. The Places tab[1], and its use of Apple’s maps tiles, is not part of
> > the
> > > articles or article display, it is a navigational aid to help you find
> > > articl

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using non-free elements vs our values (Apple Maps vs Wikipedia iOS app)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Apple maps do not provide the same maps (not as up to date) as OSM does for
a country like Haiti. That has nothing to do with "ignoring technical
difficulties" but has everything to do with the quality of the service
provided.

When you consider that work IS done on historic maps in an OSM context it
is again you ignoring functionality that you do no offer. The excuse that
"it is not on the cards" is one from your perspective; one where functional
expectations apparently do not have value.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 21 March 2017 at 17:17, Dan Garry  wrote:

> On 21 March 2017 at 14:34, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Technical considerations are imho less relevant. What trumps it is
> > functionality.
>
>
> Technical considerations are very relevant if one is doing something
> technical, for example developing an iOS app or a maps tile service.
>
>
> > Our maps have to be good everywhere and as far as I know OSM
> > is superior in places where there is profit to be made from maps.
>
>
> If you choose to ignore the technical difficulties and half of my earlier
> email, then yes, that may be true.
>
>
> > Current maps world wide and historical maps are what we need. How would
> you
> > use the Apple maps for a map of the Ottoman empire?
> >
>
> Given that our maps service does not support this, and will not any time
> soon, this is very off-topic.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> 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,
> <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] Timeless: a grant proposal

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What remains unclear is what it is that you aim to achieve. There are great
possibilities possible but there has to be a focus.

One such focus would be that it helps us focus on the relations that an
article has with with other articles. They are all or should all be related
in Wikidata anyway. With a skin that helps in determining this you have a
reason for another skin, a skin that will achieve greater quality for
multiple projects. The only question I have is how your skin would work for
other projects.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 29 March 2017 at 04:01, Isarra Yos  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm Isarra, a volunteer MediaWiki developer, and I've submitted a grant
> proposal to the WMF to support my work on a new responsive skin designed
> for the Wikimedia projects, Timeless:
>
> * Abstract: A new skin, Timeless, has been deployed to the Beta Cluster,
> but to make it worth eventual deployment to all projects, we need proper
> research into what's expected/needed from a better skin, and the ability to
> devote development resources to making it meet these expectations/needs.
> This grant, as part of a larger series of vaguely planned grants intended
> to work on many of the underlying issues with MediaWiki's user-facing
> interfaces, will serve to address this need.
> * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Timeless
>
> Timeless currently exists as fairly basic prototype, but I invite you to
> take a look at the current version:
>
> * Wiki specifically for Timeless: https://timeless-skin.wmflabs.
> org/wiki/Main_Page
> * To see what it might look/act like in production, there is a copy of the
> Simple English Wikipedia on the Beta Cluster, where Timeless has already
> been deployed: https://simple.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page -
> you can create an account, set your skin to Timeless, and go through some
> of the things you might do here, or simply append the string
> ?useskin=timeless to the end of any page url to see what it would look like
> in Timeless
> * Skin documentation: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless
>
> If this looks like a project you would be interested in seeing happen, I
> would very much appreciate your feedback. This applies especially if you
> have any specific concerns about the skin or the proposal itself, or have
> faced particular problems on your own projects that you think this might be
> able to address, because the more of these are documented, the better they
> will be.
>
> I look forward to working with all of you to redefine how we handle our
> project interfaces.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Isarra
>
>
> ___
> 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] Using non-free elements vs our values (Apple Maps vs Wikipedia iOS app)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Today it is announced that for maps in Commons, maps that are known in
Wikidata we have now support for "geoshapes". Dan, you indicated nine days
agao that this is not on your road map. But it is there. Could you please
inform us how this can be used in Apple maps?
Thanks,
   GerardM


https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-tech/2017-March/001106.html

On 21 March 2017 at 17:17, Dan Garry  wrote:

> On 21 March 2017 at 14:34, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Technical considerations are imho less relevant. What trumps it is
> > functionality.
>
>
> Technical considerations are very relevant if one is doing something
> technical, for example developing an iOS app or a maps tile service.
>
>
> > Our maps have to be good everywhere and as far as I know OSM
> > is superior in places where there is profit to be made from maps.
>
>
> If you choose to ignore the technical difficulties and half of my earlier
> email, then yes, that may be true.
>
>
> > Current maps world wide and historical maps are what we need. How would
> you
> > use the Apple maps for a map of the Ottoman empire?
> >
>
> Given that our maps service does not support this, and will not any time
> soon, this is very off-topic.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> 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,
> <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] Let's go gender neutral

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As a non native English speaker, I positively hate this. When you want to
say that a picture of a photographer whatever, you do not have to say "his
or her", it suffices to say "when a picture of a photographer is to be
used, prior permission has to be asked" or whatever.

Yes, it may please you but this practise is not taught in schools and given
the size of the non-native community ... don't do this
Thanks,
GerardM

On 6 April 2017 at 13:30, Antoine Musso  wrote:

> Le 05/04/2017 à 12:52, Fæ a écrit :
> >  I'm taking that further by
> > proposing that we stick to a neutral gender for all our policies and
> > help pages. In practice this means that policies avoid using "he or
> > she" and stick to "they" or avoid using a pronoun at all.
>
> As a non native English speaker the use of a plural form definitely
> confuses me or at best.  The example takes a sentence from Commons:FAQ
> which roughly looks like:
>
> A photographer has to be given credit when his or her picture is used.
>
> With the proposal to instead:
>
> A photographer has to be given credit when their picture is used.
>
> Why isn't "picture" plural as well?  If using masculine as a neutral
> pronoum is the issue, just stop using the pronoum entirely. Eg one can
> instead write:
>
> A photographer has to be given credit when the picture is used.
>
>
> That is going to be quite a challenge when ported to other languages.
> For 'A photographer', the english indefinite article is gender less.
>
> In french that would be either 'un' (masculine) or 'une' (feminine).
> What some are advocating is using:
>
>   Un/une photographe
>
> If the noun varies as well, that becomes messy. Here for 'administrateur':
>
>  Un/une adminstra-teur-trice
>
> That is not solvable in french and all other latin based languages most
> probably have the same issue (blame Rome!).
>
>
> --
> Antoine "hashar" Musso
>
>
> ___
> 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] Let's go gender neutral

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I quote: " I simply do not accept that by we are asking for the impossible
on any of our projects, I never shall accept it." That is indeed your
prerogative. The problem is that with such a point of view, there is not
much of a discussion possible. If you want to be single issue Fae, then
fine but it translates in how people perceive you including your other
points of view. That is not something that would make me happy and I know
it is not how you achieve things.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 7 April 2017 at 00:24, Fæ  wrote:

> Thanks for raising the different language problems. I'm aware of it,
> though I only edit in English.
>
> Last weekend I was much enlightened by sitting down with a German
> trans contributor, who was showing me the system language problems on
> the German Wikipedia, and together we started having fun comparing
> trans related policies and trans related article numbers. I was amazed
> at the difference. No, that's not enough, I was really shocked that
> the second largest Wikipedia that I deeply respect, is a community
> that apparently has little appetite or any active discussion on these
> LGBT+ issues. In comparison the English Wikipedia feels like a vibrant
> and creative garden of Eden to me as an LGBT+ contributor.
>
> By forging ahead, at least on Wikimedia Commons[1] and attempting the
> same on the English Wikipedia[2], we hope to set a healthy example for
> what is possible, and lay down the challenge to other projects to be
> truly welcoming and feel encouraging for trans and genderqueer readers
> and editors, rather than just saying that we are.
>
> Language may be very limiting, sure, let's accept that fact of life.
> It's both interesting and difficult. But it's not unimaginable that
> our Wikimedia movement could end up adopting leading edge new
> non-gendered terms in multiple languages for simple words like "user"
> and "administrator" that currently are unnecessarily gendered. We
> could even show willing by taking baby steps like just empowering our
> users to set their own preferred pronoun style, like Ve or Mx, which
> is entirely possible right now, today, in the MediaWiki software.
> Ignoring these options, or even joking about them, is to pretend that
> genderqueer people don't exist.
>
> Yes, please flag up the issues, let's discuss the challenges. No, I
> simply do not accept that by we are asking for the impossible on any
> of our projects, I never shall accept it.
>
> Links:
> 1. Wikimedia Commons, new draft policy created today, because of these
> discussions: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Use_of_gender_
> neutral_language
> 2. Drafting a new English Wikipedia RFC, because of these discussions:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_
> LGBT_studies#Research_for_proposing_a_gender_neutral_
> principle_for_Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 6 April 2017 at 21:49, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > There are a lot of languages where there are no neutral gender, or where
> > there are a single male gender, or it can even be that the only neutral
> > gender is used for things and animals.
> >
> > In German there is an expectation of gender-correct form. In Norwegian
> > there is an expectation of a neutral form. In Danish there is only
> > masculine forms.
> >
> > Sorry but this idea is not generally usable.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Raymond Leonard <
> > raymond.f.leonard...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> One can use "one" or "one's" to substitute in many places for 3rd person
> >> singular pronouns. Not everywhere, but it is in keeping with English
> >> grammar.
> >>
> >> Peaceray
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:35 AM, J.  wrote:
> >>
> >> > Instead of:
> >> > * A photographer has to be given credit when the picture is used.
> >> > How about:
> >> > * The artist must be given attribution when an image is reused.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers! Wayne Calhoon (AKA Checkingfax)
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > 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:/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "News Integrity Initiative" at CUNY

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Vetting before publication proved a failure. It is why we have Wikipedia
and not Nupedia.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 10 April 2017 at 14:44, pi zero  wrote:

> English Wikinews took serious measures for reliability back in 2009.  For
> our pains, we've received mostly grief from the Foundation, and from a
> vocal segment of the Wikipedian community.  If they consulted, before this
> expertise-lending, with the sister project that specializes in
> vetting-before-publishing (one of the defining characteristics of news),
> I'm not aware of it.  In fairness, Wikipedia might plausibly claim to have
> some expertise in dealing with the consequences of /not/ vetting before
> publication, and those consequences are legitimately of interest (but I
> agree the passage abound lending expertise cries for explanation; there's
> irony in talking about propaganda in a piece on the wikimedia blog, which
> tbh I consider a Foundation propaganda outlet).
>
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > On a related note, the Foundation Blog
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/04/07/misinfocon-fake-news/ proudly
> > announces that "the Wikimedia Foundation joined a handful of media
> > organization at the MIT Media Lab to lend their expertise at MisInfoCon".
> > That's certainly good to hear, but a little short on details  In the
> > interests, of transparency, please could someone post a pointer to a
> fuller
> > description of the expertise that the Foundation has in this area (as
> > opposed to the community of volunteers), and a pointer to the
> submissions,
> > papers or other contributions that those experts made at the meeting?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:31 PM, wiki.pine  wrote:
> >
> > > FYI: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/04/04/new-nonprofit-
> > > consortium-will-focus-countering-fake-news-building-trust-media/
> > > Involved parties include some names that will be familiar to
> Wikimedians
> > > and WMFers: "AppNexus, Betaworks, Craig Newmark Philanthropic Fund,
> > > Democracy Fund, Ford Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight
> Foundation,
> > > Mozilla, and the Tow Foundation."
> > > Pine
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The more we change our practice in order to be restrictve, the more we
focus on corner cases like this one, the more we lose sight on what we aim
to achieve.

Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Giving a burger company or
anyone a black eye by negative attention is fine. Getting lawyers involved,
great. Changing what we do introduces its own negative consequences. Please
do not go there!
Thanks,
  GerardM


Op za 15 apr. 2017 om 15:21 schreef Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>

> I take it that the issue here is that a COI editor changed the opening
> paragraph to be more complimentary of the product, rather than that someone
> reused content for commercial purposes. To me it is irrelevant whether they
> were paid or not, it is the quality of the editing that matters, and
> particularly that they contravened the terms of use by failing to declare
> COI.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra
> Sent: Saturday, 15 April 2017 1:35 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies
> that offer paid editing services
>
> Gabe highlights the issue
>
>
>- its not easy to identify a paid editor with one or two edits only
>- Google home is the service creating the issue
>- this issue is just that first sentence.
>
> flagged revisions would work here to stop the immediacy but would never
> guarantee that a good faith tidy up by an editor reviewing and edit would
> actually identify the problem.  Ok a flagged revision bot could do a
> cursory check and pass all non lead paragraph edits to reduce the backlogs
> but it still needs a human and one thats skilled to identify paid editors.
>
> To solve the issue maybe we need google to be looking at a cache of an
> article not the current version, that both works for us in managing this
> issue and for google in preventing its service being ambushed... We'd have
> to create a way to for humans to review leads less than x weeks old.
>
>
> This ambush editing isnt the same as paid editing where all article
> content is susceptible and should be treated differently, now one has
> succeeded we can assume others will also try then without even warming up
> the beans we can be assured that someone will play the negative side of the
> game as well. ie "Whopper is not as popular as the big mac made fresh on
> demand at mcdonalds"
>
> On 15 April 2017 at 18:58, Gabriel Thullen  wrote:
>
> > Paid editors have been adding content to Wikipedia for a long time.
> > Some of them might even be doing so in accordance with the rules and
> > guidelines, but that is not what makes this case stand out.
> > The PR agency did a total of three edits, and the third one managed to
> > pass under the radar. They deliberately inserted text with minor
> > grammatical errors to bait an editor into fixing it up while at the
> > same time leaving it as an introductory sentence. The TV ad came out one
> week later.
> > What disturbs me is that Wikipedia is being instrumentalized by these
> > big corporations, and we do not need to debate whether the text is
> > factually exact, if it is sourced, or if it is too peacocky. Most of
> > us are volunteer editors, and we must make sure that we do not have to
> > waste our time rooting out these malicious edits.
> > The PR company wrote the text to make it look like it was put there by
> > some ordinary "grammatically challenged" fanboy. A contributor reverts
> > the edit the first time around, saying rightly that it was too
> > promotional, then fixes up the grammatical errors the second time
> > around. Other contributors would no longer touch the article seeing
> > that a community member is already watching over it.
> > We will have the check out the introductory sentences in hundreds of
> > articles. When somebody asks Google Home "what is xyz..." in their own
> > voice, Google will very obligingly spew out the Wikipedia article.
> > IMHA, that is the real issue here. These paid editors are quite
> > willing to turn Wikipedia into the worlds biggest high-tech distributor
> of junk mail.
> >
> > Gabe
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > So the Americas favorite burger should have been "America's Favorite
> > > Burger(tm)". Agreed.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 8:21 AM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing
> > companies
> > > that offer paid editing services
> > >
> > > "The Whopper, also known as America’s favorite burger, " is a
> > > problem as it implies that the Whopper is the favorite burger of the
> > > American
> > public.
> > > Perhaps

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Would checking if a date of death exists in articles be of interest to you.
The idea is that Wikidata knows about dates of death and for "living
people" the fact of a death should be the same in all projects. When the
date of death is missing, there is either an issue at Wikidata (not the
same precision is one) or at a project.

When a difference is found, the idea is that it is each projects
responsibility to do what is needed. No further automation.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 15 April 2017 at 23:50, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of articles? Not
> the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured features. I'm
> thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations, and
> structure of logical arguments.
>
> John
> ___
> 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] Quality assurance of articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
How can you check for consistency when you are not able to appreciate if
certain facts (like date of death) exist and are the same? What can you say
about sources when some Wikipedias insist on sources in their own language
and sources in other languages you cannot read? How do you check for
consistency when we have over 280 Wikipedias with possible content?

Do know that only Wikidata approaches a state where it knows about all our
projects and we have not, to the best of my knowledge, assessed what the
quality of Wikidata is on interwiki links.. Case in point, I fixed an error
today about a person that was said to be dead because a Commons category
was not correctly linked.

When you study the consistency of English Wikipedia only, you only add to
the current bias in research.

When you want to know about the half life of an error, you can find in the
history when for instance a date was mentioned for a first time and find
the same date in another language. This is not trivial as the format of a
language is diverse think Thai for instance.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 16 April 2017 at 02:08, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> This is more about checking consistency between projects. It is
> interesting, but not quite what I was asking about. It is very interesting
> if it would be possible to say something about half-life of an error. I'm
> pretty sure this follows number of page views if ordinary logged-in editing
> is removed.
>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Would checking if a date of death exists in articles be of interest to
> you.
> > The idea is that Wikidata knows about dates of death and for "living
> > people" the fact of a death should be the same in all projects. When the
> > date of death is missing, there is either an issue at Wikidata (not the
> > same precision is one) or at a project.
> >
> > When a difference is found, the idea is that it is each projects
> > responsibility to do what is needed. No further automation.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 15 April 2017 at 23:50, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of articles?
> Not
> > > the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured features.
> I'm
> > > thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations, and
> > > structure of logical arguments.
> > >
> > > John
> > > ___
> > > 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 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] Quality assurance of articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Humans are overrated. I saw this answer on Facebook [1] and [2] compare the
two and tell me why we accept the bias in our editors. Why are we satisfied
with what we write about when there is more to inform about. Remember what
we aim to achieve. It does not say text, it says share the sum of all
knowledge.
Thanks,
GerardM

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Geotagged_articles_in_enWP_map_RENDER_small.png
[2]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/WorldmapGeonamesallCountries.jpg

On 16 April 2017 at 18:59, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello John,
>
> Article quality is an interesting subject. I guess that it depends
> extremely on what is the scientific discipline you come from, and what
> questions you want to be answered. A linguist will have a very different
> approach than a computer scientist, for example. If you ask me, only a
> human being can judge an article if it comes to content quality and textual
> quality, by the way. Maybe you want to elaborate on what are your
> questions?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-04-16 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :
>
> > Hoi,
> > How can you check for consistency when you are not able to appreciate if
> > certain facts (like date of death) exist and are the same? What can you
> say
> > about sources when some Wikipedias insist on sources in their own
> language
> > and sources in other languages you cannot read? How do you check for
> > consistency when we have over 280 Wikipedias with possible content?
> >
> > Do know that only Wikidata approaches a state where it knows about all
> our
> > projects and we have not, to the best of my knowledge, assessed what the
> > quality of Wikidata is on interwiki links.. Case in point, I fixed an
> error
> > today about a person that was said to be dead because a Commons category
> > was not correctly linked.
> >
> > When you study the consistency of English Wikipedia only, you only add to
> > the current bias in research.
> >
> > When you want to know about the half life of an error, you can find in
> the
> > history when for instance a date was mentioned for a first time and find
> > the same date in another language. This is not trivial as the format of a
> > language is diverse think Thai for instance.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 16 April 2017 at 02:08, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > This is more about checking consistency between projects. It is
> > > interesting, but not quite what I was asking about. It is very
> > interesting
> > > if it would be possible to say something about half-life of an error.
> I'm
> > > pretty sure this follows number of page views if ordinary logged-in
> > editing
> > > is removed.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Would checking if a date of death exists in articles be of interest
> to
> > > you.
> > > > The idea is that Wikidata knows about dates of death and for "living
> > > > people" the fact of a death should be the same in all projects. When
> > the
> > > > date of death is missing, there is either an issue at Wikidata (not
> the
> > > > same precision is one) or at a project.
> > > >
> > > > When a difference is found, the idea is that it is each projects
> > > > responsibility to do what is needed. No further automation.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 15 April 2017 at 23:50, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of
> articles?
> > > Not
> > > > > the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured
> features.
> > > I'm
> > > > > thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations,
> and
> > > > > structure of logical arguments.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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] Quality assurance of articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This is an interesting avenue. My I suggest one practical side of this?

When you analyse articles and find that some things are missing, it will
help a lot when you can target these articles to the people who are likely
interested. When people interested in soccer learn that a soccer player
died, they are more likely to edit even write an article.

The approach for finding a subject that could do with more attention is one
I applaud. When you want to do this across languages think Wikidata to
define the area of interest for users. It will always include all the
articles in all the languages. As you have seen with the Listeria lists,
showing red links and Wikidata items is trivial.
Thanks,
 Gerard

On 17 April 2017 at 02:04, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> This may be of interest to you:
>
> We are working on building recommendation systems than can help editors
> identify how to expand already existing articles in Wikipedia. This
> includes but is not limited to identifying what sections are missing from
> an article, what citations, what images, infobox information, etc. This is
> research in its early days, if you'd like to follow up with it please visit
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Expanding_Wikipedia_stubs_across_
> languages
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
>
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
>
> > Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of articles? Not
> > the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured features. I'm
> > thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations, and
> > structure of logical arguments.
> >
> > John
> > ___
> > 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] Quality assurance of articles

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you consider Wikidata's data as a predictor of relevance and interest,
the biggest problem is that Wikidata does not hold enough data at this
time. The one approach I find missing in the approach you discuss in your
presentation is local and timely information. Of relevance here are awards
but also local events like elections. The problem is that for many
countries we do not even know about such awards. They indicate what is of
local relevance. There are many ways we can open up our community to these
awards. I will come up with ideas in the future.

So yes, your approach is good but like the translation tool it relies on
English content. It will be much better when we promote translation from
French, Russian, German and Chinese as well.

Another aspect I am totally missing are bot generated articles. We can and
should have stubs generated from data, cached and not saved as an article.
Basically they as a stepping stone towards an article. They are there to
inform in any language about what we do know.

I am missing it because the Wikimedia Foundation is not the "Wikipedia
Foundation", our aim is to share in the sum of all available knowledge and
that is what we could do when we use well presented cached data when we do
not have an article. When people dismiss the Cebuano Wikipedia effort  they
are typically trolling but what I do resent most is that we do not even
study the effect of bot generated articles and their value to readers.

Another approach is that we consider the use of our content to external
parties. This is where Wikidata can benefit from Sources that care to share
what they have. I have written about quality assurance but the bottom line
is that most of the external sources may have flaws but are no worse that
what we have. A perspective you may be able to confirm. Yet another reason
to consider external parties is that sharing our data with them can be of
benefit to our readers. When we are able to link into local library
systems, we are able to do so in the Netherlands, it becomes valuable to
our readers to include data on authors so that they can find them in their
local library. The point is that once you are adding data one more
statement is quickly added.

So yes I do like your presentation, I like it very much. It does not cover
everything and that is imho a consequence of the ingrained Wikipedia and
editor bias. We have largely forgotten that what we do is not about either
but about sharing information. If there is something that I wish for 2030
it is that we care about providing and sharing information, providing and
sharing the sum of all knowledge. Yes, well written text is to be preferred
and we should indeed do everything to get as much of this as we can.
Thanks,
   GerardM



On 17 April 2017 at 18:40, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hoi Gerard,
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > When you analyse articles and find that some things are missing, it will
> > help a lot when you can target these articles to the people who are
> likely
> > interested. When people interested in soccer learn that a soccer player
> > died, they are more likely to edit even write an article.
> >
>
> ​You are absolutely right. This is what we even tested in the article
> creation recommendation experiment and you could see that providing
> personalized recommendations (where personalization was on the basis of
> matching editors interests based on their history of contributions​) does
> better than random important recommendations. A few pointers for you:
>
> * Check out section 2.3 of the paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.
> 03235.pdf to
> see how this was done.
> * I talk briefly about how we do the editor interest modeling at
> https://youtu.be/lHbnvRwFC_A?t=20m44s
>
> In general, we have at least two ways for recommending to people what they
> like to edit: one would be using the information in their past edit history
> and building topical models that can help us learn what topics an editor is
> interested in. The other is by asking the editor to provide some seeds of
> interest to us. For example, we ask you to tell us what kind of article you
> would edit, and we give you recommendations similar to the seed you
> provide. Each have its own advantages and you sometimes have to mix the two
> approaches (and more) to give the editor enough breadth and depth of topics
> to choose from.
>
>
> > The approach for finding a subject that could do with more attention is
> one
> > I applaud. When you want to do this across languages think Wikidata to
> > define the area of interest for users. It will always include all the
> > articles in all the languages. As you have seen with the Listeria lists,
> > showing red links and Wikidata items is trivial

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Is this paper behind a paywall ?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 21 April 2017 at 18:45, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> ==Background==
> In November 2016, I presented the result of a joint research that
> helped us understand English Wikipedia readers better. (Presentation
> at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIaMuWA84bY ). I talked about how
> we used English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia readers' inputs to
> build a taxonomy of Wikipedia use-cases along several dimensions,
> capturing users’ motivations to visit Wikipedia, the depth of
> knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge of the topic of
> interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. I also talked about the results
> of the study we did to quantify the prevalence of these use-cases via
> a large-scale user survey conducted on English Wikipedia. In that
> study, we also matched survey responses to the respondents’ digital
> traces in Wikipedia’s server logs which enabled us in discovering
> behavioral patterns associated with specific use-cases. You can read
> the full study at https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379 .
>
> ==What do we want to do now?==
> There are quite a few directions this research can continue on, and
> the most immediate one is to understand whether the results that we
> observe (in English Wikipeida) is robust across languages/cultures.
> For this, we are going to repeat the study, but this time in more
> languages. Here are the languages on our list: Arabic, Dutch, English,
> Hindi, Japanese, Spanish (thanks to all the volunteers who have been
> helping us translating all survey related documents to these
> languages.:)
>
> ==What about your language?==
> If your language is not one of the six languages above and you'd like
> to learn about the readers of Wikipedia in it (in the specific ways
> described above), please get back to me by Monday, April 24, AoE. I
> cannot guarantee that we can run the study in your language, however,
> I guarantee that we will give it a good try if you're interested. The
> decision to include more languages will depend on: our capacity to do
> the analysis, the speed at which your community can help us translate
> the material to the language, the traffic to that language, a couple
> of sentences on how you'd think the result can help your community,
> and your willingness to help us document the results for your language
> at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_
> Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour
> (Quite some work will need to go to have readable/usable
> documentations available and we are too small to be able to guarantee
> that on our own for many languages.)
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> --
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> 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] Why We Read Wikipedia in your language

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The DOI is..
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 21 April 2017 at 18:58, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Is this paper behind a paywall ?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 21 April 2017 at 18:45, Leila Zia  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> ==Background==
>> In November 2016, I presented the result of a joint research that
>> helped us understand English Wikipedia readers better. (Presentation
>> at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIaMuWA84bY ). I talked about how
>> we used English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia readers' inputs to
>> build a taxonomy of Wikipedia use-cases along several dimensions,
>> capturing users’ motivations to visit Wikipedia, the depth of
>> knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge of the topic of
>> interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. I also talked about the results
>> of the study we did to quantify the prevalence of these use-cases via
>> a large-scale user survey conducted on English Wikipedia. In that
>> study, we also matched survey responses to the respondents’ digital
>> traces in Wikipedia’s server logs which enabled us in discovering
>> behavioral patterns associated with specific use-cases. You can read
>> the full study at https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379 .
>>
>> ==What do we want to do now?==
>> There are quite a few directions this research can continue on, and
>> the most immediate one is to understand whether the results that we
>> observe (in English Wikipeida) is robust across languages/cultures.
>> For this, we are going to repeat the study, but this time in more
>> languages. Here are the languages on our list: Arabic, Dutch, English,
>> Hindi, Japanese, Spanish (thanks to all the volunteers who have been
>> helping us translating all survey related documents to these
>> languages.:)
>>
>> ==What about your language?==
>> If your language is not one of the six languages above and you'd like
>> to learn about the readers of Wikipedia in it (in the specific ways
>> described above), please get back to me by Monday, April 24, AoE. I
>> cannot guarantee that we can run the study in your language, however,
>> I guarantee that we will give it a good try if you're interested. The
>> decision to include more languages will depend on: our capacity to do
>> the analysis, the speed at which your community can help us translate
>> the material to the language, the traffic to that language, a couple
>> of sentences on how you'd think the result can help your community,
>> and your willingness to help us document the results for your language
>> at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wiki
>> pedia_Reader_Behaviour
>> (Quite some work will need to go to have readable/usable
>> documentations available and we are too small to be able to guarantee
>> that on our own for many languages.)
>>
>> Best,
>> Leila
>>
>> --
>> Leila Zia
>> Senior Research Scientist
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/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] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When individuals are discredited in this way, your option, you are judging
these people. That is in my opinion a mistake. You may judge a situation
and determine because of what you consider your responsibility to either
accept or no longer accept the existence of a chapter, whatever entity.
When you judge people and determine that you will not trust them in the
future to do good. You have a problem.

It is exactly when a group is small that your priority must be in growing
the group and the quality of their interaction. By dismissing people
totally you achieve the opposite of what we want; that is representation of
our movement in the most optimal way.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 April 2017 at 18:31, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:

> User groups are, indeed, a more "light-weight" model of affiliation, with
> significantly fewer compliance requirements -- at least for groups which
> are unincorporated and do not receive significant grants -- and the
> Affiliations Committee has, in the past, encouraged chapters struggling
> with reporting and similar requirements to consider becoming a user group.
>
> Having said that, there are certain issues that can prevent a smooth
> transition from a chapter to a user group.  In particular, any individuals
> considered to have personal responsibility for an outstanding compliance
> issue -- which means, generally speaking, the actual signatories of a
> chapter or grant agreement, but could potentially include every member of
> the governing board in the case of an incorporated affiliate -- are not
> eligible to serve as signatories of a new user group agreement until the
> original compliance issue has been resolved.  This proves to be a challenge
> when a group is small, or when the existing leadership of a group is
> unwilling to step aside during a transition.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:10 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > Running a "user group" is much less bureaucratic overhead. Can WMPH not
> > just rejoin the movement as that? When the capacity to return to chapter
> > status develops the group can than apply for chapter status.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Josh Lim 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > First of all, I'm not blaming anyone. I'm merely stating what is our
> > > position: that is, that we've been dealing with our issues to the best
> of
> > > our ability.  That said, I'm sorry, but I will not tolerate being told
> > that
> > > I am "misleading" the movement by telling people what we've done to get
> > > ourselves out of this mess.  I wouldn't dare stake my own reputation on
> > > misleading the movement, and for people to presume otherwise is
> appalling
> > > for a movement that claims to work on a fundamental assumption of good
> > > faith.
> > > It's perfectly fine that we've come to opposing conclusions as to how
> > > compliant we are, but the facts stand that we've worked our butts off
> to
> > > return to compliance.  And we intend to do so.  If the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation's ideal conclusion is that non-compliant affiliates ought to
> > > disband entirely, then what good is the process in the first place if
> the
> > > idea is to help organizations return to compliance?
> > > I'll affirm that we've received a deadline notice.  I confirmed that in
> > my
> > > last e-mail to this list.  The Wikimedia Foundation did give a list of
> > > things that we had to fix to return to compliance.  We ticked off a
> > number
> > > of items from that list, and have conceded in our internal
> communications
> > > that other items can't be ticked off immediately owing to our capacity
> > and
> > > asked for more time to that effect.  The decision that was ultimately
> > made
> > > was for us to lose our status because not everything was met by the
> > > deadline, and that was DESPITE everything that we've done at WMPH to
> meet
> > > the deadline to begin with.
> > > So no, I will NOT tolerate being told that we did nothing to return to
> > > compliance, and by no less than the chair of the Affiliations Committee
> > --
> > > who otherwise I have a deep respect for -- in fact.  At the very least,
> > > there has to be a concession that we tried.  I have not heard that from
> > the
> > > other side thus far, and I'm here to make sure that people know that we
> > in
> > > fact DID try to return to compliance.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Josh
> > > (P.S.: For those asking, PhilWiki is not affiliated with WMPH.
> PhilWiki
> > > is a splinter group that was founded by a former member of Wikimedia
> > > Philippines, and is largely based in the Bicol Region in southern
> Luzon.
> > > WMPH, meanwhile, was based in Manila and had members nationwide.)
> > > JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
> > > Block I1, AB Political Science
> > > Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies
> > > Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
> > > Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
> > >
> > > jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com |

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikitribune!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please remember what Wiki stands for; it is "quick". It is not Wikipedia.
It would be problematic when Wikitribune was called "WikipediaTribune".
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 28 April 2017 at 07:32, Matthew Flaschen 
wrote:

> On 04/25/2017 05:59 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia activities,
>> to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly with
>> all of you information about this new initiative early on.
>>
>
> First I should say (putting aside the name, marketing, and potential COI
> issues for a moment):
>
> I welcome more independent journalism and fact-checking.  In a world of
> media consolidation (that means the same people controlling more and more
> of the media), more voices is a good thing.
>
> The new project  will use a wiki-style setup and experiment with
>> bringing together professional journalists and community contributors to
>> produce fact-checked, global news stories.
>>
>
> This (and particularly the name "Wikitribune") is one of my main concerns.
>
> What defines a wiki is that you edit from the browser, and edits go live
> immediately.  (There are limited exceptions like FlaggedRevisions, but a
> site with 100% FlaggedRevisions is not a wiki, especially if approvals are
> not by the community).
>
> The BBC says, "However, while anybody can make changes to a page, they
> will only go live if a staff member or trusted community volunteer approves
> them."
>
> If this is correct, it is not a wiki, and "wiki-style" is very debatable.
>
> Calling something a wiki when it is not will lead to major brand confusion
> with Wikipedia, particularly given your involvement.
>
> Please clarify the model of the site, so we can assess this further.
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
> (Speaking only for myself in personal capacity.)
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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 proposed project, Wikifiction

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What is the point? What is educational in this?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 10 May 2017 at 07:28, George Ho  wrote:

> The proposed project, Wikifiction, would collect a lot of information about
> existing fictional material. It should not collect fanfiction or original
> fictional material, which would be disallowed by the proposed project.
>
> Unlike Wikia, Wikifiction would be ad-free and easier to load.
>
> Link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikifiction_%28In-
> universe_encyclopedia%29
> ___
> 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] Bhubaneswar Heritage Edit-a-thon

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When it is QRcodes for the monuments, a registration in Wikidata will get
you a QRcode. You will find them in Reasonator. Reasonator is multi
lingual.. it just takes the effort to label the items.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 13 May 2017 at 20:52, Sailesh Patnaik 
wrote:

> Hello Dr. James,
>
> On Sat, 13 May 2017 at 10:45 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > Excellent :-)
> >
> Thank you :)
>
> >
> > Here is a link to the effort
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bhubaneswar_Heritage_Edit-a-thon
>
> It's a six months long effort.
>
> > 
> >
> > Is the goal to improve English or Odia?
>
> As the QRcodes will be installed in the signage of the monuments, we want
> to make this editathon a multi-lingual editathon. So that it will be
> helpful for tourists to access the information of the monuments in their
> own languages.
>
> > Are you also looking at improving
> > Wikivoyage?
>
> We want to improve it in many Wikimedia projects, including Commons,
> Wikidata..
> For sure we will look into Wikivoyage. Thank you for suggesting.
> Your help and support will make this project a successful project.
>
> >
> >
> > Best
> > James
> >
> > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Sailesh Patnaik <
> > sailesh.patnaik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all!
> > >
> > > Greetings from Odia Wikipedia community!
> > >
> > > I am happy to share that the Odia Wikipedians have succesfully forged a
> > > partnership with Bhubaneswar Development Authority to conduct the
> > > Bhubaneswar Heritage edit-a-thon.
> > >
> > > This edit-a-thon is aimed to improve Bhubaneswar's digital presence –
> and
> > > establish Bhubaneswar as a QRpedia city. With this edit-a-thon,
> > Bhubaneswar
> > > will be the first city in India to install QRpedia codes in all of its
> > > heritage monuments.
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bhubaneswar_Heritage_Edit-a-thon(page
> > > under
> > > construction)
> > >
> > > Bhubaneswar, also known as the "Temple City of India" has nearly 300
> > > ancient temples of the Kalinga style architecture that dates back to
> the
> > > late 6th century. This edit-a-thon will happen in two phases, In the
> > first
> > > phase, the BDA will release images and information of all state and
> > > ASI-protected monuments under CC license to improve Wikipedia articles.
> > The
> > > second phase will be for unprotected monuments.
> > >
> > > This edit-a-thon will take place globally in the month of August or
> > > September. The BDA will provide souvenirs from Odisha to the Top 3
> > > International and National (Indian) contributors. I request interested
> > > Wikimedians to please sign up for this edit-a-thon and help Odia
> > > Wikipedians to make this project a success. I will update other details
> > on
> > > the User Talk page of interested volunteers.
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bhubaneswar_Heritage_
> > > Edit-a-thon/Participants
> > >
> > > Thanks and Regards
> > > --
> > > ---
> > > *Sailesh Patnaik* "*ଶୈଳେଶ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ*"
> > > Programme Associate, Access To Knowledge
> > > Centre for Internet and Society
> > > Phone: +91-7537097770
> > > *LinkedIn* : https://www.linkedin.com/in/sailesh-patnaik-551a10b4
> > > *Twitter* : @saileshpat
> > >
> > > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the
> > > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality"
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
> --
> ---
> *Sailesh Patnaik* "*ଶୈଳେଶ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ*"
> Programme Associate, Access To Knowledge
> Centre for Internet and Society
> Phone: +91-7537097770
> *LinkedIn* : https://www.linkedin.com/in/sailesh-patnaik-551a10b4
> *Twitter* : @saileshpat
>
> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality"
> ___
> 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.wikimedi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chief Communications Officer search & job description

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I would dearly love the eye of a professional marketing person, someone who
cares about customers, to give a good look at the whole of our product
range. The problem is that many see the community as one entity, and its
members as the objective for the Wikimedia Foundation. The reality is that
our customers are the people who consume what we do; our readers.

For our own consumption it is wonderful to see that we have a tiny error
rate. This is defined as the percentage of errors in our existing content.
However as a market our top product covers only some 30% of who we target
and what it offers is biased in that it does not provide the information
needed in our emerging markets [1]. At a WMF strategy meeting the notion
that the information that we do not cover is an error in itself was not
accepted; this idea was too awful, an idea not to entertain.

A case in point; today in a Dutch newspaper a Syrian refugee laments the
lack of available information about Syria [2].

When a whopping 50% of potential information is lacking, you could say "but
that is not what our readers are looking for". You could but we do not know
what people are looking for and not finding and this invalidates the
argument. Even so, we have over 280 Wikipedias and the answer to this
question will be different on every one of these projects. There has been
great research on suggesting what people could write about. This is
effective. Many people will be motivated when they are told "This is the
most asked not found subject.. Could you please?" and "You started this
month an article on ***. So many people read it so far! :) ". You may say
this takes research ... YES PLEASE!

When we want to bootstrap small Wikipedias, the first thing we need is
content. There are many strategies and this [3] is one. We first need
content that is linked and an emerging community of writers and do
remember,  we did not require sources in the beginning, that came later.

We do not consider our other projects like Wikisource; it is only
functional for editors not for readers. We need to market these projects as
well.

When you have read all this so far (thank you) you will wonder what this
has to do with a communication officer; the message this person has to
convey is not about "us" but about what we do, where there are
opportunities and how we serve our market. So imho we need more business
marketing than political marketing because as a business we are exposed;
when we do not cover our subjects, we can easily be replaced.
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/04/wikidata-user-stories-sum-of-all.html

[2]
http://www.volkskrant.nl/4497302?utm_source=VK&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170528|ochtend&utm_content=%27Lieve%20lezers,%20ik%20ben%20geen%20gelukzoeker%27&utm_term=37659&utm_userid=8e2978c-c065-e461-be04-40021281a60b
[3]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching-wikipedia-using-local-news.html

On 28 May 2017 at 05:53, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Joady,
>
> Thank you for publishing this. Overall I like this draft. I would like to
> offer two comments.
>
> 1. My impression is that WMF Communications is largely used to support
> fundraising, readership, and sometimes legal or advocacy topics. The
> department seems to be externally focused. I would like to see work by WMF
> Communications and/or WMF Community Engagement on developing a systematic
> "internal" communications system among content contributors and WMF
> departments. There are currently many internal communications flows, and
> while I think that there have been some noticeable improvements over the
> past few years (I particularly want to acknowledge the WMF Community
> Liaisons), there is a long way to go in systematizing and optimizing these
> communications flows. So instead of looking for a chief communications
> officer whose main strength is in marketing, sales, PR, or other forms of
> external communication, I would encourage WMF to seek a chief
> communications officer who has a track record of facilitating long-term
> improvement of internal communications in complex and diverse environments.
>
> 2. For the line in the JD draft which currently reads "A clear, effective
> communications style, including experience guiding messaging for major
> organizations, political candidates, or movements", I would encourage
> considerable caution about hiring someone into this role who has had a
> background in political campaigns. I would prefer that the individual have
> no affiliation with any political party. I can think of some organizations
> which are not aligned with a specific political party and which support
> civil rights issues which are likely to be largely compatible with WMF's
> mission, but I would still be very cautious about hiring someone who has
> any background in politics. Keeping in mind WMF's recent and controversial
> annual report, I think it is particularly important to hire a chief
> communications officer who can guide comm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright enforcement?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Yes, probably and in the process they do exactly what we aim to achieve;
share in the sum of all knowledge. What they do not do is claim copyright.
They are the number one referral site for our traffic.

You may be right in a narrow sense but it will ill serve us to do something
about it.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5 June 2017 at 19:32, The Cunctator  wrote:

> Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia corpus
> for their results.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:40 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > Well "fair use" applies, but if the amount of content used goes beyond
> fair
> > use than it needs to be indicated that the content is under an open
> > license.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, The Cunctator 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind
> to
> > > the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of
> > Wikipedia
> > > content into non-free publications?
> > >
> > > E.g. Graphiq
> > > https://www.graphiq.com/terms-and-conditions
> > > http://colleges.startclass.com/l/1929/Harvard-University
> > >
> > > and Google
> > > https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/
> > > https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+university
> > >
> > > I recognize that Google gives Wikimedia a lot of money, even if the
> > > foundation isn't very transparent about that, but I'd think that
> doesn't
> > > free the company from following CC BY-SA.
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > ___
> > 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] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 11 June 2017)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
A YOUTUBE video by Valerie Sutton. It has the promise of a Wikipedia in
Brazilian Sign Language.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 11 June 2017 at 22:51, Pine W  wrote:

> I have a soft spot for Wikiquote. I realize that it's a lesser-known
> project, but I find it interesting. I agree with some quotes more than
> others, but almost all of them make me think.
>
> "If the mind is to emerge unscathed from this relentless struggle with the
> unforeseen, two qualities are indispensable: first, an intellect that, even
> in the darkest hour, retains some glimmerings of the inner light which
> leads to truth; and second, the courage to follow this faint light wherever
> it may lead."
> -- Carl von Clausewitz  >,
> Prussian general and military theorist
>
> "Live now. Make now always the most precious time. Now will never come
> again."
> -- Captain Jean-Luc Picard  >,
> in the *Star Trek: The Next Generation *episode "The Inner Light".
>
> What's making you happy this week?
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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] Join the WikidataCon, 28-29 October in Berlin

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Why would it be and how does that make a difference?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 21 June 2017 at 22:38, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> I assume this conference will be considered a "Wikimedia technical event"
> and as such it will fall under the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct (
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct) and its Committee?
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Shani Evenstein 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I'm forwarding this email from
> > ​
> > Léa Lacroix to the list about the WikidataCon.
> >
> > Best,
> > Shani.
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Léa Lacroix 
> > Date: 20 June 2017 at 14:34
> > Subject: Join the WikidataCon, 28-29 October in Berlin
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > Here's a general update about the WikidataCon, that will take place in
> > Berlin on October 28th and 29th :)
> >
> > General information
> > The WikidataCon  >
> > is a conference organized for and by the Wikidata community, and
> supported
> > by Wikimedia Deutschland.
> > If you edit Wikidata, make queries with SPARQL, build scripts, gadgets or
> > external tools, reuse data from Wikidata with your software or your
> > service, if you belong to an organization who wants to use or donate
> data,
> > if you're working on open data, datajournalism, datavizualisation, open
> > knowledge, civictech... *you're welcome to the WikidataCon*!
> >
> > It will take place on October 28th-29th (+ social event on Friday 27th),
> in
> > the Tagesspiegel venue, in Berlin. Due to our international community,
> the
> > even will take place in English only. However, language/local meetups can
> > be added to the program.
> >
> > We are expecting 150 persons from all around the world, to celebrate
> > Wikidata's 5th birthday and *share knowledge and experience whithin the
> > community*.
> >
> >
> > Program
> > With two days of talks, workshops, demos, meetups, and social events, the
> > diverse and awesome people that belong to the Wikidata community will be
> > able to share their experiences, their favorite tools, learn from the
> > others, discover new ways to create, enrich, reuse data from the free
> > knowledge base.
> >
> > The program is currently being build via a *call for projects
> > ,
> running
> > until July 31st.* Feel free to support your favorite topics or propose a
> > project. A social event on the Friday evening and a birthday celebration
> > will also take place to bring the community together.
> >
> >
> > Attend
> > *Registration is now open
> >  >,
> > until October 1st. *Registration is mandatory for everyone, including
> > speakers, WMF and WMDE employees, volunteers...
> >
> > Important thing you need to know: the ticket is free of charge, and
> > includes the access to the conference, meals, drinks and goodies, but
> *does
> > not include travel and accommodation*. The attendees have to book these
> by
> > themselves.
> > If you plan to come, don't wait... Berlin is a touristic area :)
> >
> >
> > Scholarships
> > Some scholarships will be provided to help attendees to fund their travel
> > and accommodation for the conference. *The application is running until
> > July 16th
> > .
> *
> >
> > Due to the few number of scholarships we can provide, we encourage people
> > to ask for support from their local chapter or user group.
> >
> >
> > How can you help?
> > - share this information with people, mailing-lists, wikis, who could be
> > interested
> > - if you are involved in a local chapter: ask your board if they can
> > provide some support for the volunteers of you country who would like to
> > join.
> > - if you want to *volunteer during the event*, you're more than welcome!
> > You can find more information here
> > .
> > - if you see any missing information or mistake, or you have any
> question,
> > feel free to contact me.
> >
> >
> > You can follow our updates on the wiki page
> > , the facebook
> > event  or the Twitter
> > account .
> > Thanks a lot for your attention, I hope I'll meet some of you during the
> > WikidataCon!
> >
> > --
> > Léa Lacroix
> > Project Manager Community Communication for Wikidata
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> > Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
> > 10963 Berlin
> > www.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> >
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This bias
can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational
effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
otherwise it will not get published [2].

A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of projects
other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects and
there is no research into its value.

The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.

Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process so
far but  as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the message
and not the messenger who is killed .

Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
Thanks,
   GerardM


[1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
traffic.
[2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
Wikipedia..

On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu  wrote:
>
> > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W :
> > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> > who
> > > are not involved with affiliates?
> >
> >
> >
> > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > available in the strategy process.
> >
> >
> > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. None
> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time. Round
> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on 3
> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I have
> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1. May
> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> ___
> 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] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue
where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we going
to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission
seriously.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu 
> wrote:
>
> > Hej,
> >
> > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion
> :-)
> > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons,
> > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> large
> > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If
> > WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would be
> > great.
> >
> > -Teemu
> >
> > > Gerard Meijssen  kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello
> > 13.00:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > bias
> > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > educational
> > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> viable
> > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > >
> > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > projects
> > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> readers
> > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> > and
> > > there is no research into its value.
> > >
> > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> collaboration
> > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> habitually
> > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> served
> > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> in
> > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > >
> > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> > so
> > > far but  as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > message
> > > and not the messenger who is killed .
> > >
> > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > traffic.
> > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > Wikipedia..
> > >
> > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W :
> > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who
> > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > >>>
> > >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You do not provide arguments so it is an opinion. Having said that, I did
not say that the attention for the English Wikipedia did not serve English
Wikipedia well. It did. Your opinion can be easily translated in "we do not
care and do not need to care".

What I am saying is that English Wikipedia is less than half our traffic
and it serves some 30% of our potential public. Given that there is a bias
in research and interest, we did not even give a thought on how to grow the
bottom 250 Wikipedias to be more useful for their public. For most of them
we do not need university level articles, we need to start with good enough
articles and start probably on a college level or the level of the last
year of primary school.

We do not have the content relevant for many cultures in English Wikipedia
so even the thought of translating what exists in English Wikipedia is too
much of a good thing. We do not have the data in Wikidata so we cannot even
suggest what to write in English.

The notion that thanks to English Wikipedia we have the standing the
funding is correct. Now lets do our job for the other 70%. If this is not a
diversity issue what is?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 June 2017 at 12:42, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I'd wouldnt call the current practice detrimental to our mission, nor would
> see english wikipedia as a bad influence for without en.wp we would have no
> global recognition, no movement, no funding and no need for a strategy
> process. English language communities are also our most diverse projects
>
> On 25 June 2017 at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue
> > where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we
> going
> > to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission
> > seriously.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
> >
> > > This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> > > consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <
> teemu.leino...@aalto.fi
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hej,
> > > >
> > > > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an
> opinion
> > > :-)
> > > > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south
> are
> > > > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various
> > reasons,
> > > > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> > > large
> > > > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the
> en-Wikipedia.
> > If
> > > > WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would
> be
> > > > great.
> > > >
> > > > -Teemu
> > > >
> > > > > Gerard Meijssen  kirjoitti 24.6.2017
> > kello
> > > > 13.00:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1].
> This
> > > > bias
> > > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > > > educational
> > > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
> > developed,
> > > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> > > viable
> > > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia
> because
> > > > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > > > projects
> > > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> > > readers
> > > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
> > projects
> > > > and
> > > > > there is no research into its value.
> > > > >
> > > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> > > collaboration
> > > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden pat

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution. When you look at the
team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its support
in standards.

The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a small
language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the
bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia. When we do
not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do not
even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and
write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs as I
described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].

The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the
pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may
be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project in
its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary
requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place,
interlinked content.

We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the
Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a
number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people. This
can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state of a
language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.

We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links.
This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I have
written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will make
search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between links
and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because
articles on the same subject share similar links.

Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given preferential
treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.
Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an
English Wikipedia vision. This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor
understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position is
not welcomed by most if at all.
Thanks,
GerardM

[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching-wikipedia-using-local-news.html
[2]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
[3]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia-sister-projects-in-search.html




On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
>
> I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is
> "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
> encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
> multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
>
> Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
> deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have to
> mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices.
> They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
> quickly as they can coherently write it up.
>
> There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
> subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
> contextual search and natural language processing to support better
> translation).
>
> Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
> movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
> technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
> support some other end(s).
>
> You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by your
> peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there are
> constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for our
> biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work:
> New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
>
> I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers have
> voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
> everyone is listening.
>
> Warmly,
> /a
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > receives more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,

Anna I have one question for you. You say that "you would not frame the
challenge as I do". How would you characterise the inherent diversity issue
of the WMF that is centred around how it spends its money and where its
attention goes?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 26 June 2017 at 01:57, Anna Stillwell  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> In line.
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
> > that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
> > serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.
>
>
> Everything is a partial solution. The complete picture emerges as we
> explore the problem.
>
>
> > When you look at the
> > team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> > effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
> support
> > in standards.
> >
>
> I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
> that view.
>
>
> > The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a
> small
> > language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the
> > bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia.
>
>
> You’re saying that one size does not fit all. Not by a long shot. If that
> is what you’re saying, I agree.
>
>
> > When we do
> > not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do
> not
> > even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and
> > write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs
> as I
> > described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].
> >
>
> Ok. So we don’t have important knowledge about people and places in other
> languages. Agreed. We have far less of that. I think we should have far
> more. If that’s not what you are saying, please correct me.
>
> But then I don’t yet understand what you are saying about stubs. Are you
> saying “they" should make those stubs? Who are the people that should make
> the stubs and who are you addressing this comment to? I’m just wondering
> whether it is something that I can even address or whether your insight is
> best addressed by other movement players.
>
>
> > The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the
> > pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may
> > be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project
> in
> > its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary
> > requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place,
> > interlinked content.
> >
>
> Ok. We don’t have the knowledge yet. We need to get it. I agree. Then there
> is an issue with sources. I don’t know the exact issue that you are
> pointing to with sources, but I agree that the first barrier is sources. I
> also think a lot of people throughout the movement conversation would
> agree, as I’ve heard them talking about it non-stop. People don’t know how
> to solve that problem yet, but there seems to be growing consensus that
> this is a problem we should collectively attempt to solve.
>
> I can’t be sure that I understood the rest of your point. I fear that it
> was lost in translation and I apologize in advance that my Dutch is
> non-existent.
>
>
> >
> > We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the
> > Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a
> > number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people.
> > This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state
> > of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.
> >
>
> I find nothing objectionable in this statement. I also agree that we have
> to appreciate what we can achieve. Sometimes I fear that across the
> movement half of us think about as long as an annual plan, the other half
> like to dream in the far out. There is a lot of mid-range planning in
> between that keeps me up at night.
>
> Thanks for helping us all understand more about the Bangla community. I
> agree that serving a language community of a few hundred million people
> well is important. Bengla has over 250M speakers and is the seventh most
> spoken language in the world [citation needed].
>
> >
> > We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links.
> > This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I
> have
> > wr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 25 June 2017)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I found a complete history of Africa that is available in PDF format from
UNESCO.. It is in eight parts and I am happy that it exists.. I added the
data in Wikidata but this is the link for the English version.. There are
versions in other languages as well :)
Thanks,
 GerardM

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/general-history-of-africa/volumes/

On 27 June 2017 at 05:18, Pine W  wrote:

> I like a tool for Wikidata that Hay created which is called VizQuery. More
> information about it is below.
>
> What's making you happy this week?
>
> Pine
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Hay (Husky) 
> Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:10 PM
> Subject: [Wikidata] A visual way to query Wikidata
> To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." <
> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Hey everyone,
> i've made a tool that allows you to query Wikidata in a visual way
> without using SPARQL. It's called VizQuery:
>
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/vizquery/
>
> The possibilities of using Wikidata to do interesting queries are
> endless, and the current query service allows for very powerful
> queries indeed. However, i feel that for the general public,
> especially those who are not that technical, it might be a bit
> overwhelming and difficult for them to learn a complex language such
> as SPARQL. To make people familiar with the concept of queries i
> believe a somewhat less intimidating approach might be useful, hence
> this tool.
>
> VizQuery is only capable of doing a subset of possible queries. It's
> basically simple triples, variables (prefixed with '?') and literals
> (between "quotes"). You can do pretty powerful queries with only those
> things though. For example, here's a query with vegetarians who are
> married to a vegetarian:
>
> http://bit.ly/2sydpmW
>
> Under the hood VizQuery uses Ruben Verborgh's SPARQL.js library to
> convert between JSON and SPARQL, so theoretically every SPARQL query
> you could do in the regular query service can be done in VizQuery.
> However, many queries won't work because the visual interface only
> supports a subset of options: it's pretty hard to create user-friendly
> GUI representations of many of the complex SPARQL features. :)
>
> Anyway, i'd like to hear what you think. Bugs, feature request and
> pull requests are also welcome on my Github page:
> https://github.com/hay/wiki-tools
>
> Kind regards,
> -- Hay
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
> ___
> 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] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 25 June 2017)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I checked, the license is non commercial. I have been in contact with John
Cummings about this, he will look into what can be done.

To be honest, we are terrible at getting a public for the work that is done
at Wikisource. We could do so much more and this fact should be obvious as
there are websites dedicated to serving a public with the work done in
Wikisource.

So for me the maps and the artwork is the most we will really use under a
free license. The biggest benefit will be the use of these books as a
source for Wikipedia content. The existing eight books already are known in
Wikidata [1], there are links to the PDF's, what is needed are ISBN numbers
(the books are available in print), author info etc. to make them useful in
Citoid.
Thanks,
 GerardM

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q31365548

On 2 July 2017 at 06:27, James Heilman  wrote:

> If it is from UNESCO does that mean it is under a Wikimedia compatible
> license? One could put it on Wikisource :-)
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I found a complete history of Africa that is available in PDF format from
> > UNESCO.. It is in eight parts and I am happy that it exists.. I added the
> > data in Wikidata but this is the link for the English version.. There are
> > versions in other languages as well :)
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/
> > themes/general-history-of-africa/volumes/
> >
> > On 27 June 2017 at 05:18, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > I like a tool for Wikidata that Hay created which is called VizQuery.
> > More
> > > information about it is below.
> > >
> > > What's making you happy this week?
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: Hay (Husky) 
> > > Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:10 PM
> > > Subject: [Wikidata] A visual way to query Wikidata
> > > To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." <
> > > wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hey everyone,
> > > i've made a tool that allows you to query Wikidata in a visual way
> > > without using SPARQL. It's called VizQuery:
> > >
> > > http://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/vizquery/
> > >
> > > The possibilities of using Wikidata to do interesting queries are
> > > endless, and the current query service allows for very powerful
> > > queries indeed. However, i feel that for the general public,
> > > especially those who are not that technical, it might be a bit
> > > overwhelming and difficult for them to learn a complex language such
> > > as SPARQL. To make people familiar with the concept of queries i
> > > believe a somewhat less intimidating approach might be useful, hence
> > > this tool.
> > >
> > > VizQuery is only capable of doing a subset of possible queries. It's
> > > basically simple triples, variables (prefixed with '?') and literals
> > > (between "quotes"). You can do pretty powerful queries with only those
> > > things though. For example, here's a query with vegetarians who are
> > > married to a vegetarian:
> > >
> > > http://bit.ly/2sydpmW
> > >
> > > Under the hood VizQuery uses Ruben Verborgh's SPARQL.js library to
> > > convert between JSON and SPARQL, so theoretically every SPARQL query
> > > you could do in the regular query service can be done in VizQuery.
> > > However, many queries won't work because the visual interface only
> > > supports a subset of options: it's pretty hard to create user-friendly
> > > GUI representations of many of the complex SPARQL features. :)
> > >
> > > Anyway, i'd like to hear what you think. Bugs, feature request and
> > > pull requests are also welcome on my Github page:
> > > https://github.com/hay/wiki-tools
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > -- Hay
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikidata mailing list
> > > wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
> > > ___
> > > 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
> > > U

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
With all due respect, when that is the reason to put yourself forward,
given that it is possible to provide a negative assessment in the past. You
will have mine. The board and its responsibility is not that narrow.

Arguably we do not spend enough, we could achieve more.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 23 July 2017 at 18:18, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> Pine
>
> It is for the Board members, collectively and individually, to oversee the
> management and affairs of the Foundation.  You should ask them as Trustees
> to comment.  I myself have had little success in that direction, but
> perhaps you will do better.  However, the staff of the Foundation are
> answerable only to the Board, and the Board members as Trustees are
> answerable only to themselves.  If you are unable to obtain the assurances
> you need, then your only recourse is to put your name forward for
> nomination to the Board yourself.
>
> Good luck!
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi WMF folks,
> > I'm still waiting. The issue of financial transparency isn't going away,
> > and the silence here is getting to be a point of concern.
> > Pine
> >  Original message From: Pine W 
> > Date: 7/14/17  11:31 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates]
> > June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)
> > Hi WMF folks,
> >
> > I'm still waiting for a reply to this question.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty
> > with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.
> >
> > Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by
> > following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this
> > will help to keep the conversation focused and civil.
> >
> > > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution
> > > last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5
> > million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June
> > > 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
> >
> > Thanks for providing the project budget number, which is a good place to
> > start. How much is the timeline extension projected
> > to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? I imagine that
> an
> > analysis of the cost of the extension was done
> > before the extension was authorized, and that a funding source was
> > identified. I hope that WMF can provide that information
> > and that only a few minutes of staff time will be necessary to publish
> it.
> >
> > I'm hoping that we can address this topic first, and then move on to
> other
> > issues that have come up.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can
> > approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have
> > posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent,
> > and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday
> > to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF
> staff
> > to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a
> > holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the
> > holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I
> > should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to
> > staff.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have said before that we spend our money not equally over our audience.
Less than 50 % of our traffic is English Wikipedia and less than 40% of the
world population speak English well enough. Consequently we spend too much
on English.

It is stupid to suggest that we should defund our current projects that
primarily benefit English but we have the luxury to spend more on other
languages, cultures and audiences. There are plenty of pocket money
projects that will have a big impact on the smaller projects and will gain
us an insight on what we are missing in our sum of available knowledge. The
big thing is too leave the big project mentality behind us. Be bold,
experiment, learn from experiments and advertise the positive and negative
results. Regroup, think again and experiment again.

The question is do we dare to experiment leave some conventions behind us
that are ill fitting in other projects. Do we dare to spend more to achieve
more and ignore those "who know best".

When the outcome of this strategy thing is that we need to partner more,
consider what we have not considered then all the additional money has been
worth it.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 23 July 2017 at 19:01, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 5:39 PM, you wrote:
>
> Arguably we do not spend enough, we could achieve more.
> >
>
> I would say that it is about spending money differently, not just more.
> However, here are some things that one could achieve for a modest $2.5M, as
> suggested in a thread on this list in January – considering the enormous
> surplus value accruing to the Foundation as a result of the work of the
> Community, any or all of these suggestions seem to be to be quite modest
> returns to the Community for that work.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> 1. Fully-paid bursaies to Wikimania 2017 for one person from each of the
> 250 largest projects;
> 2. Purchase one reference book or similar for the 30,000 most active
> content contributors;
> 3. Purchase a one-year JSTOR subscription for the 10,000 most active
> content contributors;
> 4. Local travel bursaries to Wikimedia meetups and conferences for 50,000
> members of the Community;
> 5. An office with ten staff paid for a year to resolve the requirements for
> improved tools from the Community Tech programme.
>
> One could imagine folding some of these into the endowment at 4% as
> follows:
> 1'. Funding for 10 Wikimania bursaries per year for ever;
> 2'. Funding for 1,000 books per year for ever;
> 3'. Funding for 400 JSTOR subscriptions per year for ever;
> 4'. Funding for local travel for 2,000 people per year for ever.
> ___
> 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] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This exchange of views is limited to the views being in a narrow way
connected to what is originally posted. When a diametrically opposed view
is expressed it is easily confused with subject high jacking. Arguably this
thread has gone of the rails already and in direct reply no to your point,
it is not a free exchange of views.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 20 August 2017 at 08:35, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

> Peter
>
> ... and people who disagree post comments to that effect in a free, fair
> and frank exchange of views.  So all is well.
>
> Reynard
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > Funny thing,
> > That is what I would have said of Fae as well
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> > Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 11:07 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on
> > public domain works
> >
> > Peter,
> > Thanks for the compliment.  I just call them as I see them.
> > Richard
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Rogol,
> > > Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic
> > > assumption of good faith.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:16 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on
> > > public domain works
> > >
> > > Fae,
> > >
> > > You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who
> > > disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect
> > > understanding or is consciously committing "copyfraud".  Have you made
> > > any attempts whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to
> > > find what their position is and consider whether it might have some
> > > merits?  Have you considered that if you were to approach them in a
> > > less aggressive fashion, they might be happy to work with you or others
> > to release their collection?
> > >
> > > Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding
> > > of the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of
> > > being successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as
> > > > the "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic
> > Environment.
> > > > It holds detailed information and archive images for more than
> > > > 300,000 places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment
> > > > Scotland (HES).
> > > >
> > > > I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
> > > > Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
> > > > look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can
> > > > offer to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a
> > > > better understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
> > > >
> > > > In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
> > > > knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
> > > > seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be
> > > > made from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
> > > > domain. There are two basic problems:
> > > > * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
> > > > users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
> > > > minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> > > > * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed
> > > > as copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given
> > > > for any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> > > > Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
> > > > will be provided."
> > > >
> > > > I would be delighted to release some of the public domain
> > > > collections from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons,
> > > > but at the moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to
> > > > release the disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain
> > > > images, even using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no
> > > > longer exists), I would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES
> > > > based on the site terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
> > > >
> > > > Examples:
> > > > 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
> > > > photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> > > > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> > > > 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of posts
is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must be
brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this list.
When you disagree on this, show some statistics.

When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of
edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators are
judge jury and executioner.

The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given.
Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like facebook
a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the
vested interest of those at Meta.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> Hi list members,
>
> The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
> humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
> posters (some of them frequent) create.
>
> It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
> frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
> to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
>
> We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
> but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
>
> The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
> which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> volume will often achieve the same result.
> --
>
> Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
>
> The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never
> been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
> clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests
> the current quota is too high.
>
> A review of the stats at
> https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few
> people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
> exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
> members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are
> repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating
> themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their
> opinion heard.
> --
>
> Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
>
> As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
> proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have
> been globally banned by the community according to the
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
>
> This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat
> puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy.  The list admins
> would prefer that globally banned people communicate their grievances
> via established members of our community who can guide them, rather
> than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned people on
> how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience, and
> then required to block them when they do not follow advice.  The role
> of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only patrolling
> the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping
> globally banned users.
> --
>
> Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by two
> Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month
>
> This proposal is intended to strike a balance between openness and
> quality of discourse.
>
> Banned people occasionally use the wikimedia-l mailing list as a
> substitute of the meta Request for comment system, and banned people
> also occasionally provide constructive criticisms and thought
> provoking views.  This proposal hopes to allow that to continue.
>
> However people who have been banned on a few projects also use this
> list as their “last stand”, having already exhausted the community
> patience on the wikis.  Sometimes the last stand is brief, but
> occasionally a banned person is able to maintain sufficient decorum
> that they are not moderated or banned from the list, and mailing list
> readers need to suffer month after month of the banned person
> dominating the mailing lists with time that they would previously have
> spent editing on the wikis.
> --
>
> Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five (5)
> posts per month
>
> Posting using fake identities allows people to shield their real life
> *and* their Wikimedi

[Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia mailinglist
and its use by one of the list managers.

So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a
given because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily
concerned with "Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It is
not about Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and there
are even lists for language specific Wikipedias.

The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It follows
that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there proper
home on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a
high level consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.

Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi
linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of
funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the need
to consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that
do not get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple
projects, the discussion about this starts here.

What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list is
lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level
arguments, it is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because from
a sociological point of view, high level considerations and low level
considerations often work in different directions (think Coleman).

Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list is
to discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening in
our movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member to
actively undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the kind
of noise we can do without. When someone is punished for having a point of
view that aims to improve what we do but has a position that is not the
flavour of the month, it is a different story. The list itself has a
problem when these to considerations are not part of the management of the
list.

The current proposals will not improve the Wikimedia-l because it is
restrictive in its approach. It is what some people may want, a lower
volume. But others like myself have weaned themselves of Meta because it is
such a time sink. There are at this time other platforms as well where
people obstruct (imho) probably with good intentions but without
understanding of the arguments that it has become virtually impossible to
come to a consensus anyway. Floating arguments on Wikimedia-l is one way to
get a traction, actively working towards the hoped for outcome and blogging
makes it complete for me.

With the current restrictions proposed, I do not feel safe. There is no
longer room to reflect on arguments. There is no longer room to reply
because of this arbitrary limitation to post.

Remember, this list is to make a positive difference for our movement. Few
posts only allow for making statements and not for discussions. Many of the
arguments put forward are arguably wrong even detrimental to what 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] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Read Coleman, they are called unintended consequences.. You cannot please
everyone.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 27 August 2017 at 11:17, Fæ  wrote:

> Several emails on this topic have been essay length, including some from
> list moderators. If post limits are halved, this may become more common.
>
> Many readers, especially those like me viewing on a phone when scanning
> through emails, will skip essays which are several screens long. Please
> consider the good practice of opening with a one paragraph precis, or TLDR
> section, for any long post. This way, those who have tiny screens, or short
> attention spans, can get the point and will be much more likely to return
> to the essay later.
>
> Thanks, Fae (writing without a keyboard)
>
> On 27 Aug 2017 09:50, "Peter Southwood" 
> wrote:
>
> Hey, it is nearly the end of the month, I will expend another rationed
> posting to agree with  Gerard on this point because I think it is vitally
> important. He expresses my sentiments very closely on this point, and
> although I may disapprove of his tone occasionally, I think he is a fine
> example of someone who may not always echo the mainstream opinion, but I
> have never doubted his good faith intentions to improve the Wikimedia
> projects.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, 27 August 2017 8:25 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist
>
> Hoi,
> I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia mailinglist
> and its use by one of the list managers.
>
> So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a
> given because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily
> concerned with "Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It is
> not about Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and there
> are even lists for language specific Wikipedias.
>
> The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It follows
> that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there proper
> home on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a
> high level consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.
>
> Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi
> linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of
> funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the need
> to consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that
> do not get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple
> projects, the discussion about this starts here.
>
> What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list is
> lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level
> arguments, it is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because from
> a sociological point of view, high level considerations and low level
> considerations often work in different directions (think Coleman).
>
> Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list is
> to discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening in
> our movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member to
> actively undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the kind
> of noise we can do without. When someone is punished for having a point of
> view that aims to improve what we do but has a position that is not the
> flavour of the month, it is a different story. The list itself has a
> problem when these to considerations are not part of the management of the
> list.
>
> The current proposals will not improve the Wikimedia-l because it is
> restrictive in its approach. It is what some people may want, a lower
> volume. But others like myself have weaned themselves of Meta because it is
> such a time sink. There are at this time other platforms as well where
> people obstruct (imho) probably with good intentions but without
> understanding of the arguments that it has become virtually impossible to
> come to a consensus anyway. Floating arguments on Wikimedia-l is one way to
> get a traction, actively working towards the hoped for outcome and blogging
> makes it complete for me.
>
> With the current restrictions proposed, I do not feel safe. There is no
> longer room to reflect on arguments. There is no longer room to reply
> because of this arbitrary limitation to post.
>
> Remember, this list is to make a positive difference for our movement. Few
> posts only allow for making statements and not for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Attribution of external content

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
With all due respect. These templates are probably English Wikipedia only.
Consequently they are not available on a Wikimedia level.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 29 August 2017 at 13:39, Richard Farmbrough 
wrote:

> We have a number of source specific templates, such  as {{EB1911}} for
> acknowledging re-used source material.  There is as yet no automatic
>  mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is replaced
> entirely.
>
> On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra"  wrote:
>
> > but the information is exactly the same, url, date, author, title - the
> > refn template can include anything you need to add including license
> detail
> > ie cc-by all of which can be internal or external links
> >
> > On 28 August 2017 at 00:26, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > Citation and reuse is two different things.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > that notice states that text has been used, a specific citation where
> > the
> > > > text would add context by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > > Template:Refn
> > > >
> > > > On 27 August 2017 at 22:22, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Use of a template does not accurately identify the copied text, and
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > case nor the author.
> > > > >
> > > > > The license is the contract with the author and the reason why the
> > text
> > > > can
> > > > > be copied. If the license says the author shall be identified, the
> by
> > > > > attribution clause, then a link to the site is not good enough. If
> > the
> > > > > share alike clause is given, then it is even harder to give correct
> > > > credit,
> > > > > as the request for credit can be pretty weird.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, a page that is later edited is not necessarily something
> the
> > > > > external editor has created, he or she has created a part that at
> > some
> > > > > point in time was incorporated in the page, and the present page
> may
> > > not
> > > > > even contain this content anymore.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Gnangarra 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CC-notice on en
> at
> > > > least
> > > > > > specifically for the purpose of incorporating text licensed cc-by
> > > > content
> > > > > > within articles
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 27 August 2017 at 21:28, John Erling Blad 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In some cases we need to attribute content created on external
> > > sites,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > reused on Wikimedia-sites. In Norway Åndsverksloven says "The
> > > creator
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > the right to be named according to good practice"
> ("Opphavsmannen
> > > har
> > > > > > krav
> > > > > > > på å bli navngitt slik som god skikk tilsier") and for our
> > content
> > > > that
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > given by our license and our terms of use. That means by a link
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > page
> > > > > > > if possible, or if possible an entry in the history.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now we use a template on the page itself, or similar, but it is
> > not
> > > > the
> > > > > > > page on our site that the external entity has provided, they
> have
> > > > > > provided
> > > > > > > the content at their site. So we must say that in some
> consistent
> > > > way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe that the best option would be to have a log entry
> > > injected
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > the history for our page that says "this revision comes in full
> > or
> > > > part
> > > > > > > from that external source". Such an entry could be made by the
> > > editor
> > > > > or
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > an administrator, but must be made as an extension of the
> > revision.
> > > > It
> > > > > > > should also be possible to delete such an entry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > An alternative could be to make the summary editable, but the
> > > summary
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the description of the revision, not the source of the
> revision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does this make sense? Will it solve the problem, or is it just
> > > > another
> > > > > > > level that makes things more confusing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John Erling Blad
> > > > > > > ___
> > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > >  > > unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > GN.
> > > > > > President Wikimedia Australia
> > > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > 

[Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
policy that is a mirror image of their policy.

I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the best
practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
concerns BLP.

Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for a
more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
relevant questions together.

What this approach accomplishes is:
* better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
* an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
links to Wikidata items
* it allows for the Wikidata best practices
* it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
our overall BLP.

What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too
is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
not so much in the endless bickering.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1]
https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-and-its-blp-approach.html
___
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] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that
is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so
fix it" is not appropriate.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood  wrote:

> So fix it,
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of James Salsman
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017
> at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
>
> Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by
> Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still
> says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
> Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are
> tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R  wrote:
> >
> > The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday,
> > September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
> >
> > YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
> >
> > As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
> > And, you can watch our past research showcases here
> >  Showcase#September_2017>.
> >
> >...
> >
> > Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control
> > Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
> >
> > As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that
> > Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However,
> > Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world,
> > including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential
> > to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas
> > into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the
> > scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways:
> > correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally
> > through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content
> > to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational
> > relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping
> > effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of
> > Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of
> > scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of
> > information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to
> > advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving,
> > disproportionately benefitting those without
>
> ___
> 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.
> http://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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is a fallacy to  consider all Wikidata data as one big blob. As it is,
the English Wikipedia accepts particular data from Wikidata and it is
expressed in its articles. Arguably the quality of "Authority control" has
improved as a consequence.

In the same way "unsourced statements" exist in many ways. Consider a list
of award winners. The source typically is with the award for all the people
who received the award. Including for the people who do not have an article
but exist as a red link. In Wikidata they do get their own item and I have
observed that many of these people gain additional statements including
references to for instance VIAF over time.  As more information is added,
the item comes alive and sometimes they are merged with other items. This
has the effect that labels are added and it may mean that links in a
Wikipedia should point to the one article.

Wikidata can be many things. It may become a source for the inclusion of
much more data. What it already can be is a tool that helps maintain the
consistency of the links of Wikipedia. With blue, red and black links
linked to Wikidata, it will be relevant to help out whenever an issue is
found. At this time there is no meaningful effect fixing links in a
Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 08:37, Peter Southwood  wrote:

> Yes, this is one of the reasons why data from Wikidata must only be
> included in a Wikipedia at the discretion of users of that specific
> Wikipedia, like images from Commons.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017 10:14 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy
>
> Hoi,
> There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata.
> Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a
> policy that is a mirror image of their policy.
>
> I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the
> best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data.
> Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it
> concerns BLP.
>
> Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for
> a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the
> relevant questions together.
>
> What this approach accomplishes is:
> * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata
> * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red
> links to Wikidata items
> * it allows for the Wikidata best practices
> * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for
> our overall BLP.
>
> What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is
> not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often
> specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too
> is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
> not so much in the endless bickering.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> [1]
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-
> and-its-blp-approach.html
> ___
> 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.
> http://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] BLP and the Wikidata / Wikipedia controversy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it
is "authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard
bearer in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear
operational purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such a
purpose; it allows us to link to free content; it provides the basics for a
mechanism so that Wikipedia readers can read books of an author or read a
particular book.

One reason often neglected is that the other database is actively
maintained and its maintainers collaborate with people at Wikidata to
mutual advantage. This is the case with the people at Open Library, with
the people at OCLC. It is most powerful because past activities have had a
measurable effect in their projects and in Wikidata. From my personal
perspective active collaboration is to be preferred over the authority of
another source.

The reason why both red, blue and black links ought to be linked to
Wikidata is because it enables comparison and evaluation. When red links
are linked to a Wikidata item they will not turn blue whan an autonym is
created. Blue links have an implicit link to a Wikidata item. It happens
all too often, particularly in lists, that a blue link is associated with
the wrong article. It is reasonable to expect that multiple instances of
the same list contains links to the same items. With an explicit link it
becomes easy for bots to compare lists in the different Wikipedias and find
these differences. It is also possible to compare with Wikidata but that is
of a secondary relevance..

With red links and blue links linked to Wikidata, the similarity of the
data on an item with the data in an article indicates a probability that
the quality in Wikidata is high. Given the huge number of statements on
items that have no reference it is the best that can be done given the
enormous amount of data in Wikidata.

Given the policies of Wikidata, there will be references to living people
that only exist to complete a list. I am adding many Dutch authors at this
time to complete the award winners of Dutch literature awards. They consist
of a label in Dutch, the fact of their humanity often a gender indication
and the fact that they won the award. This pattern is true for many awards
and, it is an accepted consequence of the Wikidata notability policy. These
are in effect red links in a Wikipedia.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 05:08, Alessandro Marchetti 
wrote:

> Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it
> can stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if
> issues are pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound and
> professional, we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a
> databases of sites, buildings or museum items too. Creating a
> wikipedia-style averaged policy on the issue is much more vague. Especially
> when local pages do not exist, the IDs is the key parameter to start, IMHO.
>
> It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of relevant "photographers" or
> "painters" or "athletes"... but a database should be complete and
> objective, it cannot rely on the funnel of what some wikipedia accepts and
> other don't, it would make it more biased and unbalanced importing a local
> bias. What's the point for example if I find an archive of Dutch
> photographers with IDs to import only those that have a page on nlwiki (or
> maybe enwiki, dewiki, frwiki)? You import all the codes, some items will
> have wikipedia pages, some will not, what's the real issue on this aspect?
> Being standardized and coherent is more important for an archive.
>
> About the quality of the items, this comes as a second step. Some of them
> will always be less cured, we can say that for a BLP a minimum requirement
> of properties is necessary for example. I can accept that an item with just
> one ID is removed if no additional information can be found. That is, a BLP
> item with a limited number of properties and no platform and just one ID
> can be proposed for deletion, although this should not be an automatism.
> But if you care about an item, you can improve it if it risks to be
> deleted. This is a functional issue, if an item does not tell me if you're
> a man or a woman, your age, your profession... well it is basically few
> things more than a ugly duplicate of a string in the url of the original
> database, so what's its utility? Some more complete output in some basic
> query here and there, maybe, but it should be possible to ask more. The
> point is that this should be considered in the framework of a database and
> its use, a more "functional" than "philosophical" perspective.
>
> P.S. Not sure I have understood the blue and red link request, in s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The problem is that sources become controversial when there is nothing that
mitigates their validity when other sources indicate that they have been
invalidated. This is of particular relevance when organisations like
Cochrane indicate this. The wholesale import into Wikidata essentially
cements these sources as being valid. As a consequence it has everything to
do with data uploads. Wikidata is not a stamp collection and we do not have
proper means to invalidate. Consider for instance that in Norway a whole
set of substances used in mental health are no longer provided. In the USA
and elsewhere these same substances are subscribed while it is KNOWN that
they are no better than a placebo.

Just copying controversial data into Wikidata is problematic and just
saying that somebody else has to fix it is dodging responsibility.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On 27 September 2017 at 08:42, Peter Southwood  wrote:

> Gerard,
> If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can go
> ahead and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment.
> If James wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics
> articles, he is free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to do with
> data uploads. If it does, perhaps you could enlighten me.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:17 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017
> at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
>
> Hoi,
> There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that
> is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so
> fix it" is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > wrote:
>
> > So fix it,
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20,
> > 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
> >
> > Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally
> > influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's
> > Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
> > Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles
> > are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R  wrote:
> > >
> > > The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday,
> > > September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
> > >
> > > YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
> > >
> > > As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
> > > And, you can watch our past research showcases here
> > > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
> > Showcase#September_2017>.
> > >
> > >...
> > >
> > > Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control
> > > Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
> > >
> > > As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that
> > > Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However,
> > > Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world,
> > > including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the
> > > potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does.
> > > Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas
> > > being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents
> this in two ways:
> > > correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and
> > > causally through a randomized experiment where we added new
> > > scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the
> > > correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a
> > > strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the
> > > influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of
> > > repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that
> > > increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a
> > > very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such
> > > gains are equity-improving,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For me this initiative raises more questions then it answers. As I
understand it, it is a change in vocabulary and it defines when a
Wikipedia  community is big enough to get "official" attention.

My problem is that it is very much standalone; it does not connect with
other practices. It does mention "incubating languages" but it does not
mention the incubator. In the language committee we have had organisations,
educational organisations who want to champion a language in their school.
This makes them bigger than the limit of 10 editors. At this time we do not
have a way to accomodate such requests. In my opinion for all the wrong
reasons. The wrong reasons because we know how effective schools are in
providing basic facts in a Wikipedia..

Once the Wikimedia Foundation had a group of technical people who worked on
language technology. Most of these people are still working at the WMF but
they are no longer involved in language tech. This became obvious when a
really worthy improvement for the Bashkir language, collation, was
implemented by a volunteer and Amir blogged that he had supported it as a
*volunteer*.. (he made a point of this). Particularly in the smaller
languages issues like collation are areas where the Wikimedia could make a
big difference. It is quite obvious that when we advertise the quality of
our language support (and because of our existing font support it is
already quite good) we can gain a lot of adventurous people.

In the current approach to languages and support it is imho very much
Wikipedia as we know it. We do not leverage the content in Wikidata as much
as we could. There has a lot of acrimoniousness regarding the Cebuano
Wikipedia. Millions of articles were generated as fixed text and
consequently it is currently impossible to maintain it.  The root cause is
our inability to cooperate. When this information was imported in Wikidata
(and cooperate with the original source) we could generate the text and
serve it as cached content. When the data is improved, the cached text gets
changed. The fact that such things are not considered is proof perfect of
opportunities wasted. Opportunities open to any language.

So it would be really cool when we consider how we can "share in the sum of
all our available knowledge". This is attainable if we dare to think
through what we can achieve and how we can make the most out of our
communities and the knowledge they hold.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 19:28, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
> distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
> countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
> named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
> Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
> impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
>
> However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was based on
> UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
> nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
> distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
> happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
> next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at geography,
> whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
> geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.
>
> In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
> unloved and rejected by many.
>
> The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking
> about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a
> much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of
> editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
> would be less controversial.
>
> We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a
> replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention
> to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
> definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are
> ready to share the proposed definition today:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/
> Defining_Emerging_Communities
>
>
> We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
> The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
> incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
>
> Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too.
> :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Asaf
> ___
> 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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you read the article you link to, it is explicitly about
destubification and not about new stubs.

Given this intend, I do not see it as a problem. Actually I do not mind
more women entries in Wikidata.. But hey, that is my thing :_
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 15 October 2017 at 16:02, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I cant believe this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_
> in_Red/The_World_Contest
> has
> got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on
> english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the
> community.
>
> I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current
> contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors.  If a new editor
> was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for Creation
> process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the
> competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
>
> While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is
> no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for
> notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000
> the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be created.
>
> ​we are 15 days from this disaster commencing​
>
> --
> G
> nangarra
> ___
> 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 Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on adding
more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be empowering
but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
seeking.

So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
selected group of people have to offer?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
>
> I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
>  wrote:
> > Hi Lodewijk,
> >
> > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
> > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
> > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> depend
> > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
> > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
> > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking
> about
> > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
> > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
> > the overall.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Cornelius
> >
> > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> >
> >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> organizations
> >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been
> doing
> >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
> >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> groups,
> >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> >>
> >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have
> always
> >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
> >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
> >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that
> likes
> >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> >> community.
> >>
> >> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
> >> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
> >>
> >> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have
> to
> >> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
> >>
> >> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal
> is
> >> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
> >> cutting it yet.
> >>
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> >> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and
> advantages,
> >> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> >> >
> >> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> >> > topics to varying degrees.
> >> >
> >> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> >> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative
> in
> >> an
> >> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> >> > representative.
> >> >
> >> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates
> gain
> >> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
> >> and
> >> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
> >> >
> >> > Seddon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose
> has
> >> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> >> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not
> as
> >> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> >> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> >> > >
> >> > > Michael
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> >> > chapters
> >> > > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we
> want
> >> > > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or
> >> user
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is not that someone has nothing worthwhile to contribute, it is just
that once you have interviewed a group that is of sufficient variety the
likelyhood of hearing anything new will vanish. When too much information
is gathered it becomes unwieldy as well and the discussion will peter out.
Thanks,
GerardM


On 25 October 2017 at 14:24, Gnangarra  wrote:

> Theres never the perfect solution, even with carefully selected groups you
> will never know what else could have been brought to the table, it doesnt
> matter where that line is whether its 2, 200, or 2000 whoever, however,
> what ever the criteria that the carefully selected group is comprised of
> the selection process alone introduces some bias, creates a division and
> implies someones opinion isnt worth considering.
>
> Starting some where is the important aspect, doing so in a manageable way
> with the available resources is the only prudent way forward
>
>
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 19:19, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When you do research, you know that there is a deminishing return on
> adding
> > more people that are asked the same question. It may seem to be
> empowering
> > but realistically the initial group comes up with the answers you are
> > seeking.
> >
> > So what do you think all these others have to add to what a carefull
> > selected group of people have to offer?
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 25 October 2017 at 12:52, Chris Keating 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
> > > Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?
> > >
> > > I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
> > > weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
> > > about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
> > > good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
> > > so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Hi Lodewijk,
> > > >
> > > > One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an
> > agreement
> > > > upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia
> > Conference
> > > > in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also
> > > depend
> > > > on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process,
> > for
> > > > example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement
> > organizations.
> > > > By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking
> > > about
> > > > 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the
> > conference
> > > > for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a
> solution
> > to
> > > > the overall.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Cornelius
> > > >
> > > > On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also
> > > organizations
> > > >> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has
> been
> > > doing
> > > >> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for
> > most
> > > >> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user
> > > groups,
> > > >> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
> > > >>
> > > >> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have
> > > always
> > > >> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context
> > it
> > > >> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> > > >> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> > > >> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user
> > group
> > > >> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users
> that
> > > likes
> > > >> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> > > >> community.
> > > >>
> > > >> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies,
> > this
> > > >> does not necess

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Movement Strategy: Endorse the strategic direction today! #wikimedia2030

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You get it backwards; Yaroslav indicates that he EXPECTS not to be heard.
It does not follow that what people say will not be noticed and it does not
follow that they may not be involved in the process of realising the
strategy.

The option to be heard has nothing to do with the position on the strategic
vision but everything on the way an opinion is phrased. There is much in
the strategic vision that is not controversial and where we can easily
agree on a way forward. Lets be simple about this and collaborate. The
devil is in the detail and obviously the vision is not what will be
realised; it is a map of how we envision the future.

When you want to be heard, what you want to be involved in the process, be
part of the process. Do not say "no: this is wrong and I will do everything
in my power to see this plan dismissed for the crap I think it is".  Find
it in yourself to remain part of our community, involve yourself positively
in the ongoing processes because it is a Wikimedia tradition to be bold and
go where we have not gone before.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 27 October 2017 at 08:27, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> It would be interesting to know who made the decision that persons who do
> not endorse phase I will be excluded from further involvement in the
> process, and how that decision is justified in the context of Wikimedia
> project traditions.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:56 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Movement Strategy: Endorse the strategic
> direction today! #wikimedia2030
>
> For the record, at the talk page of the endorsement page,
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement
>
> we have a small number of contributors, including myself, who explain why
> they refuse to endorse the document. I do not expect us to be heard though.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> >
> > As a volunteer member of some of the support groups for phase 1 of
> > movement strategy process [1], I am excited about the Endorsement Day
> > and am one of the people who has *individually endorsed
> >  > movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Individual_contributors>*
> > strategic
> > direction
> >  > movement/2017/Direction>
> > .
> > With my letter to Wikimedia-l I would like to remind everyone that
> > there is this possibilty of individual endorsement that may not have
> > really been highlighted. So, if you personally feel like endorsing the
> > direction, you are more than welcome to do that!
> > I am happy to see already quite many endorsements on respective meta
> page.
> > I am also happy that there are people presenting their discord with
> > strategic direction in a constructive way on the endorsement
> > discussion page
> >  > movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement>.
> > I think that it is important not only to endorse or not endorse the
> > document, but also to give rationale why it is done. I believe that
> > this will help us in moving forward together with Phase 2 and learn as
> we go.
> > As a result I have written a small essay in my user namespace
> >  > Endorsement_of_Wikimedia2030>
> > presenting some of the reasons why I am happy with what we have
> > achieved in phase 1 and with having a strategic direction for our
> > movement. You may agree or disagree, but I feel it is important to
> express one's opinion.
> > Also I encourage everyone else to share their reasons for liking or
> > disliking the direction with wider Wikimedia public, so we can learn
> > more and have even more meaningful phase 2.
> > I thank you for your time and kind attention!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kaarel Vaidla
> >
> > [1] Namely, Community Process Steering Committee
> >  > ess/
> > Steering_Committee>,
> > Track A Advisory Group
> >  > k_A/
> > Advisory_Group>
> > and Drafting Group
> >  > movement/2017/People/Drafting_Group>
> > ___
> > 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 mail

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement under DMCA attack!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Huh?
Thanks,
   GerardM

Op wo 15 nov. 2017 om 14:24 schreef Milos Rancic 

> On the other hand, I would like see WMF starts fixing harm done by its
> cultural neocolonial actions in Brazil and India.
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
> > A message from your list moderators:
> >
> > This thread does not belong on this list.
> >
> > It is spillover of a long and bitter conflict in the Portuguese
> community,
> > and this list's membership is not well situated to contribute to a
> solution
> > through discussion on this list.  Those particularly interested and able
> > can participate in relevant threads on the Portuguese Wikipedia.
> >
> > However, moving the mutual recriminations onto this list is escalation
> that
> > can only upset people and exacerbate the conflict, and is not an
> effective
> > way to seek help.
> >
> > As was mentioned, the matter involves allegations of harassment --
> > investigated by the Support and Safety team in the Community Engagement
> > department at WMF -- as well as legal action.  Both avenues would not
> > benefit from partial and probably-biased context shared on this list.
> >
> > The parties in conflict should continue to seek a modus vivendi on the
> wiki
> > they share, on-wiki, as well as through the channels they are already
> > pursuing.  Smearing the other side on this list won't accomplish
> anything.
> >
> > Accordingly, *please stop posting on this thread*.  We have also placed
> the
> > Brazilians involved in this conflict on temporary moderation, to prevent
> > further escalation.
> >
> > (putting on my WMF hat for a moment -- As a further point of context,
> both
> > sides have at one point requested WMF intervention in Brazil.  WMF has
> not
> > yet announced whether and how it would intervene, though several
> > alternatives have been discussed. Stay tuned.)
> >
> >  A.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:47 PM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> >> This is a very complex long-term "war" which, in my experience, never
> ends
> >> in a "reconciliation".
> >>
> >> Also, honestly, I don't think how can this comply with wikiversity
> mission.
> >>
> >> Vito
> >>
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> Mail
> >> priva di virus. www.avast.com
> >> <
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>
> >> 2017-11-06 15:30 GMT+01:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> >> psychosl...@culture-libre.org>:
> >>
> >> > Thank Chico and Henrique for your reports and related links.
> >> >
> >> > I encourage both of you to document further this topic. But as the
> >> mailing
> >> > list format might quickly turn it into a flameware, to avoid list
> >> > moderators some disagreeable work, you could preferably find more
> suited
> >> > place to develop your points. Punctual feedback on the list to signal
> >> > creation or update of additional external resources is welcome, as
> far as
> >> > I'm concerned.
> >> >
> >> > You might, inter alia, use wikimedia-timeline[1] to generate an
> overview
> >> > of main statements you are claiming, each linked to related resources
> >> which
> >> > let reader deepen their inquiry on the topic if they have interest and
> >> > resources to do so.
> >> >
> >> > If you are interested to turn that in a research project as objective
> as
> >> > you might be able to create, I also encourage you to open a research
> >> > project on a Wikiversity instance, after a check of how such a project
> >> > might be conducted on the selected instance. You might also like to
> >> create
> >> > and conduct some interviews and publish them on Wikinews.
> >> >
> >> > I hope that the difficult situation you are passing through will end
> up
> >> in
> >> > the most contributive, positive and placid possible resolution.
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards,
> >> > mathieu
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://github.com/molly/wikimedia-timeline
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Le 06/11/2017 à 11:59, Chico Venancio a écrit :
> >> >
> >> >> Ended up with out the links, sorry:
> >> >> [1]http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/wikibrasil.org.html
> >> >> [2]https://www.whois.com/whois/107.180.2.118
> >> >> [3]http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9610.htm#art24
> >> >>
> >> >> Chico Venancio
> >> >>
> >> >> 2017-11-06 7:53 GMT-03:00 Chico Venancio :
> >> >>
> >> >> To all on the list, *this is characterization is filled with obvious
> >> >>> lies.*
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The DMCA was filed a month ago simply *DID NOT TAKE the site
> down*.[1]
> >> >>> Henrique quickly took down the article offending copyright and
> Godaddy
> >> >>> allowed it to continue to be hosted.[2]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Henrique is a paid contractor of the user group Wiki Education
> Brazil
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> has repeatedly harassed several members of our user group (Joalpe
> and
> >> >>> myself included). And

[Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
With the demise of net neutrality in the USA, have their been consideration
for the impact it may have for the services provided by the Wikimedia
Foundation?

We are reliant on servers in the USA, as the quality of the service in the
USA is no longer a given, what are the risks?
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] Legal status of Wikimeida lists [Was: Re: The other side of the crisis at WMFR]

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You deny the existence of copyright.. It being public does not mean that it
is fair game for any and all purposes.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 24 November 2017 at 14:39, Vi to  wrote:

> Archives are public, so, IMHO, the list is.
>
> Vito
>
> 2017-11-24 11:11 GMT+01:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> psychosl...@culture-libre.org>:
>
> > Saluton ĉiuj,
> >
> > Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
> >
> >> I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the
> >> community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not
> >> deceived by a scenario built from scratch.
> >> Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public
> accusations
> >> still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this
> >> conflict with some people.
> >>
> >> I seize the opportunity to ask: what is the legal status of the list? Is
> > it considered public?
> >
> > I mean, it's easy to subscribe for anyone, but you still have to
> > subscribe. And as far as I know, accessing archives require to login. Now
> > there are other website which make crawled archives publicly accessible,
> > but just because some do that doesn't mean it's legal.
> >
> > Also I'm not aware of any license regarding posted emails, so plain
> > copyright probably apply, minus any exception related to epistolary
> > material that might exist.
> >
> > It might be interesting to make any post to our mailing list a free
> > licensed material. I've been thinking about that as I had the idea to
> > extensively analyse the wikidata-l mailling list and publish a side by
> side
> > statements and extracted keywords elements, but from a legal point of
> view
> > it is probably not feasible. That might be circumvented with links, or
> > providing a software which generate the expected table from provided
> > references, but anyway it's less practical than a straight published
> table.
> > Having this material published under a free license would make it far
> more
> > useful in any kind of study with such an extensive goal in its
> publication.
> >
> > Now, switching to a free license would not make the change retroactive,
> > but it would already cover new material. Also it should be possible to
> > contact most posters through their email and ask permission to release
> > their previous publications under one or more free licenses and change
> > archive metadata accordingly.
> >
> > Legale,
> > mathieu
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/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] Net neutrality

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
While the USA is considered a developed country, the people in the USA who
have least to spend are probably as deserving of zero rated Wikimedia
service as many of the people who do get Wikipedia Zero elsewhere. The
article indicates that our mission is to bring information to people and
that is no different in the USA.  With Wikipedia and its sister projects
considered as a way to bring quality, neutral point of view information, it
would even serve as a means to combat the misinformation that will benefit
from zero rating of information.

Zero rating is bad in so many ways but your argument does only say that it
was originally intended for developed countries. When there is a benefit to
our readers I only see upsides in promoting the use of Wikimedia content in
this way and no reason not to have Wikimedia Zero in the USA.
Thanks,
  GerardM



On 26 November 2017 at 03:56, Mz7  wrote:

> The relationship between net neutrality and the Wikimedia Foundation has
> been described as “complicated” – see [1]. Considering the that the
> Wikimedia Foundation has a zero-rating program of its own (see [2][3]), I’m
> not exactly sure how much this would affect Wikimedia, whether positively
> or negatively. On the one hand, we could take advantage of the change by
> expanding Wikipedia Zero into the United States. On the other hand, that’s
> probably not a good idea because the program is designed to promote access
> to free knowledge in developing countries, where access to the Internet may
> be prohibitively expensive. In a developed country such as the United
> States, that’s not really a prioritized issue.
>
> Mz7
>
> [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/
> 11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
>
> --
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mz7
>
> > On Nov 24, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > With the demise of net neutrality in the USA, have their been
> consideration
> > for the impact it may have for the services provided by the Wikimedia
> > Foundation?
> >
> > We are reliant on servers in the USA, as the quality of the service in
> the
> > USA is no longer a given, what are the risks?
> > 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] An answer to Lydia Pintscher regarding its considerations on Wikidata and CC-0

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I would not call it research. You have an opinion and you are dead set on
hearing yourself talk, making your current opinion prevail. Fine. You start
from assumptions that are not proven.. "this is a wonderful community"
there are plenty of arguments possible why there is a dictatorship of the
mob. All kinds of arguments are possible; one of mine is that there is no
interest in investigating how Wikidata can help Wikipedia achieve a higher
level of quality (and yes, that would work both ways). Your argument is
based in BIG Wikipedia and does not consider at all what it is that
generated text can bring where our wonderful community did not have the
room to be interested or where it did not have the bandwidth.

When you mean by research that you will endeavour to find arguments to
support your position then I understand you well. When you mean actual
research, you have to reflect on your assumptions, you have to come up with
a hypothesis and seek out what it takes to find the arguments to support
it. When your research is only to establish a timeline, I would not be
interested really as I have been there done that. I do not research but do
have an objective: share the sum of all knowledge with everyone. I have
become more humble, practically it is more like share the sum of the
knowledge that is available to us with everyone. In my blog [1] you find
many of the arguments, observations that developed over time. Maybe it is
of interest to your research; it spans a period of twelve years.
Thanks,
GerardM

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

On 1 December 2017 at 03:43, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:

> Hello Markus,
>
> First rest assured that any feedback provided will be integrated in the
> research project on the topic with proper references, including this email.
> It might not come before beginning of next week however, as I'm already
> more than fully booked until then. But once again it's on a wiki, be bold.
>
> Le 01/12/2017 à 01:18, Markus Krötzsch a écrit :
>
>> Dear Mathieu,
>>
>> Your post demands my response since I was there when CC0 was first chosen
>> (i.e., in the April meeting). I won't discuss your other claims here -- the
>> discussions on the Wikidata list are already doing this, and I agree with
>> Lydia that no shouting is necessary here.
>>
>> Nevertheless, I must at least testify to what John wrote in his earlier
>> message (quote included below this email for reference): it was not Denny's
>> decision to go for CC0, but the outcome of a discussion among several
>> people who had worked with open data for some time before Wikidata was
>> born. I have personally supported this choice and still do. I have never
>> received any money directly or indirectly from Google, though -- full
>> disclosure -- I got several T-shirts for supervising in Summer of Code
>> projects.
>>
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that too, but to my mind the problem is not
> money but governance. Anyone with too much cash can throw it wherever
> wanted, and if some fall into Wikimedia pocket, that's fine.
>
> But the moment a decision that impact so deeply Wikimedia governance and
> future happen, then maximum transparency must be present, communication
> must be extensive, and taking into account community feedback is extremely
> preferable. No one is perfect, myself included, so its all the more
> important to listen to external feedback. I said earlier that I found the
> knowledge engine was a good idea, but for what I red it seems that
> transparency didn't reach expectation of the community.
>
> So, I was wrong my inferences around Denny, good news. Of course I would
> prefer to have other archived sources to confirm that. No mistrust
> intended, I think most of us are accustomed to put claims in perspective
> with sources and think critically.
>
> For completeness, was this discussion online or – to bring bag the earlier
> stated testimony – around a pizza? If possible, could you provide a list of
> involved people? Did a single person took the final decision, or was it a
> show of hands, or some consensus emerged from discussion? Or maybe the
> community was consulted with a vote, and if yes, where can I find the
> archive?
>
> Also archives show that lawyers were consulted on the topic, could we have
> a copy of their report?
>
> At no time did Google or any other company take part in our discussions in
>> the zeroth hour of Wikidata. And why should they? From what I can see on
>> their web page, Google has no problem with all kinds of different license
>> terms in the data they display.
>>
> Because they are more and more moving to a business model of providing
> themselves what people are looking for to keep users in their sphere of
> tracking and influence, probably with the sole idea of generating more
> revenue I guess.
>
>> Also, I can tell you that we would have reacted in a very allergic way to
>> such attempts, so if any company had approached us, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The 2016-2017 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As a document targeting donors it is effective.

For me, it is indeed an accomplished selly thingie that does not connect.
It is all Wikipedia and Wikipedia is not that shiny. It is a community
where infighting is common, where external knowledge and tools are seen as
problematic because they do not comply with Wikipedia hard fought
"compromises". They do not entertain the thought that compromises are often
sub optimal seen in a different light but that light is not considered in
the "beauty" of all of Wikipedias accomplishments.

It takes an external organisation to come begging to bring us comparison
between the facts offered in all the Wikipedias and, it compares them also
with Wikidata.. We have a community that transcribes books but we do not
care for their finished products. It is apparently not part of the sum of
what we consider all knowledge.

We are so enthralled with the shine of Wikipedia that we do not consider
our primary objectives. In a world where fake news is well established, we
are postage stamp collectors as we do not consider what news is fake and
how that effects the information we provide. When it has to do with
nursing, the effect can be deadly in the first degree [1]. Then again, it
is not part of the big plan and it is officially not considered that
relevant. When we consider "biographies of living people" something that
applies to Wikipedia, Wikidata has... data not biographies. We do not
consider that comparison brings out the differences between what is stated
in a Wikipedia article and is stated elsewhere. The point; when we
concentrate on differences, we concentrate on what is problematic and that
is where our effort has the most effect on what is wrong, problematic or
even fake. We don't because of policies and we.. Wikipedia.. do not think
others have anything to offer.

Usability is something that is seen as important but Wikidata is not seen
as a project used by "end users" and consequently it is not even considered
to bring a more informative display to Wikidata like Reasonator. What
Reasonator brings is instant context to the data and an instant interface
to add missing labels in *your* language.. I used it for Russian for this
very Russian / American subject [2]. As an editor with over two million
edits, many of them manual edits, I can tell you it is indispensable. When
this type of functionality becomes standard, we will gain many more
contributors to Wikidata.. Then again the WMF outreach officer cannot stand
to be told how important usability is so it is unlikely to happen, him
being considered the/a guru of Wikidata..

While this selly thingie is an accomplished product and it is, there is
much more money to be made when you consider local fundraising. In the
Netherlands people tend to give automatically with typically larger amounts
of money. They tend to leave organisations like Wikimedia in their will and
for some really big charities this is as much as 40% of their income. I am
convinced that with one or two persona in the Netherlands raising funds for
the WMF we would more start to grow income exponentially at first. One
reason to do this is to make Wikimedia less reliant on USA money and
consequently make it culturally easy to do more elsewhere and take a non
USA point of view.

I do appreciate that it is almost impossible to write an acceptable annual
report for us, the contributors. What is possible is to write a composite
of different takes on Wikimedia projects and its place in the world. 
one award winning Wikimedian I would love to hear his opinion ..  Egon
Willighagen.  I would also love to hear an external view on
Wikisource for instance from the Internet Archive.. What I would seek in
this composite is the use of our projects, our efforts and what it
effectively means for them. I do not want us to dwell on what divides us, I
want us to concentrate at what it is we achieve, our purpose.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/01/wikipedia-
fiduciary-responsibilities.html
[2] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q47455696&lang=ru

On 19 January 2018 at 01:35, Zachary McCune  wrote:

> Hello all-
>
>
> Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation received more than 6 million donations
> to support free knowledge. Today, we would like to share the Foundation’s
> 2016 - 2017 Annual Report which helps document how those donations were put
> to use. [1]
>
> This Report is meant mostly for donors, but it may be of use to any
> audience looking to learn more about the Wikimedia Foundation, our
> activities, and our community support.
>
> In (very) brief, last year:
>
> * We worked on building safer communities with new tools like Abuse Filter
> and Mute to reduce harassment on Wikipedia.
>
> * We improved our services for mobile devices: making images smaller and
> articles load faster, streamlining our apps to assist users.
>
> * We partnered with international organizations to add missing languages
> and knowledge to our sites.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Publicpolicy] Update on FISA 702 reauthorization

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
First, what the Foundation does is not in order to protect itself but to
protect its readers, its authors.

Second, when you consider security theatre, consider the other countries
and then consider the countries where security has a better chance than the
USA. Be advised that in many, most countries citizens of other countries
are fair game and that the USA is often an active participant in odious
regimes in many countries.

Third, when we give up on security we are complicit. We have to consider
what companies like Facebook do to create their own hardware and when we
can strengthen the move to a state where Cisco hardware is no longer used
(Cisco has a bad reputation for open backdoors).

Fourth, what was the use of HTTPS about if all we do is theatre? NO; it is
relevant and lets make it more so.
Thanks,
 GerrdM



On 22 January 2018 at 01:45, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> I think, as Geni says, that even that isn't going to provide any effective
> barrier.  If the NSA or other US Government spooks want to get into the
> servers, they will, regardless of what hardware it's running on, what
> software it uses, or what jurisdiction it is located in.  Anything that the
> Foundation does to "protect" itself is just going to be security theatre.
> Anyone doing anything that the current or future American administrations
> might object to should keep that in mind.  I assume that every place I go
> on the Internet is already compromised and act accordingly.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 21 January 2018 at 19:13, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > What about moving to another country? Still not an option?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Lodewijk 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 1) still don't see the relevance. If better technology is needed, it's
> > > needed - that should be independent of any lobbying preferences. It
> looks
> > > like you're just pushing tangents again.
> > >
> > > 2) You do realize that the FTC and the FEC are very different
> > > organizations? But again, it seems you just used this statement as an
> > > opportunity to push a tangent.
> > >
> > > Please don't do that.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM, James Salsman 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 1) I don't quite see how your question about servers and switches
> > > relates
> > > > > to Stephen's statement. Could you explain for us mere mortals how
> you
> > > > link
> > > > > the two?
> > > >
> > > > The NSA surveillance which was reauthorized by Congress can not
> depend
> > > > on eavesdropping alone with new HTTPS cyphers. It needs compromised
> > > > hardware to work, such as has been included in Dell servers since the
> > > > Foundation started purchasing them, and the design of which was
> > > > overseen by the Foundation's CTO, who worked then at Intel. This
> > > > provides us with the know-how, a teachable moment, and an excellent
> > > > opportunity to specify and acquire replacement open source hardware
> > > > which doesn't have the DIETYBOUNCE / System Management Mode OOB /
> iAMT
> > > > and related backdoors.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/nsa_exploit_of.html
> > > >
> > > > > 2) I somehow missed the commitment by the WMF to research "FEC
> > > > requirements
> > > > > of organized advocates for US political candidates' or anything
> that
> > > > > suggests that the WMF may advocate for specific political
> candidates
> > > > (which
> > > > > seems a change of course that would be hard to sweep under the
> rug).
> > > > Could
> > > > > you quote?
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_
> > > > talk:Conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=815460492#
> > > > Note_from_Wikimedia_Legal
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slaporte_(WMF)#
> > > > Research_topic_request
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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@l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New language code for Western Armenian language

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
If anything it is proof that a quality standard allows for change.

In Michael Everson, a member of the standards world, we have someone who
was asked to become a member of the Wikimedia language committee. Over the
years he has provided us with several important services. This is only one.

Once we had a really strong team of people who were at the forefront of
language technology. There is no longer the same attention for  supporting
languages and the scripts used by languages. What is done at this time by
people like Santosh is done in their spare time. We could do more and we
don't. We do not support the SignWriting font even though it will support
all sign languages.

Yes, congratulations are due to Michael, to ISO, to the people who took
their time to champion the Western Armenian language and indeed, the result
is wonderful.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 1 February 2018 at 18:23, Alphos OGame  wrote:

> That's fantastic !
>
> Proof, if it was ever needed, that the Wikimedia movement can have an
> effect on the "outside world" other than collecting and providing
> information ; Wikimedia Armenia actually took the leading part in bettering
> an international standard !
>
> My most heartfelt congratulations :-)
>
> Alphos
>
>
> > Le 1 févr. 2018 à 00:00, Delphine Ménard  a
> écrit :
> >
> > Congratulations to Wikimedia Armenia for those truly great efforts!
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Delphine
> >
> > 2018-01-31 11:39 GMT+01:00 David Saroyan :
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I'm pleased to announce that the efforts of Wikimedia Armenia to get
> >> separate ISO 639-3 language code for Western Armenian [1] were finally
> >> succeeded. SIL International, the ISO 639-3 Registration Authority,
> decided
> >> to create the code element [hyw] for Western Armenian. [2]
> >>
> >> We initiated this process three years ago when we started the
> collaboration
> >> with the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation [3] in order to foster and
> improve
> >> free content in Western Armenian. This resulted in "Western Armenian
> >> project" where Wikimedia Armenia through different events and activities
> >> started to disseminate and support the creation of Western Armenian
> content
> >> with the help of local and diasporan Western Armenian community members.
> >>
> >> From the launch of the "Western Armenian project" we were challenged
> with
> >> the problem that Western Armenian has no ISO 639-3 language code which
> did
> >> not allow the community to split Western Armenian content into a
> separate
> >> language Wikipedia. This problem made lots of  trouble for us, as
> hy.wiki
> >> often had two versions of the same page.
> >>
> >> Wikimedia Armenia with Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation eventually
> decided to
> >> apply for code split. [4] This was done mainly with the help of Michael
> >> Everson. [5] Besides WM AM and Armenian Communities Department of
> Calouste
> >> Gulbenkian foundation there were also other parties involved, such as
> the
> >> department of Armenian Studies of the Institut National des Langues et
> >> Civilisations Orientales, Paris and other academic institutions.
> >>
> >> Today is a special day for Wikimedia Armenia and Western Armenian
> speaking
> >> community as our proposal was accepted. Thanks all Wikimedians who
> >> supported us in this work.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Davit Saroyan
> >> Program Manager
> >> Wikimedia Armenia
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Armenian
> >> 2.
> >> http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/PastComments/CR_
> >> Comments_2017-023.pdf
> >> 3. https://gulbenkian.pt/en/
> >> 4. http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/2017-023.pdf
> >> 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Everson
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Delphine Ménard
> > Program Officer
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > User:Delphine_(WMF)  >
> > ___
> > 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/m

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 4 February 2018)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Carla Hayden received an award [1] and as I do so often I added it to
Wikidata. I could not find info on the award and was only able to add two
award winners. A friend found more information and added several more
winners. It is an award relating to libraries and librarians, I am
confident more information will become known.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=47542681

On 4 February 2018 at 07:38, geni  wrote:

> On 4 February 2018 at 06:13, Pine W  wrote:
> > What's making you happy this week?
> >
>
>
> I discovered we got an article on a ridiculously obscure media format
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiPac ) due to a techmoan episode:
>
> https://youtu.be/Q_9IBIcsYj4?t=996
>
> Now we just need a photo of the thing.
>
> Meanwhile Norwich continues to be Norwich:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_urination_devices_in_Norwich
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> 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] Strategy Report Released: Wikimedia 2030: Wikimedia’s role in shaping the future of the information commons

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Nina Simon wrote a blog post [1] that I think has a lot of merit for what
we could do to gain relevance. Nina is big in the GLAM world and the museum
she works for has an approach that will have a big effect when we consider
it carefully and implement it in the best way we can.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1]
http://museumtwo.blogspot.nl/2018/02/are-participant-demographics-most.html

On 19 February 2018 at 01:26, Pine W  wrote:

> Caitlin, thanks for sharing this.
>
> My general thoughts are below. These are not directed at Caitlin or anyone
> else in particular.
>
> I think that the document does a generally good job of outlining trends and
> asking questions. I think that I agree with about 95% of what's in the
> document. I agree especially strongly that there should be more emphasis on
> improving the user experience for those who wish to contribute content
> using mobile devices.
>
> My most significant concern is with the question that the document asks
> staff: "How will the Wikimedia Foundation assert and balance leadership of
> the Wikimedia movement with its role fostering a robust volunteer culture?"
> WMF's role is that of a public service organization, not a central
> management agency, and "assert(ing)" leadership is the opposite of what WMF
> should do. Wikimedia's culture is collective rather than monarchical. Staff
> and Board members should be trained to understand that their role is to
> serve the public interest, and not to manage or supervise the community.
>
> Leadership of individual projects, initiatives, and teams happens in many
> ways inside and outside of WMF, and leadership skills are important.
> However, I believe that leadership of the entire movement is not and should
> not be WMF's role. WMF can be the facilitator, but should not be the
> manager. In the recent past we had a vivid demonstration of what happens
> when there are governance problems in WMF.
>
> I think that good questions would be:
>
> 1. How can WMF better align its internal priorities with those of the
> community? There has been progress on this during the past few years, and I
> would like to see continued progress.
>
> 2. How can WMF evolve such that if WMF became dysfunctional or inoperable,
> the remaining organizations and people in the Wikimedia ecosystem could
> continue to thrive?
>
> I also would like to see questions about the governance and financial
> transparency of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example by asking questions
> such as "Should WMF decentralize some of its current functions?", "Should
> WMF become a membership organization?", and "Should WMF increase its
> financial transparency?"
>
> After reading the document, I'm left wondering how to make progress on some
> of the issues that the document outlines. We've known about some of these
> issues for years, and in a number of cases WMF has funded efforts to
> address them, but in multiple cases we have had limited success.
>
> Even when we have agreement about the nature of challenges and that we'd
> like to address them, we don't necessarily know how to address them
> effectively. I think that the document does a good job of asking us
> questions that we should explore, and probably will continue to explore for
> many years.
>
> We need considerably more human resources than we have now on many fronts,
> including more contributors in diverse languages, contributors with the
> skills and tools improve the visual experience of Wikimedia content, and
> contributors who can protect the sites from interference from people who
> harm the integrity of the information on Wikimedia sites. I am not sure how
> we make that happen, or that it will happen. I fear that it will only
> happen after AI takes over a considerable number of jobs that humans do
> today, so that there is a significant increase of global unemployment and
> under-employment of people who have the skills and the will to contribute
> to Wikimedia. I hope that I'm wrong.
>
> I realize that this email sounds a bit pessimistic. I think that there are
> numerous significant challenges for us. I am hoping for the best. In the
> short term we are doing okay, and we continue to numerous incremental
> successes. In the long term, I am worried.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid translation

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have been involved in a translation project with professional translators
translating featured articles of the English Wikipedia. The choice for
featured articles was done because we expected that the content would not
be in dispute. We found different. Several of the translated articles were
not accepted.. one of them was about World War II.

I have also toyed with the idea of content that is not available in the
language of a Wikipedia (including English). Translation is one solution an
other solution is generating basic information from the data available at
Wikidata. The benefit is not only to our readers; they will at least be
informed up to a point and another benefit will be the quality of the
Wikipedia involved. One problem that will be fixed is the one of false
friends, when red links are linked to Wikidata, the information provided
will always be implicitly correct. Another possibility is to provide the
text of a sister Wikipedia.

We can do a better job by providing the sum of all knowledge that is
available to us.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 February 2018 at 15:16, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Sorry, but this does not make sense. The core articles apply globally.
> There will although be articles in additions to a list of core articles,
> but I don't try to advocate any of those lists as the one and only list.
> Actually I have toyed with an idea of automatically create a list of core
> articles, and that would identify important articles no matter if they are
> from a big western language or a minority language.
>
> The main problem is NOT that minority languages should have articles about
> the major cities and important philosophers, *the main problem is that
> minor languages can't get started because they lack content*!
>
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 2:41 AM, Vi to  wrote:
>
> > Cultural appropriation is something different, by "forcing" the contents
> in
> > a minority language we would actually be at risk of implementing a form
> of
> > "cultural colonialism" which is the opposite of a cultural appropriation.
> >
> > NOTE: I refer to "the Western" in both cultural and "Wikipedian" sense: I
> > mean cultures with a strong presence on the web plus developed and
> > flourishing Wikipedia communities.
> >
> > Helping minority languages with funds/workforce is not bad in my opinion,
> > but I think a bottom-up process must be followed, with the "bottom" being
> > as closer as possible to relevant linguistic/cultural communities. A
> > Wikipedia full of "what the Westerns think is important" in a minority
> > non-Western language would definitely fail project scopes.
> >
> > This kind of problem almost does not arise with minority language
> > associated to Western cultures since they share the same cultural
> > backgrounds: back to my previous example the cultural background of
> > Sicilian is substantially equal to Italian one. Still, as I already
> wrote,
> > wikis in minority languages should focus on a certain aspect of wiki
> scope:
> > Wiki has roughly two main scopes: 1) sharing knowledge in a certain
> > language 2) also preserving the cultural heritage associated with
> different
> > languages. For languages mainly spoken as first language the "sharing
> > knowledge" aspect is predominant, while the second should take precedence
> > in languages whose speakers are native speakers of a "bigger" language.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2018-02-24 22:58 GMT+01:00 John Erling Blad :
> >
> > > Seems like this is mostly about cultural ownership and appropriation.
> Not
> > > sure if it is possible to agree on this.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Vi to  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll reply to the most recent email just for laziness.
> > > >
> > > > I'm doubtful for a series of reasons, most of were already expressed
> > in a
> > > > better way by others:
> > > > *a remuneration in terms of quantity will weaken the quality of
> > > > translations unless there's a strong mechanism of quality
> verification
> > > > requiring a quantity of resources comparable to translations
> > themselves;
> > > > *articles are the result of a long process which reflects cultural
> > > identity
> > > > of different communities, I'm not confident with transferring them
> to a
> > > > different "weaker" cultures. My usage of "weaker" adjective only
> > focuses
> > > > about the strength of a cultural presence on the Internet;
> > > > *articles to be translated are at high risk of reflecting the
> cultural
> > > > identity (and biases) of the Western culture;
> > > > *finally I think paid translators would hardly turn into stable
> > > > Wikipedians.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO some paid editing may be better exploited in order to digitalise
> > > texts
> > > > of unrepresented cultures (wikisource) or preserving their
> vocabularies
> > > > (wiktionary).
> > > >
> > > > Also those languages which are secondary for all their speakers
> should
> > be
> > > > dealt with in a different fashion. I, for one, am a native 

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,
> 

[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&page=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&page=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 t

[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: 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] 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: 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@lists.wikimedia.org

[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&A talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given
> for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list.
>
> There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I
> look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a
> section.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nosebagbear
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wi

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

[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: 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: 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
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2

[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,
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&search=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,
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&search=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

[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,
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&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=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
> >> 

[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&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=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/GV

[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: 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&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_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,
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,
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,
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