Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

The code may always be written and and often reviewed by humans but the
data clearly is not.  There was an instance recently of a bot adding an
incorrect date of birth of 1950 to thousands of entries due to a
misunderstanding (by its human author) about VIAF file formats

JPS

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:51 AM Caroline Becker 
wrote:

> But... bots are operated, written, and reviewed by real humans ? Like if I
> spend 2 hours adding "painting by Vincent van Gogh" manually on every
> relevant item by hand, how is that more valuable than spending 20 minutes
> to write a bot that does that for me (and can be used for similar tasks) ?
>
> Caroline
>
>
> Le mer. 20 mars 2019 à 10:45, Gabriel Thullen  a
> écrit :
>
> > Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
> > Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots
> than
> > by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
> > few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
> > on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity
> of
> > anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that
> > of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there
> > was a spike of bot activity.
> > We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor
> which
> > appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata
> > (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots).
> Quite
> > a difference.
> > The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and
> curate
> > the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a
> > bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still
> > being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like
> > "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
> >
> > Best regards
> > Gabe
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan <
> > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is a good news.
> > >
> > > Cheers!!!
> > >
> > > Olaniyan Olushola
> > > CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
> > > President, Wikimedia Nigeria
> > > Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
> > > Co-director Wiki Women Radio
> > > www.wikimedia.org.ng
> > > sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
> > > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com
> > > +2348167352512
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk  > >
> > > > Hello Ariel Glenn,
> > > > Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
> > > > making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
> > on
> > > > Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
> > > > congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am Mi., 20. März 2019 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > So in stead of calling us all Wikipedia, let us be known as
> > Wikidata...
> > > > > HU
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >   GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:48, Ariel Glenn WMF  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wikidata surpassed the English language Wikipedia in the number
> of
> > > > > > revisions in the database, about 45 minutes ago today.I was
> tipped
> > > off
> > > > > by a
> > > > > > tweet [1] a few day ago and have been watching via a script that
> > > > displays
> > > > > > the largest revision id and its timestamp. Here's the point where
> > > > > Wikidata
> > > > > > overtakes English Wikipedia (times in UTC):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > > > > www.wikidata.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > > > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./get_revid_info.py -d
> > > > > > en.wikipedia.org -r 888603998,888603999,888604000
> > > > > > revid 888603998 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888603999 at 2019-03-20T06:00:59Z
> > > > > > revid 888604000 at 2019-03-20T06:01:00Z
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only 45 minutes later, the gap is already over 2000 revsions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ariel@bigtrouble wikidata-huge]$ python3 ./compare_sizes.py
> > > > > > Last enwiki revid is 888606979 and last wikidata revid is
> 888629401
> > > > > > 2019-03-20 06:46:03: diff is 22422
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have a nice day!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ariel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://twitter.com/MonsieurAZ/status/1106565116508729345
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata now officially has more total edits than English language Wikipedia

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

"All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors that already exist in a
Wikipedia,"

That's rather far from being correct. I already indicated one form of
error, caused by erroneous scraping by bot from an external data set.  And
to the extent that information is inserted by humans from whatever sources,
that is subject to error too.  And less checkable as Wikidata does not
reference sources directly as does Wikipedia.

JPS

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:46 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The biggest benefit of Wikidata is that it knows about more subjects than
> any Wikipedia has articles. Like Wikipedia it has its own problems but it
> has its own benefits. The biggest problem with Wikidata is not its quality
> and the biggest benefit of Wikipedia is not its quality. Both have issues.
> All Wikimedia projects rely on their communities, that is where things are
> the same.
>
> The notion that a community and text is better is in itself a fallacy
> because the integrity of data is easier to check with data and not so much
> with text. An example: I have repeatedly indicated that 6% of all the
> entries in a list in a Wikipedia is wrong. The problem is one of
> disambiguation..  For instance, for a chemistry award you would expect at
> least scientists better chemists. When a hockey player or a movie star is
> among them, it follows that you want to check this out. Easy to do at
> Wikidata, impossible at Wikipedia. It is possible but only only when
> Wikipedians and Wikidatans collaborate (they are not really).
>
> When you suggest that bots are less secure than humans you are wrong as
> well. Research shows that a human with the best of intentions has an error
> rate of something like 6%. However when a list like a Wikipedia category of
> alumni of a given university is considered, there are no new errors
> introduced by a bot. All the errors included in Wikidata are the errors
> that already exist in a Wikipedia,. When we were to have consolidation
> processes, once a person is known to have studied at a university we could
> synchronise categories and data. In addition to this, bots import
> authorised data from ORCID indicating former students of universitiies. A
> consolidation process could update update both Wikidata and all Wikipedias
> who take an interest.
>
> In addition when people search withing Wikidata, never mind the language
> they will find what Wikidata has to offer. Any Wikipedia is a subset of
> what a Wikipedia has to offer.
>
> So as much as both Wikidata Wikipedia are wonderful products, there is room
> for improvement. Improvement will only happen when we truly care about
> sharing in the sum of all knowledge, when we truly care about quality and
> not assume that "we" (whoever we is) has a superior proposition.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:45, Gabriel Thullen  wrote:
>
> > Sorry about this mail, I hate to rain on somebody's parade but:
> > Ever since Wikidata was set up, there have been more edit made by bots
> than
> > by humans (registered contributor + anonymous contributor), except for a
> > few periods in 2017 and 2018. On the other hand, the activity of the bots
> > on the English Wikipedia has almost always been lower than the activity
> of
> > anonymous contributors, and that activity has always been well below that
> > of registered contributors. There was one exception, in 2013 where there
> > was a spike of bot activity.
> > We could also talk about the average number of edits per contributor
> which
> > appears to be around 100 on the English Wikipedia and 1,200 on Wikidata
> > (these numbers are after removing the estimated edits done by bots).
> Quite
> > a difference.
> > The different Wikimedia projects rely on the community to police and
> curate
> > the content of these encyclopedias and data collections. I am therefore a
> > bit wary of what is happening with Wikidata where more edits are still
> > being done by bots than by real humans (by "real" I mean "real" not like
> > "real" as in the TV series "real humans")
> >
> > Best regards
> > Gabe
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:25 AM Olushola Olaniyan <
> > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is a good news.
> > >
> > > Cheers!!!
> > >
> > > Olaniyan Olushola
> > > CEO DataAccess Systems Ltd
> > > President, Wikimedia Nigeria
> > > Member, Affcom ( Wikimedia Foundation)
> > > Co-director Wiki Women Radio
> > > www.wikimedia.org.ng
> > > sh...@wikimedia.org.ng
> > > olaniyanshol...@gmail.com
> > > +2348167352512
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 08:52 Ziko van Dijk  > >
> > > > Hello Ariel Glenn,
> > > > Thanks for the notification, very interesting. Well, we all know that
> > > > making a lot of edits on Wikidata is "easier" or happens quicker than
> > on
> > > > Wikipedia, for various reasons. But still it is a nice milestone to
> > > > congratulate to Wikidata. Hereby. :-)
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reminder: We are seeking a diverse group of volunteers to work with Foundation on movement communications

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Gregory

It would perhaps be helpful if you were to give a little more detail about
what you expect the committee to do and what you think its workload is
likely to be.  Will it meet entirely electronically, or will visits to WMF
headquarters be required, and if so, what expenses will be paid?  It seems
from the page you link to that these matters will be decided *after* the
commitee is formed, and that doesn't seem the most effective way of
proceedings.

JPS

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:11 AM Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Do you or someone you know have some great communication skills or ideas to
> offer the Wikimedia movement? If so, this might be an exciting opportunity
> to engage with some high-level work for Wikimedia communications!
>
> As we mentioned last month,[1] the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications
> department is seeking 10-15 individuals to work with us over the next three
> years to deepen our department's work with the community and increase
> overall support for communications work across the movement.
>
> If you are interested in joining the new 10-15 person Communications
> committee, please send an email to gvar...@wikimedia.org by 17 April 2019
> and include:
>
> 1. Acknowledgement that this is a three-year appointment and you are indeed
> interested and able to serve.
> 2. Your community and staff (if you have any) usernames which you use on
> Wikimedia projects. Also any information on other roles you may have within
> the movement (please include both staff and volunteer roles). Please note
> that you must be in good standing (ie. not blocked) on the wikis to
> participate.
> 3. A brief statement on why you would like to serve on the Communications
> committee, and in particular what you believe you can bring to the group
> and what you hope to gain from the experience.
> 4. A brief statement on what ideas, if any, you have for what the new
> Communications committee could do or how the Foundation could help support
> its efforts.
>
> If you are interested, but need a little more time to get your responses
> together, no problem - just send me an email (gvar...@wikimedia.org)
> before
> 17 April 2019 so I know you are interested.
>
> The inaugural committee will be selected by the Communications department
> in the coming weeks.
>
> We are hoping to find a diverse group of individuals from around the world
> to bring their regional, cultural, and language expertise to our
> communications work. Please share this invitation with others in your
> Wikimedia networks and communities who you believe may be interested.
>
> Thank you!
> -greg
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee/Call_for_members_-_March_2019
>
> --
>
> Gregory Varnum (pronouns - he/his/him)
>
> Communications Strategist
>
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Luiz

>
> > If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> > management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> > YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> > problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
> > "Wikimedia".


Surely WMF projects are in competition with commercial entities, and very
successfully so?  Wikipedia vs Britannica and Encarta; Wikivoyage vs
Wiktravel; Wikinews vs Wikitribune; and so forth.  We celebrate those
projects successes ...

JPS
___
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] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Jim


>  I would like to comment on the search and requirement
> criteria. In particular, I'd like to know [...] I would love to know any of
> this far more than anything about branding.
>

Yes, but what would you *do* with the answers to all those questions?
You're not on the search committee, so it seems that what you want is for
the WMF to answer questions from the 36 million or so account holders, and
get 36 million comments.   That's useless to them and to us.  I think what
you really mean is that you want (1) for yourself as opposed to the
movement in general to be personally involved in the decision-making
process, probably so that you can (2) promote your pet notions about
privacy, back-doors in hardware and other opinons.  Perhaps you should try
standing for election to a community seat on the Board?

JPS
___
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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Dan

Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
sort out the demarcation issues.

JPS

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> the
> > WMF do to revive it?
>
>
> In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into trying
> to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the Wikimedia
> Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that? For
> me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
>
> Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer things
> but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> reflects that it is trying to do so.
>
>
> > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> >
>
> I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages to
> solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it might
> take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead project.
> I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things... yes,
> I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
>
> Dan
> ___
> 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Peter

Putting your brand on a project that is visibly failing also sends out a
message, to the world at large.  Is that a message you want to broadcast?

JPS

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> Hello,
> Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
> not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> from time to time.
> But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
>
> > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> and
> > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> issue
> > ;)
> > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> topical
> > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> major
> > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> >
> > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> >  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> date
> > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> exactly
> > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> > with them...
> >
> > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > functional tools of alignment.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> > that
> > > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> > > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand,
> Wikipedia
> > is
> > > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to
> me.
> > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward
> is
> > to
> > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > >
> > > JPS
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> Wikipedia
> > > > seems
> > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> > its
> > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> > should
> > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer,
> > > >
> > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Andrew

It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies that
make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia is
a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.
However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is to
fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?

JPS

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> seems
> > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> > sort out the demarcation issues.
> >
>
> Jennifer,
>
> This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental properties.
>
> News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth given
> the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that make
> Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
>
> Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
>
> Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch and
> realize it is a poor fit.
>
> However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should celebrate
> the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute to
> minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we know
> it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality – the
> Wikipedia article.
>
> If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> [2]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
>
> -Andrew
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

>
>
> You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
>
>
I suggest that this claimed impossibility is in fact exactly what the vast
majority of the volunteers believe that they are.

JPS
___
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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Dan

I've not seen any proposals involving shutting down projects without
> community involvement, so hopefully you shouldn't need to worry about this.
>

The problem with failing projects like Wikinews and Wikiversity is that
there is not a critical mass in their community.  I wouldn't go so far as
to say there is no community, but for all practical purposes that might as
well be true.  In such cases there isn't a realistic prospect of community
involvement and the WMF needs to decide how to manage that situation on on
of their projects.  A small investment to set up a user group to own the
new project under a new brand, move the content off the WMF servers,
removing the Wikim/pedia branding on the way, and maybe pay a few years
hosting charges as a sign of goodwill seems the right way to go.

JPS
___
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] Weibel case -- lessons learnt?

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Hello
In a recent blog post *A German court forced us to remove part of a
Wikipedia article’s ‘history.’ Here’s what that means* at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/11/a-german-court-forced-us-to-remove-part-of-a-wikipedia-articles-history-heres-what-that-means/
Jacob
Rogers and Alison Davenport write

> A German court ruled in September of last year that the content was in
fact defamatory, largely because the source in question had been taken
offline—what we call “link rot.”

This is not correct, and suggests that the lessons of this affair have not
been fully taken on board by WMF Legal, and that gives rise to the risk
that they WMF may be giving bad advice to volunteers, leaving them -- and
the Foundation of course -- exposed to further legal claims.

The first reason that the court found that the content was defamatory was
that it was both damaging to Prof, Weibel's reputation and, importantly,
*false*.  The statements relied were irresponsible media speculation.  The
second reason was that under German law the definition of a reliable source
is significantly more restrictive than that commonly held by Wikipedians.
The third reason was that the WMF had failed to respond correctly, in terms
of German law, to Prof. Weibel's complaint.  None of these have anything to
do with "link rot".  If volunteers are left with the impression that they
are somehow safe from libel action in Germany provided that links are kept
up to date, then that is dangerously misleading.  This error is compinded
by the statement

> it does not impose any new editorial standards on individual Wikipedia
contributors

which is incorrect: as noted, the definition of a reliable source in the
applicable law is different from Wikipedia's editorial standards.

If the WMF is claiming to give legal advice to volunteers, it needs to
ensure that the advice it gives is correct.

JPS


>
___
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] Announcing 1Lib1Ref (1Bib1Ref) in May 2019!

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Gerard

Thank you for explaining to me what it is that I fail to understand.  In
the same spirit, let me adopt for once your own, somewhat assertive
terminology, to explain to you what you do not understand, namely the scale
of the problem: the major Wikipedia projects have millions of unreferenced
or inadequately referenced articles, including thousands which are
biographies of living people.  What you do not understand is that the
community on which you place such emphasis has created that problem, is not
fixing that problem and indeed is unable to fix that problem.  You also do
not understand the simple arithmetic that the collaboration with librarians
equally does not and cannot fix that problem.

In future, please do not say "you do not understand X" when what you mean
is "I disagree with you about X".

JPS

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 8:54 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The thing you fail to understand is how much of what we do is done by a
> community. What we need is collaboration with the world of libraries. It is
> embodied by librarians and yes, it is important that they are on our side.
> To be on our side, they need to know Wikipedia, what we are doing in
> Wikidata with scholarly papers. They need to know, be involved in order to
> help their clients understand the Internet and Wikipedia. Their clients are
> or may become Wikimedians.
>
> So yes, we are dabbling with AI to find where citations are most needed. We
> need to work on including science in Wikidata so that its references may be
> used in a scalable way. A way that allows us to check Wikipedia for the
> retractions we are finally including in Wikidata. The technology may become
> available to us but we need people who understand it, live it. Librarians
> are great at that.
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 19:37, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jake
> >
> > Thanks for that, but I think we need to preserve a sense of proportion
> > here.  According to a recent WMF Research finding, see
> >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/
> > ,
> > <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/,
> >
> > "one
> > out of four articles in English Wikipedia does not have any references at
> > all".  That' something like 1.5 million articles, and maybe 3 million
> > across all languages.  Your report suggests that around 6000 articles
> were
> > updated: that's at best 0.2% of the backlog.  At this rate it will take
> > about 250 years to clear it.  Perhaps a new approach is needed -- WMF
> > researchers are looking into AI.
> >
> > JPS
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:27 PM Jake Orlowitz 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Librarians and library lovers,
> > >
> > > Next month from May 15th to June 5th we will be joining together around
> > the
> > > world to make Wikipedia more reliable.  You can participate in
> #1Lib1Ref
> > by
> > > simply adding a citation to Wikipedia's content.
> > >
> > > That's all we ask and imagine: a world in which every librarian (or
> > > archivist, reference professional, and scholar) adds 1 more reference
> to
> > > Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > This is the fourth year of the #1Lib1Ref campaign and our second time
> > > running it in May, when it's more convenient for the southern
> hemisphere.
> > > You can learn about this year's January campaign too in our recently
> > > released learnings report.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Lessons/2019
> > >
> > > Full resources and guides for participating in May are available on the
> > > http://1lib1ref.org campaign website.
> > >
> > > The campaign will be fully tracked with daily metrics and leaderboard
> > > updates.  You can make sure your contribution is counted by using the
> > > Program and Events Dashboard for your event, institution, or region.
> > >
> > > Login to start a new event or join up with an existing group for the
> May
> > > Campaign here:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/1lib1ref_may_2019/programs
> > >
> > > Please tell your library and library-loving friends about #1Lib1Ref in
> > > May.  We need everyone's help to make Wikipedia more reliable!
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Jake O

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Strainu,

Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
Foundation.  Recall that its vision is that

> By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
to join us.

It can't achieve that by abandoning news.

JPS

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:29 PM Strainu  wrote:

> În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana)  a
> scris:
> >
> > Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is
> not
> > > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> the
> > > WMF do to revive it?
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> > and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into
> trying
> > to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> > project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> > bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that?
> For
> > me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> > isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
>
> I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
> contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
> Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
> for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
> that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
> might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
> happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
> again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
> great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
> anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).
>
> It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
> of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
> just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
> have ways to try and fail fast".
>
> Strainu
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
>
> >
> > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> things
> > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > >
> >
> > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages
> to
> > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> might
> > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> project.
> > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> yes,
> > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> >
> > Dan
> > ___
> > 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

James

Readership and writership -- to coin a phrase -- aren't the same thing.
English-language Wikipedia may be the fifth-most visited website in the
world, but it has major problems, for example, over a million un- or
badly-referenced articles, as revealed in a recent WMF Research paper and
blogpost.  English-language Wikinews may be at 60,829 (and so doing a lot
better than Wikitribune at 435,723) but it's still the case that its three
latest news stories are 2, 7 and 10 days old.  This is not the picture of
sites "doing fairly well".

JPS

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM James Heilman  wrote:

> With respect to popularity per Alexa:
>
> Wikipedia is 5th
> Wikimedia is 276 (includes both Commons and Wikispecies)
> Wiktionary is 432
> Wikibooks is 1,892
> Wikisource is 2,790
> Wikiquote is 3,953
> Wikidata is 8,848
> Wikiversity is 9,372 (includes Wiki Journals)
> Wikivoyage is 14,850
> Wikinews is 60,829
>
> There are 644 million websites. That means all our sites are doing fairly
> well relatively. Wiki Journals are hoping to split off to become their own
> sister site. The Wiki Journals accept primary research and than subject it
> to peer review. Might make sense to merge Wikinews into such a site. Of
> course would require consensus.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gerard
> >
> > >
> > > So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
> > >
> > > I didn't say that at all.  I merely suggest that the reality is that
> the
> > majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are
> > Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different
> > view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in
> the
> > minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> > not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it
> is,
> > that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state
> that
> > the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Gerard,

I'm not advocating ignoring anyone.  Decisions have to be made and they
will be made by the Foundation.  The best decisions will be made when they
consult the community.  It may be that the decision that they eventually
take will be for a course of action supported by the majority, or it may be
for a course of action supported by a minority.  In neither case are they
being ignored.

You, like the rest of us, have the opportunity to present facts and
arguments to the WMF in support of the decision you favour.

JPS

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:56 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Jennifer,
> So you did not say it because you did not do the researce but when a
> minority of our community does not identify themselves as "Wikipedians" it
> does not matter. Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what I said. What you indicate
> is that a minority may be ignored. Why else do "the research" but to
> provide grounds to change "the brand" anyway?
>
> As to problems with projects, Wikipedia has its problems with citations as
> you indicate in another mail. At Wikidata a whole lot of effort is ongoing
> to include items for sources used for citations in all the Wikipedias. At
> the same time there is new functionality to find/focus on those instances
> where citations are lacking using AI. At some stage these two developments
> will meet. We know about other issues in Wikipedias and as you may know,
> Wikipedians are stubborn, uncooperative and reject what others have to
> offer.
>
> To put it bluntly, the majority smothers the minority, prevents others from
> bringing new developments to a state where it obviously improves on the
> old. Past experience shows there will always be a vocal group from the
> majority preventing change.
>
> Wikipedia as a brand will prove destructive.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:16, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gerard
> >
> > >
> > > So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
> > >
> > > I didn't say that at all.  I merely suggest that the reality is that
> the
> > majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are
> > Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different
> > view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in
> the
> > minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
> > not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it
> is,
> > that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state
> that
> > the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Gerard,

Not everything works out -- that's the way of the world.  Your argument
would imply that no project that had ever attracted anyone's time and
effort could ever be discontinued.  That is unsustainable.  The WMF has
limited resources and quite properly has to decide on priorities for
allocating its resources.  It also has to consider the non-monetary cost --
for example, damage to the reputation of the Foundation, of the movement it
leads, and the other projects it owns -- of continuing to support a project
that is clearly a failure.

JPS.

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 7:18 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> "your time and effort" is for those other people to waste. It is for them
> to decide what value they derive from spending it in this way. "our
> donations", donations is what donors offer. Once they have donated, it
> becomes the money of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not our donations, it
> is not even our money.
>
> Then consider the cost, to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is largely the cost
> of serving the content, the management of the servers. In the big picture
> it is not much, it is also very much a question on the inclusivity of the
> Wikimedia Foundation that enables the continued existence of these
> projects. With a Wikipedia community as a movement we will be excluding
> others as we expel volunteers who are considered redundant because they do
> not fit our image.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:20, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Peter
> >
> > Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> > > message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but
> > we
> > > may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
> > >
> >
> > I don;t think "discard" is right.  The message would be "... but if it
> > doesn't work out then we won't continue to waste your time and effort and
> > our donations indefinitely". That's realistic.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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] Announcing Community Strategy Liaisons

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Paulo,

Given that the ages you refer to are for the community to feed back to the
various working groups, any lack of activity there can best be described as
the discussions being abandoned by the community.  That's not too
surprising, since very few members of the community have the time, energy,
experience or expertise to take part in this sort of discussion at this
level of granularity.  It might have been better to formulate a few "grand
challenge" type questions but at this level of detail it seems both
necessary and desirable for the community to leave the decision-making to
the Foundation -- they have a full-time, paid, expert staff to do this sort
of thing, as we're hearing in the message that started this very thread.

JPS

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 4:45 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why all these discussions on meta seem to be completely abandoned by the
> Strategy Work Groups? -
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities
> Wasn't it supposed to exist some interaction over there?
> Who is the community talking to?
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Kelsi Stine-Rowe  escreveu no dia sexta,
> 19/04/2019 à(s) 17:04:
>
> > Hello Wikimedians!
> >
> > As part of the roll out for community conversations [1] in our movement
> > strategy [2], I am pleased to share with you that a team of Community
> > Strategy Liaisons have been hired and begun their new role.
> >
> > Community Strategy Liaisons [3] are part-time contractors who lead
> outreach
> > and discussion about movement strategy among some of our largest language
> > groups. Their time is spent connecting with Wikimedians on-wiki, in
> social
> > media channels, over conference calls, and at in-person meetups to help
> > explain the movement strategy process and to facilitate discussion on the
> > content.
> >
> > This role is in parallel to the volunteer Organizational Strategy
> Liaisons,
> > which lead discussions within their organized groups and affiliates about
> > movement strategy. You can find out more about these two groups on our
> meta
> > page [4].
> >
> > Each of the Community Strategy Liaisons dedicates the bulk of their
> > contracted time to their dedicated language group. They have formal
> > responsibilities related to reporting and discussion summaries, as well
> as
> > communicating back to their language communities the results of their
> work.
> >
> > Given the importance of having broad reach and support across the
> > community, they will also provide some support to other language
> > communities from their geographic region. We will also soon be inviting
> > volunteers from language communities not represented by the team below to
> > sign up as Strategy Liaisons for their projects.
> >
> > With this in mind, here is the team!
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Anass Sedrati [5] is our Strategy Liaison for Arabic. His primary
> >responsibilities are to engage the Arabic speaking language community
> >across Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement strategy. He
> > will
> >also support outreach to the Swedish, Berber, and Kurdish language
> >communities, as well as with the French community until an official
> >Strategy Liaison is hired for this role.
> >
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Rupika Sharma [6] is our Strategy Liaison for Hindi. Her primary
> >responsibilities are to engage the Hindi speaking language community
> > across
> >Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement strategy. She will
> > also
> >support outreach to other Indic language communities active on
> > Wikimedia.
> >
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Gereon Kalkuhl [7] is our Strategy Liaison for German. His primary
> >responsibilities are to engage the German speaking language community
> >across Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement strategy. He
> > will
> >also support outreach to the Dutch language community.
> >
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Liang-chih Shang-Kuan [8] is our Strategy Liaison for Mandarin. His
> >primary responsibilities are to engage the Mandarin speaking language
> >community across Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement
> >strategy. He will also support outreach to other language communities
> >active in east Asia, southeast Asia, and the broader pacific region.
> >
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Lucas Teles [9] is our Strategy Liaison for Portuguese. His primary
> >responsibilities are to engage the Portuguese language community
> across
> >Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement strategy.
> >
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Francesc Fort [10] is our Strategy Liaison for Spanish. His primary
> >responsibilities are to engage the Spanish language community across
> >Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement strategy. He will
> also
> >support outreach to other language communities that predominate within
> >Spain 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Gerard

>
> So it is ok to deny the minority that insists they are not?
>
> I didn't say that at all.  I merely suggest that the reality is that the
majority of volunteers take a certain view of themselves (that they are
Wikpedians first and foremost ), and that the ones who take a different
view of themselves (that they are Wikmedians first and foremost) are in the
minority. That is a proposition which is capable of being tested: I have
not done that test.  If it were to turn out to be true, as I sugest it is,
that would not be to "deny the minority", it would simply be to state that
the minority turns out as a matter of fact to be a minority.

JPS
___
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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Peter

Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but we
> may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
>

I don;t think "discard" is right.  The message would be "... but if it
doesn't work out then we won't continue to waste your time and effort and
our donations indefinitely". That's realistic.

JPS
___
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] Announcing Community Strategy Liaisons

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Kelsi

Thanks for that announcement.  An obvious question -- why did you not
appoint a Community Strategy Liaison for the English language community?

JPS

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:04 PM Kelsi Stine-Rowe 
wrote:

> Hello Wikimedians!
>
> As part of the roll out for community conversations [1] in our movement
> strategy [2], I am pleased to share with you that a team of Community
> Strategy Liaisons have been hired and begun their new role.
>
> Community Strategy Liaisons [3] are part-time contractors who lead outreach
> and discussion about movement strategy among some of our largest language
> groups. Their time is spent connecting with Wikimedians on-wiki, in social
> media channels, over conference calls, and at in-person meetups to help
> explain the movement strategy process and to facilitate discussion on the
> content.
>
> This role is in parallel to the volunteer Organizational Strategy Liaisons,
> which lead discussions within their organized groups and affiliates about
> movement strategy. You can find out more about these two groups on our meta
> page [4].
>
> Each of the Community Strategy Liaisons dedicates the bulk of their
> contracted time to their dedicated language group. They have formal
> responsibilities related to reporting and discussion summaries, as well as
> communicating back to their language communities the results of their work.
>
> Given the importance of having broad reach and support across the
> community, they will also provide some support to other language
> communities from their geographic region. We will also soon be inviting
> volunteers from language communities not represented by the team below to
> sign up as Strategy Liaisons for their projects.
>
> With this in mind, here is the team!
>
>
>-
>
>Anass Sedrati [5] is our Strategy Liaison for Arabic. His primary
>responsibilities are to engage the Arabic speaking language community
>across Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement strategy. He
> will
>also support outreach to the Swedish, Berber, and Kurdish language
>communities, as well as with the French community until an official
>Strategy Liaison is hired for this role.
>
>
>
>-
>
>Rupika Sharma [6] is our Strategy Liaison for Hindi. Her primary
>responsibilities are to engage the Hindi speaking language community
> across
>Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement strategy. She will
> also
>support outreach to other Indic language communities active on
> Wikimedia.
>
>
>
>-
>
>Gereon Kalkuhl [7] is our Strategy Liaison for German. His primary
>responsibilities are to engage the German speaking language community
>across Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement strategy. He
> will
>also support outreach to the Dutch language community.
>
>
>
>-
>
>Liang-chih Shang-Kuan [8] is our Strategy Liaison for Mandarin. His
>primary responsibilities are to engage the Mandarin speaking language
>community across Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement
>strategy. He will also support outreach to other language communities
>active in east Asia, southeast Asia, and the broader pacific region.
>
>
>
>-
>
>Lucas Teles [9] is our Strategy Liaison for Portuguese. His primary
>responsibilities are to engage the Portuguese language community across
>Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement strategy.
>
>
>
>-
>
>Francesc Fort [10] is our Strategy Liaison for Spanish. His primary
>responsibilities are to engage the Spanish language community across
>Wikimedia projects in discussions around movement strategy. He will also
>support outreach to other language communities that predominate within
>Spain as well as to the Italian community.
>
>
> As a final note, we are still looking to hire candidates in French, Farsi,
> and Russian, though other candidates may join the team for additional
> languages. You can find out about the latest composition of the team on
> meta and connect with the contractor for your language at any time on their
> talk pages.
>
> Community conversations are your chance to make your voice heard on
> movement strategy. Thank you for joining us!
>
> Best,
>
> Kelsi
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Participate
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
>
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Community_Strategy_Liaisons
>
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People
>
> [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ASedrati_(WMF)
>
> [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RSharma_(WMF)
>
> [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gereon_Kalkuhl_(WMF)
>
> [8] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LShangkuan_(WMF)
>
> [9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LTeles_(WMF)
>
> [10] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FFort_(WMF)
>
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

t; > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
> > > > >
> > > > > Me too.  In fact, I think this is something that Wikinews has
> always
> > done
> > > > > very well.  It also strikes me as an excellent, and quite
> > functional, use
> > > > > for a Wiki.  A wikivoices or wiki-interviews type project would be
> a
> > fine
> > > > > addition to the ecosystem, imho.  And it is very reasonable to
> think
> > that
> > > > > given its success in this area, Wikinews could very easily pivot to
> > fill
> > > > > that spot.
> > > > >
> > > > > But a news competitor to traditional news outlets?  Nope, that it
> > isn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Philippe
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:05 PM Andrew Lih 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrew
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the
> > policies
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V,
> NORUSH)
> > > > are a
> > > > > > > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand,
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem
> > inconsistent to
> > > > me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Wikimedians we are secondary source news summarizers rather
> than
> > > > primary
> > > > > > source news gatherers. That’s where the difference lies
> primarily.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews
> > with
> > > > > > notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as
> a
> > > > direct
> > > > > > news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way
> > > > forward is
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fold Wikinews altogether so it doesn’t confuse the public.
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > > editors are already doing a stellar job.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andrew
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih <
> andrew@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > > > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely
> > consistent
> > > > with
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe
> the
> > WMF
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jennifer,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade
> and
> > the
> > > > vast
> > > > > > > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion
> that
> > > > Wikinews
> > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing 1Lib1Ref (1Bib1Ref) in May 2019!

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Jake

Thanks for that, but I think we need to preserve a sense of proportion
here.  According to a recent WMF Research finding, see
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/03/can-machine-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/
,"one
out of four articles in English Wikipedia does not have any references at
all".  That' something like 1.5 million articles, and maybe 3 million
across all languages.  Your report suggests that around 6000 articles were
updated: that's at best 0.2% of the backlog.  At this rate it will take
about 250 years to clear it.  Perhaps a new approach is needed -- WMF
researchers are looking into AI.

JPS

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:27 PM Jake Orlowitz  wrote:

> Librarians and library lovers,
>
> Next month from May 15th to June 5th we will be joining together around the
> world to make Wikipedia more reliable.  You can participate in #1Lib1Ref by
> simply adding a citation to Wikipedia's content.
>
> That's all we ask and imagine: a world in which every librarian (or
> archivist, reference professional, and scholar) adds 1 more reference to
> Wikipedia.
>
> This is the fourth year of the #1Lib1Ref campaign and our second time
> running it in May, when it's more convenient for the southern hemisphere.
> You can learn about this year's January campaign too in our recently
> released learnings report.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Lessons/2019
>
> Full resources and guides for participating in May are available on the
> http://1lib1ref.org campaign website.
>
> The campaign will be fully tracked with daily metrics and leaderboard
> updates.  You can make sure your contribution is counted by using the
> Program and Events Dashboard for your event, institution, or region.
>
> Login to start a new event or join up with an existing group for the May
> Campaign here:
>
> https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/1lib1ref_may_2019/programs
>
> Please tell your library and library-loving friends about #1Lib1Ref in
> May.  We need everyone's help to make Wikipedia more reliable!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jake Orlowitz
>
> Head of the Wikipedia Library
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> wikipedialibr...@wikimedia.org
>
> @Wikilibrary
>
> P.S. Don’t worry if you can’t make it for the May campaign, as now 1Lib1Ref
> receives annual support and you can always reach out for assistance any
> time of the year.
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Fæ

I don't think that the chapters are in a position to dictate to the
Foundation in the way you suggest.  To take the UK chapter, with you are
probably most familiar, last year some 42% of its income came as a block
grant from the WMF, the figures for the preceding years being 54% and 47%.
When half of your income comes from the Foundation, then when push comes to
shove, you do what they tell you to.

JPS

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 1:54 PM Fæ  wrote:

> Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal
> organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization
> is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts
> and reports as that entity.
>
> Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision
> by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
> decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
> changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
> some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
> verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
> vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
> which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
> for which there are no reported credible tests.
>
> If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
> management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
> YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
> problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
> "Wikimedia".
>
> Fae
>
>
>
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:
> >
> > Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start
> calling itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s
> any noticeable difference?
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill <
> rebeccanin...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I agree Galder!
> > >>
> > >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw
> people
> > >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We
> have
> > >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> > >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are
> very
> > >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as
> editors.
> > >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> > >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes
> that
> > >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Dear Rebecca,
> > > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy
> ecosystem
> > > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that
> chapters,
> > > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for
> the
> > > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> > >
> > > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to
> supporting
> > > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We
> do
> > > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not
> directly
> > > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
> group/
> > > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who
> work
> > > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work
> we
> > > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are
> not, in
> > > themselves, the end goal.
> > >
> > > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read
> all of
> > > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding:
> the
> > > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we
> need
> > > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance,
> with an
> > > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out,
> and
> > > be more amenable to releasing images? If 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Jim

You ask that "the CTO search team please publish their search and
requirement criteria" -- what would you, or the public at large, do with
that information?

JPS
___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
>
> Paulo
>

Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
questions it should be asking itself.

JPS
___
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] fallout from 2018 Wikimedian of the Year announcement

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Farhad

I assume that under this arrangement, the editorial independence of the
contributors and content will remain inviolable?

JPS

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 5:22 PM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin <
f...@yandex.com> wrote:

> Regional department of education (elementary & secondary education) &
> Kazan Federal University today received instructions signed by the
> President of Tatarstan on integrating Wikimedia Education Program
> opportunities into the curricula of educational establishments of the
> Republic. I was asked for some guidance on the topic before tonight, so
> prepared what I could in Russian
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-ru/2019-April/005086.html
> We are in the country with a centralized education system culture, so
> project owner will be the ministry, with Wikimedians serving as
> stakeholders, consultants & guides.
>
> On March 1st we fielded 2 speakers for EDU RUSSIA 2019 conference
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CEE/Newsletter/February_2019/Contents/Russia_report#Wikimedia_movement,_Wikimedia_RU_&_WUG_TAT_activities_presented_at_%C2%ABEDU_RUSSIA_2019%C2%BB_Forum
>
>
> On April 11-12 our Bashkir colleagues (WUG BAK) were invited to speak @
> their regional teachers' conference (photoes & report in Russian -
> https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/?curid=221169 ) & their regional deputy
> minister recalled our speakers in Kazan
>
>
> Right now our judges are checking some 200 pre-qualified ttWP articles
> created by 67 previously untrained school teams in the framework of Tatar
> 4.0 contest. Prizes provided by local partner, introduction to the contest
> video, Messenger support, participant & article tagging, prequalification &
> assessing on volunteering time. 10 best teams to be publicly awarded at
> Ğabdulla Tuqay memorial event downtown Kazan on April 26.
> Contest in Tatar - https://tt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Проект:Татар_4.0
> Lessons learnt in Russian -
> https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Умный_регион/Многоязычие/Татарский/Татар_4.0
>
> This all follows our February presentation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CEE/Newsletter/February_2019/Contents/Russia_report#Tatarstan_pilot_of_%C2%ABSmart_Region%C2%BB_initiative_presented_to_the_Russian_Federation_Deputy_Prime-Minister
>
> regards,
> farhad
>
> --
> Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / Wikidata:Q34036417
>
>
> 08.02.2019, 22:23, "Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin"  >:
> > Some news:
> >
> > I managed to get vocal approval of the proposal to transfer
> Wiki-competencies to Tatarstan public by Federal Deputy Prime-Minister
> Maxim Akimov and had Regional President Rustam Minnikhanov express his
> invitation to the subject-minister (Vice Prime-Minister of Tatarstan -
> InfoComm minister Roman Shaykhutdinov) to prepare necessary proposals for
> organizing the process in a successful scalable way. I will have to do more
> thinking and writing now so as to try have this implemented first in my
> Republic, then across Russia.
> >
> > I was given less than a minute during pre-Conference tour of the project
> stands prepared by corporations and state enterprises (without slides or
> any visual support), so I had to skim to the very facts and the value
> proposition that would get their attention.
> >
> > On a more tangible side, https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Selet_WikiSchool
> that I started back in 2016, will get support from the regional budget &
> thus expand. Currently this is on the shoulders of a team consisting of
> high-school senior, a University freshman and a sophomore/junior from one
> rural school.
> >
> > regards,
> > farhad
> >
> > --
> > Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
> >
> > 17.01.2019, 18:35, "Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin" <
> f...@yandex.com>:
> >>  Dear colleagues,
> >>
> >>  You can track my preparation in English @
> https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Умный_регион/05.02.2019/en (date move to
> accommodate VIP participants' schedules).
> >>
> >>  I had to skim my original 18 minute text to under 7.
> >>
> >>  I intend to touch on most of what had to go via the Slides which will
> accompany my talk.
> >>
> >>  Tatar components will be prepared last, as Russian and English are
> best tools for getting feedback from across the Wiki-world.
> >>
> >>  regards,
> >>  farhad
> >>
> >>  --
> >>  Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
> >>
> >>  14.01.2019, 19:10, "Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin" <
> f...@yandex.com>:
> >>>   Dear colleagues,
> >>>
> >>>   This is a heads-up on the fact that on Jan.29 I will be speaking in
> Tatar (with simultaneous interpretation of my words into Russian) at the
> Republic of Tatarstan Ministry for ICT closing conference for 2018 in front
> of the President of the Republic, Russia's Federal minister for ICT,
> members of Tatarstan