Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report
Hi Tobias, In addition to Maggie's attempt to explain why the numbers might seem high, the reported percentages on slide #17 are not out of the total pool of respondents (~3800) but out of those who reported experiencing harassment (~1200). e.g. as there were 740 respondents reported "revenge porn", this brings the percentage down to 19% out of the general pool of respondents, and in the range of up to 25% in regard to other categories of harassment. That said, even with 18-25%, I think this is still rather on the high end of the spectrum. My alternative theory to explain this is around the used terminology in the survey. Terms like "revenge porn" or "doxing" are still comparatively new [1] [2] to casual internet users, not to mention to good faith Wikipedia contributors, and chances that some of the respondents confused them for something else (porn, or revenge .. etc) is not an unlikely scenario. [1] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=revenge%20porn [2] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=doxxing Hope this helps. *--* *Haitham Shammaa* *Senior Strategist* *Wikimedia Foundation* *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a reality!* *--* *Haitham Shammaa* *Senior Strategist* *Wikimedia Foundation* *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. **Click the "edit" button now, and help us make it a reality!* On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Tobias <church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Thank you Patrick. > > The (preliminary) report is in my mind deeply disturbing, not merely by > how widespread harassment is, but also by what types of harassment > respondents cite. > > User page vandalism and flaming I would have expected, but around 35% of > respondents in our community* apparently were subject to Outing, Threats > of Violence, Impersonation and Hacking. > > Almost one third (!) of the respondents were themselves the subject of > revenge porn, defined by the survey as: "publishing of sexually explicit > or sexualised photos of without one's consent". > > > Wait, what? How could that possibly be...? > > Either a substantial number of respondents did not answer truthfully, or > they didn't understand the question, or I really have no clue what's > going on in this community. > > > Tobias > > * I multiplied the percentage of responses (~65%) with the number of > users who were asked this question because they reported they'd been > harassed or maybe harassed (54%). > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > 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 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] Exemption to registrations on Xhosa Wikipedia
I had a similar issue once in the past at a Wikipedia editing workshop. The easiest and most practical way is to request an 'account creator' [1] rights, if the they plan to run the project for a long time : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Account_creator or to request the accounts to be created by existing account creators at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_an_account [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Account_creator *--* *Haitham Shammaa* *Learning Strategist, Global South* *Wikimedia Foundation* *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. * *Click the edit button now, and help us make it a reality!* On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Victor Grigas vgri...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hello everyone, I am in touch with a high school class in South Africa that has been writing Wikipedia Articles in isiXhosa. Some of the Wikipedians in the class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IsiXhosa_Wikipedia_Competition_2013_at_Sinenjongo_High_School.jpg More about the school: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinenjongo_High_School#Free_access_to_Wikipedia Their teacher has been helping them with this effort for one hour a week. it's the only time that they have internet access. He told me: 1. **We started with registering everyone as editors on Wikipedia. This took a couple of sessions as there is a Wikipedia limit of 6 registrations from the same computer lab per day. Are there any admins who could change this limit to something more like the size of a large classroom? These students are the only contributors to isiXhosa Wikipedia and they are very excited to work on it. -- *Victor Grigas* Storyteller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Knv6D6Thi0 Wikimedia Foundation vgri...@wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives
Also, did Grants have a review recently? Minutes of the Grantmaking quarterly review are avaliable at : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Grantmaking,_2013-05-15 *--* *Haitham Shammaa* *Wikimedia Foundation* *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. * *Click the edit button now, and help us make it a reality!* From: Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:42 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Minutes and slides from the second quarterly review meeting of the Wikipedia Zero team are now available at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Wikipedia_Zero/June_2013 . On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi folks, to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process, starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the Board [1]: - Visual Editor - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero) - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams) - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity I'm proposing the following initial schedule: January: - Editor Engagement Experiments February: - Visual Editor - Mobile (Contribs + Zero) March: - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects) - Funds Dissemination Committee We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on their recent progress, which will help set some context that would otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will also create open opportunities for feedback and questions. My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here which we can use to discuss the concept further: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews The internal review will, at minimum, include: Sue Gardner myself Howie Fung Team members and relevant director(s) Designated minute-taker So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker. I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks: - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter, compared with goals - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would? - Review of challenges, blockers and successes - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other action items - Buffer time, debriefing Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world. In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in engineering. As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can help inform and support reviews across the organization. Feedback and questions are appreciated. All best, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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
