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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 18:45, Adam Wight  wrote:

> I can imagine many potential conflicts of interest in this two-wiki
> arrangement, most concerning is the possibility that the scope of Wikimedia
> could be restricted in order to drive users towards the for-profit.
>

This is not a hypothetical. Contrary to the "Imagine a world in which every
single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human
knowledge. That's what we're doing." tenet, massive amounts of information
has been actively moved off Wikipedia to for-profit wikis -- I'm talking of
course about such things as Star Wars, Star Trek, Pokémon etc.

Michel
___
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/K4DJA3KFKCQNV72PZ3MB6FPGRZPZ5SYD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated about this.

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
> we've rolled back this change.
>
> For some background, the emojis in this messaging were a recent addition
> earlier this week. Emojis have become a core part of the way the world
> communicates, especially with younger demographics, practically becoming an
> ideographic language in and of itself. The team has been keen to see if
> there are ways we can leverage this, especially on mobile and we’ve been
> experimenting with them over the last couple of years in a number of
> campaigns.
>
> I want to recognise that we missed the mark on this one and that your
> feedback is heard, much appreciated and acted upon. The team really does
> care about the messaging and how it represents us, and the projects as a
> whole. Our processes on approving content have massively improved over the
> years and I think it reflects in the messaging we use. A number of people
> have noted that it has improved for the better over the years.
>
> At the same time I want to take some ownership of this misstep myself.
> I've been proactively working in real time with some volunteers, discussing
> concepts and gathering feedback on campaigns. This feedback has definitely
> shown that for such a new concept, I should have made sure to have
> highlighted and gotten more input on this.
>
> I'll be gathering input on how we use emojis in our messaging and I'd be
> happy to follow up with people about this. Just an additional note that if
> anyone wants to talk through any feedback with me I can be found on IRC,
> Discord, Telegram or send it through via email ( seddon at wikimedia.org
> ).
>
> My apologies but also my genuine thanks for the feedback.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> tend to agree there should be a mobile friendly version, the article
>> should be visible at the same time. What wording is used it definitely
>> should not have religious actions or symbology in it... the other emojis do
>> seem childish
>>
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 21:58, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I opened a browser I’m not logged in on to see what these ads were.
>>>
>>> Here is the text, unedited, of the second ad I was shown (after closing
>>> the first):
>>>
>>> “Hi reader . Sorry for the interruption, but this Saturday Wikipedia
>>> really needs your help. This is the 3rd appeal we've shown you. 98% of
>>> our readers don't give; they look the other way . All we ask is $2.75 and
>>> then you can get back to your article. We ask you, humbly: please don't
>>> scroll away .“
>>>
>>> It would be quite helpful if the WMF’s marketing and fundraising-focused
>>> teams weren’t so intent on destroying Wikipedia’s reputation. I, and I’m
>>> sure most editors, don’t care that praying and crying emojis illicit more
>>> money. There are social and reputation costs to portraying Wikipedia like a
>>> crying, praying beggar about to go broke. And though I understand the
>>> employees responsible for pushing this nonsense in front of every reader
>>> evidently do not care about the costs of their actions, and only whatever
>>> money they can get from it, it remains wholly unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Tell me: why should I volunteer to work on a project whose owners,
>>> regardless of the incredibly large quantities of money they already have,
>>> seek frequently to illicit donations through methods that damage
>>> Wikipedia’s reputation? Why would I give hours of my time a week to make
>>> Wikimedia projects clear of vandalism and abuse, seeking to give readers
>>> the impression of a functional and reliable source of information, knowing
>>> that some marketing person could undo all of the volunteers’ work through
>>> some ad campaign?
>>>
>>> And yes, I also understand that volunteers complain every time this
>>> happens. There’s very good reason to do so, as every time these campaigns
>>> go out they are worse than the last, wholly ignorant of community wishes,
>>> and taking no views into account other than those who reflect purely a goal
>>> of getting more donations.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vermont
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 05:22 Fæ  wrote:
>>>
 Let's try kicking this perennial thead again.

 This morning (5 Dec 2020) I paused cooling my porridge when looking up
 how Wikipedia describes 'Latinx' usage on my cellular, I was faced
 with a *2 page* advert.
 * The advert meant nothing of the article could be seen, not even the
 title, without having to pass the two pages of several big blue
 fundraising notices.
 * There's some statements in those notices that, frankly, look
 unencyclopaedic like "People told us we'd regret making Wikipedia a
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donating to Wikipedia

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

This discussion comes back every year. Every year we get the same
reassurance that it's being looked into, that we'll try to do better, that
things have been tested, etc.

The reality of the matter is that the alarmist and misleading stuff
*works*. And that it's most probably not going anywhere. Just like last
year and the year before.


On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, 22:58 Samuel Klein,  wrote:

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

This is sarcasm, right? Right?

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen,  wrote:

> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon,
> and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
> "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
>
> NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> "article".
>
> As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> show sourcing immediately.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
> editing
> > environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> > historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
> >
> > On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> > have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> > sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> > year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> > these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> > would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> > these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> > z"
> >
> > Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> > community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> > for, among other things:
> >
> >
> >1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
> >to blocks.
> >2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> >creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> find
> >them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> >3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> edits.
> >
> >
> > None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> > environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> example
> > some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> > understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> where
> > people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> > the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> deletionists
> > even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> > deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> >
> > My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> > ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> people
> > you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> versions
> > of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> > native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> other
> > Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> might
> > think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> being
> > nuanced and diplomatic.
> >
> > Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> communicated
> > before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> > would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> > was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> > Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> Wikipedia.
> > But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> what
> > the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> > support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> > empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> > where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> now
> > an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> > enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> > trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.
> What I
> > > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and
> foremost
> > > the
> > > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > > > finally has to deal with 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may seem,
>the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker
and
>request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
potentially tense situation.

In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
rumour about them?

>I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick
EOT and salting.

I personally don't.

Michel
___
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] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

I don't understand in which possible world anyone thought this was a good
idea.

The MfD, that is. It, and the entire discussion in favour, reads as some
sort of caricature of the worst SJW-type excesses.

M.



On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 16:41, Fæ  wrote:

> As the last second repost had the same format error, I am trying for a
> final time. How embarrassing!
>
> 
>
> I would like to apologise to SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS), and more
> generally to the Wikipedia community, for any possible implication
> given in my previous email to this list, that authors of the
> problematic Signpost "Pronouns beware" essay, might in any way be
> thought to be transphobic. This was an important matter to word
> precisely and accurately. I take responsibility and apologise, it was
> stupid of me to fail to ensure that there could be no way that my
> words might appear to be intended as an attack on the person, rather
> than criticism of the judgement used when writing this essay, and the
> choice to publish it on Wikipedia.
>
> I refrained from correcting this email previously, as it was thought
> to be better to avoid stirring up any further drama, however this was
> being interpreted by one of the authors as deliberately avoiding
> making any correction.[1] I apologise for that misjudgement, and my
> failure to understand how a delay would appear. My thanks go to
> SMcCandlish for raising their complaint that a correction was needed.
>
> The rest of this email runs on the long side, if you have been
> following the deletion discussion, there is probably nothing new here.
> :-)
>
> My action in acting transparently as a whistleblower, was to criticise
> the editorial judgement of creating an essay which made jokes about
> pronoun usage which would, and has, been read as making a bad joke
> that mocks genderqueer and transgender people. This problem of how the
> article could be read, was raised by others before publication.
> Overwhelmingly the deletion discussion created for the essay has had
> feedback from many long term and experienced Wikipedians who were
> alarmed and upset that the article was published without this problem
> being acted on, and either halting publication, or ensuring a
> resubmission so there could be no confusion that the article appeared
> abusive or a failure to respect genderqueer and nonbinary people.[0]
> Many deletion comments have called the article "transphobic". Nobody
> as far as I have seen, has mistakenly called the authors transphobes.
> There is a good faith presumption that cause is an error of judgement.
> It has been explained several times by myself and others in related
> Wikipedia discussions that objecting to a published joke being
> offensive to a minority group, in no way implies or presumes that the
> author(s) deliberately intended to cause offense to that minority
> group.Thanks,
>
> Thankfully the Signpost essay has been hidden from view while the
> deletion discussion continues, an action that resolves the immediate
> issue, and removes any need for me to be involved.
>
> I have not made a complaint to the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct
> Committee, and decided to let a thread on meta stay closed with regard
> to use of a unpaid volunteer WMF related title that requires
> compliance with the Code of Conduct.
>
> I sent a friendly confidential email to the Wikimedia Wiki Education
> project for comment, as Barbara chose to publish the essay using the
> unpaid volunteer account that specifically represented Wiki Education,
> though again, this was not a formal complaint. I had one informal
> reply back saying they were looking into it. I have not emailed anyone
> else with regard to the authors or their actions. Explicitly, I have
> not contacted anyone's employer nor anyone else not directly part of
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> Barbara has thoughtfully stated in a personal email to me, and on her
> Wikipedia talk page, that she is preparing a formal apology as one of
> the coauthors.
>
> Thankfully SMcCandlish has agreed with the article being hidden from
> view, and continues to debate the article deletion. They chose to
> raised an ANI request against me for "canvassing and
> incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes", which was closed
> without action toThanks,day.[3] At the time of writing this email, there
> are
> claims by SMcCandlish that they are "accused of being a transphobe",
> it is unclear who is doing this.[4]
>
> The WMF have taken the unusual step of refusing an email promoting the
> Signpost on the announcements list, due to "multiple reports of
> concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019
> edition of the Signpost". I made no formal email complaint to the WMF
> about Signpost, or anything else. The multiple reports were from other
> concerned people that are unknown to me. Sadly the immediate personal
> response to the WMF by the Signpost Production Manager has been "I
> find your rejection of my email to be an empty 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Israel joins the nationwide strike to protest the exclusion of gay couples the right to become parents

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

+1

On 22 July 2018 at 10:02, Andrea Zanni  wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'll ask forgiveness in advance for starting a probable flame.
>
> I support WMIL stance: equity is absolutely within our Wikimedia
> values, and supporting LGBTQ rights is always a good thing.
>
> But I cannot help but see the enormity of omission here: the Israeli
> government just passed a law proclaming Israel a "Jewish"
> nation-state¹, and it's bombing for the n-th time Gaza, where over 1
> million people are sieged.
>
> It saddens me a bit that WMIL is getting political, stepping "outside"
> our wiki box for a good but still controversial topic, with a minor
> impact, while major things are happening. Purely in terms of numbers
> the scale of the latter are huge: the scale of the first much smaller.
> I see a double standard (Jewish LGBQTs important; Arab-Israelis non
> important) which is directly against the equity we we're talking about
> in the first place.
>
> Again, sorry,
> but I couldn't shut up this time.
>
> Aubrey
>
> ¹ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/middleeast/israel-
> law-jews-arabic.html
>
> On 7/21/18, Chris Keating  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:23 AM Shlomi Fish 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Itzik,
> >>
> >>
> >> I do not oppose the LGBT movement, but please explain how an official
> >> support
> >> of that falls under the global Wikimedia project's mission, and does not
> >> dilute our policy of avoiding having a stance on issues that are
> unrelated
> >> to
> >> it?
> >
> > I mean... yeah.
> >
> > As an LGBT Wikimedian I entirely support changing this law, and I can
> > completely understand staff members wanting to take part in the
> > demonstrations, and the organisation wanting to support them in doing
> > that.
> >
> > But I really don't see why Wikimedia Israel should formally involve
> > itself in a general social-policy issue that's nothing specifically to
> > do with our mission. We need to be careful not to try to be a
> > general-purpose progressive movement.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Airtasker adds for articles

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Shouldn't articles be judged independently of who exactly wrote them and
for what reason?

If an article reads well, has good content, is sourced, neutral etc, what's
the issue exactly?

On 24 May 2018 at 12:28, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I find this rather disturbing that Airtasker accepts adds for people
> wanting to have articles written, on wikipedia.
>
> The person writing the add is asking someone to violate WMF terms &
> Conditions as you can some of the respondents are indicating that they do
> this regularly
>
> https://www.airtasker.com/tasks/copywriter-for-a-
> wikipedia-article-10031171/
>
> Would it  be prudent for the WMF legal to contact Airtasker, highlight our
> T and have them block such requests from being posted.  Airtasker
> themselves also gets paid when people write Wikipedia articles
>
> --
> GN.
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> Order
> here
>  reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
> .
> ___
> 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] LGBT+ safety considerations for conference venues

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

+1

On 10 November 2016 at 09:00, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> You do not get it. Wikimania is first and foremost about spreading the word
> about what we do and who we are.
>
> I have read Pax's original post. He did not go to Wikimania. He asks for
> consideration that any Wikimania will be in a place where he feels safe. It
> is OK for him to ask this but it is not OK for us to give away what
> Wikimania stands for.
>
> There is no safe place and in my experience you are offensive by not
> accepting that this is the point that I make. There is no perfect place for
> Wikimania. Everywhere and always you have to behave yourself cognisant of
> where you are. At all times there is one or the other group that will be
> discriminated against.
>
> Fae, muslims are at a greater risk than LGBT people when they come to a
> conference. Particularly women who wear a hijab will always be seen for
> what they are. It is not a lie that you do not address the point that I
> make. The question is why do we have a Wikimania and is it an instrument to
> open up new communities and include them in our movement.
>
> This is the dominant question that should be answered. Relative safety is
> secondary.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 10 November 2016 at 08:46, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > Yes you are being offensive. You are deliberately painting a picture
> > that somehow Pax, myself and others are attempting to make out that
> > safety of LGBT+ Wikimedians is more important than safety of Women
> > Wikimedians or the safety of Muslim Wikimedians. The only person doing
> > that is you.
> >
> > You did the same thing on the 18th of October and it was pointed out
> > to you that this was unacceptable, yet you are continuing to repeat
> > it. Stop doing it, it is a lie, and the only person spreading it is you.
> >
> > Go back and read Pax's original post of 16th October which was positive
> > about the Wikimania experience.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 10 November 2016 at 06:57, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > The notion of offence is one where you take it where there is none
> > > certainly no offence is intended.
> > >
> > > When you consider Wikimanias past, we have been to places where there
> is
> > a
> > > "risk". Arguably there has been a risk in going to other countries in
> the
> > > past. When you consider the events themselves, as a group, we have been
> > > rather isolated in our conference. Many people were exhausted of the
> > > proceedings. Others went partying and came to the conference when they
> > felt
> > > up to it.
> > >
> > > This whole notion of security has been high jacked by LGBT concerns.
> Let
> > me
> > > say that they are real. It would however be a travesty to say that they
> > are
> > > the only ones singled out for problems. Ask yourself, how many women
> > > wearing a veil were there at the last Wikimania and at the one before.
> > > Consider the stories about people, third generation Dutch, who are
> > mistaken
> > > for refugees and not safe in the streets of the place where I live.
> > Stories
> > > about not standing close to the gap at a railway station because ...
> They
> > > are as much a reality, they are as real.
> > >
> > > So you may find it offensive and it is. People are not safe. But when
> > that
> > > stops us from talking about it, when it can not be said that security
> is
> > > only one concern and not the most dominant one then I take offence. It
> > > means that we can no longer exchange opinions. It means that we are
> only
> > > concerned with our own narrow interest losing the big picture.
> > >
> > > So Fae, take it from me. You are wrong to call me out for being
> > > disrespectful. By calling me out in this way you elevate your opinion
> and
> > > put me down. Security is a concern but when fear is exchanged for
> > prudence,
> > > we will remove the one reason why we have Wikimania in the first place
> > as a
> > > worldwide conference. It is to go out and show the world who we are and
> > > what we have to offer.
> > >
> > > When this is the prevailing opinion of our movement it does hardly
> matter
> > > that we have Wikipedias in over 280 languages because English and its
> > > culture is the only Wikipedia that counts. Now that is effectively an
> > > existing prejudice that is dominated in much of what I observe we do.
> It
> > is
> > > another argument people feel offended. But hey most of you do not see
> it
> > > this way because "things trickle down".. As an economic measure it
> failed
> > > and it is how we ignore the major cultural differences that exist.
> > >
> > > Wikimania is not relevant when we do not go out and mingle world wide.
> > When
> > > we do not accept the differences that exist and make it our strength.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9 November 2016 at 18:28, Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Gerard,
> > >>
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Welcome to my exact experience on Dutch Wikipedia. Banned for life for
'outing' a power user.

The 'outing' is in huge inverted commas -- (1) enter her on-wiki username
in any search engine and you get oodles of vanity page(s) with her full
name and (2) she'd done much worse than that to me.

I've been called names, articles have been deleted, I've been told by many
people that, sure, were it any other person they'd be banned, and sure,
when she refers people to [Leck mich im Arsch] it *might* be construed as
uncivil, but hey, she's doing good work on vandal patrol and deleting
articles, so...

Yup. It's very, very toxic at times. And nobody really cares.

On 17 May 2016 at 14:47, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Reaching out offlist. Anyone who knows Chris well and has helpful input,
> feel free to contact me offlist.
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Chris Sherlock <
> chris.sherloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having
> suicidal
> > thoughts.
> >
> > I don't know what to do now.
> >
> > Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen.  I've been called
> > obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and I've
> > been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at me
> > without reading the policy.
> >
> > An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which
> > violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the
> kilobytes
> > were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one reverting
> me
> > was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious.
> When
> > I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources in
> any
> > way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was
> doing
> > was checking a company directorship, I was ignored.
> >
> > I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation
> > needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard.
> >
> > But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are all
> so
> > busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the
> > other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this
> depressed.
> > Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that nobody
> > knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was surprised
> > it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life. It's
> not
> > even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth anything.
> I
> > spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good job.
> > But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called
> obsessed.
> >
> > That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]]
> > article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My hard
> > work was appreciated.
> >
> > I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But when I
> > was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached badly
> > and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a bitter
> > article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:
> >
> >
> >
> http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wikipedia-is-such.html
> >
> > Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a
> > decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get
> traction.
> >
> > I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article that
> > was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and it
> > was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far too
> > negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time.
> >
> > I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an
> attack
> > article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I was
> > about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted.
> Nobody
> > had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I realised
> it
> > had been deleted.
> >
> > So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit
> very
> > carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very briefly
> > noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I wrote a
> > short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the
> > history.
> >
> > Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty at
> > Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought,
> how?
> > The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media
> talking
> > of his exploits!
> >
> > So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being famous,
> > like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and he's
> been
> > in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which was
> > notorious) - it's 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

I would venture quite a bit more than 'eight people' are annoyed by the
constant and blatant double standard.

And oh, I now anticipate a patronizing mail that starts with 'Hoi,' and
ends with 'Thanks' -- it's not just 'the same eight people' that keep
repeating their position ad nauseam.

On 8 May 2016 at 23:11, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > We already have one of those.
> > Cheers,
> > P
>
>
> ​Right, okay, whatever.
>
> Combing through WM-l archives for the past six months, there is a pattern:
>
> James is removed from the board - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
> Jimmy and James get into it in a public space -
> the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
> ​The Arnon thing happens - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
> The Knowledge Engine thing happens - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST
> GO
> The Lila thing happens - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
> Denny writes this email - the same eight people write JIMMY MUST GO
>
> Let's think on that for a bit when we want to talk about the power of
> politics, and who is playing what game and what side they are on.
>
> Did none of you who replied to this email from Denny with JIMMY MUST GO
> bother to notice that Jimmy's name isn't even mentioned in this chain of
> dysfunctional events? I suspect not, because the line has already clearly
> drawn uncompromising the sand, and it was drawn years ago. If you want to
> continue to pretend that Jimmy Wales is the root of all that's wrong with
> the movement, that's your prerogative, but there's a reason why it's only
> the same people saying it over and over again.
>
> Denny, thank you for sharing your side of the story.
> ​
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out
specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then the
Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential
staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?

Michel
On 2 May 2016 19:10, "Denny Vrandečić"  wrote:

> In the following I want to present a personal account of events leading to
> James’ removal as a Board member, as I remember them. It was written while
> I was still on the Board, and the Board agreed on having it sent. The text
> was heavily discussed and edited amongst members of the Board, but in the
> end it remains my personal account. I realize that it potentially includes
> post-factum sensemaking, affecting my recollection of events.
>
> October 1 and 2 2015, Dariusz, James, Patricio and I received phone calls
> from a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff expressing concerns about
> the Foundation. They asked explicitly for confidentiality. I wanted to
> approach the whole Board immediately, but due to considerations for
> confidentiality, the sensitive nature of the topic, and the lack of an HR
> head at the time, the others decided against at this moment. Effectively,
> this created a conspiracy within the Board from then on for the following
> weeks.
>
> With Patricio’s approval, Dariusz and James started to personally collect
> and ask for reports from staff. Unfortunately, this investigation was not
> formally approved by the whole Board. It was also conducted in a manner
> that would not secure a professional and impartial process. After a few
> weeks, we finally reached out to the rest of Board members. They
> immediately recognized the necessity for a separate formal task force which
> was set up very quickly.
>
> The formal task force was created end of October. This task force involved
> outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding. The first
> request of the task force to the Board members was to ask for all documents
> and notes pertaining to the case. Unfortunately, although there has been
> more than a week of time, this has not happened in full.
>
> The task force presented its result at the November Board meeting, where it
> was discovered during the second day of the Board meeting that the previous
> investigation has not provided all available information. Thus, the fact
> finding had to be extended into the Board meeting. At the Board meeting
> itself, James in particular was repeatedly asked to share his documents,
> which only happened on the very last day of the retreat and after several,
> increasingly vigorous requests. Some members of the Board were left with an
> impression that James was reluctant to cooperate, even though it was
> expected that since he participated in an investigation done in an improper
> manner, that he would be more collaborative to make up for these mistakes.
>
> Due to that lack of transparency and information sharing, the Board retreat
> in November turned out to be extremely ineffective. If we had all
> information that was gathered available to the Board in due time, and if
> that information was gathered more openly in the first place, the Board
> could have acted more effectively.
>
> I was worried that the confidentiality of the Board would not be
> maintained, and I was particularly worried about James’ lack of
> understanding of confidential matters, a perception also fueled by his
> noncooperation and conduct. Some of his behaviour since unfortunately
> confirmed my worries. I raised this as an issue to the Board.
>
> While discussing the situation, James remained defensive, in my eyes
> answered questions partially, and, while formally expressing apologies,
> never conveyed that he really took ownership of his actions or understood
> what he did wrong. This lead to a malfunctioning Board, and in order to fix
> the situation I suggested James’ removal.
>
> I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived
> reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding of
> information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members, even
> once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking
> responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes. This is why I
> get triggered if he positions himself as an avatar of transparency. The
> whole topic of the Knowledge Engine - although it played a part in the
> events that lead to the November meeting - did not, for me, in any way
> influence the vote on James’ removal. It was solely his conduct during and
> following the November meeting.
>
> I am glad to see that, since James’ removal until I left, the Board has
> been functioning better.
>
> I hope that this account helps a little bit towards renewing our culture of
> transparency, but even more I hope for understanding. The Board consists of
> volunteers and of humans - they cannot react in real-time to events, as 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

...this is about that mail of yours to James that was going to be
published, right?

On 10 March 2016 at 11:01, jimmy wales  wrote:

>
>
> Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal
> effects of lack of transparency and openness.  Assuming I and other board
> members who continue to press for full openness about the James situation
>  are eventually successful this will all become more clear.
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung device
>
>  Original message 
> From: George Herbert 
> Date: 2016/03/10  9:49 AM  (GMT+00:00)
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales 
> wrote:
> > ...
> > Those ideas never got traction
> > and never made it to the board level. ...
>
> I don't think you are lying or being deceptive, but it seems apparent in
> the various half-explanations that it did, to James, who either got mangled
> explanations and assumed worse or heard worse from someone incorrectly.
> Thence to mistrust.
>
> Assuming nobody is evil or insane, we have clear evidence and now open
> admissions of communications breakdowns at several levels and confused,
> contradictory explanations about who thought what secrecy was required and
> why.
>
> It seems like those fed upon each other into misunderstandings and
> mistrust.
>
> Have you not considered that lack of transparency and openness would have
> the same internal effect as external?
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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,
> 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Simple English please! was The conversation is happening elsewhere :(

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Aspen grove: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pando_(tree)

On 17 February 2016 at 10:14, Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

> I second this opinion, please remember we are many not having English as
> our mother language
>
> Also besides being all lost in the discussion of Knight grant application,
> I do not understand a word from the poem of Yates, neither do I understand
> the meaning of Aspen grove
>
> Please, please go back to simple English in this list to enable many to
> take part
>
> Andes
>
> Den 2016-02-17 kl. 09:57, skrev Andrea Zanni:
>
>> Thanks Asaf,
>> I didn't know about that group.
>>
>> May I also mention that the conversation is also becoming *exhausting*,
>> being in English and at very high level?
>> I know we can't do nothing about it, but it's worth noting, IMHO, that the
>> more we go on the fewer people with incredible stamina, analytic skills
>> and
>> English proficiency will follow and engage.
>> Not really inclusive for Wikimedia.
>> I, for one, find it very hard to follow everything and participate.
>>
>> Aubrey
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Adam Wight  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the note!  Fwiw, I can't read that without a login.  Feel free
>>> to urge the owners to make the thread public, if base crook even supports
>>> such a thing.
>>> On Feb 16, 2016 4:47 PM, "Asaf Bartov"  wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear colleagues,

 These are difficult and confusing times.  Many of you are puzzled or
 receiving partial and possibly contradictory bits and pieces of news.

 As a service to the community, I feel I must point out that
 significantly
 more conversation is taking place -- for whatever reason -- on the

>>> (public)
>>>
 Wikipedia Weekly facebook group[1].

 Without endorsing that choice of venue (the issues with Facebook are

>>> fairly
>>>
 well-known), it does appear that if you want significantly more
 information, you should head on over there and read through the last

>>> couple
>>>
 of weeks' posts. (much information is in the comments)

 (if you are inspired to collect and preserve useful information from

>>> there
>>>
 on Meta, that would be best.)

 In solidarity,

 Asaf

 [1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/

 --
  Asaf Bartov
  Wikimedia Foundation 

 Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
 the
 sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
 https://donate.wikimedia.org
 ___
 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,
 

>>> ___
>>> 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,
>>> 
>>>
>>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Gerard,

I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.

It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.

Michel

On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
> not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are
> you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward.
> Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
>
> Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have
> you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like it
> and that is ok.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions
> > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> >
> > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
> > mentioned in
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> ?
> >
> > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> relatively
> > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about
> > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
> > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> question
> > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about
> > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction,
> > especially without consulting the community.
> >
> > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address
> > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> those
> > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> recent
> > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> making
> > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
> > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this
> > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I
> > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
> > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> restoring
> > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill.
> I
> > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> interested
> > to hear your thoughts.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"  napisał(a):
> > > >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > Dariusz,
> > > >
> > > > ​T​
> > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
> > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system
> > for
> > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> Internet.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > open/public
> > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
> > > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> > >
> > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
> > > across projects.
> > >
> > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
> Board
> > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> > >
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
> 2015–2016
> > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which
> > board
> > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question
> by
> > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> > >
> > > Good night!
> > >
> > > Dj
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Yes. Finally, a voice of reason.

On 8 January 2015 at 08:07, mcc99 mc...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Dear fellow Wikipedia devotees,

 While I'm new to this list, I've been an avid fan and proponent of
 Wikipedia and all the great service it gives people since it launched.
 People can learn not just all the basics of nearly any topic imaginable,
 but for a large number, readers can with diligence become expert on more
 than a few and save themselves the cost of tuition/training.  All this, in
 addition to satisfying their curiosity about millions of subjects.

 That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long
 as it's relevant and factual.  Unlike the published, single-authority
 edited encyclopediae of the past, Wikipedia allows anyone with relevant
 information to contribute to it.  Their additions or other edits are
 checked by volunteers to make sure the edit isn't a defacement, irrelevant,
 patently unfactual, or unverifiable.  They are typically left as written or
 maybe edited only for grammar/spelling.  Wikipedia is a rare success story
 in democracy of knowledge.  If one feels moved to contribute, they do.  If
 not, they don't.  It's like voting in a sense, though it's true people in
 democracies should perhaps take the opportunity to do so more often.  But
 it's up to them.

 Like voting or anything else, to single out a particular group of people
 based on their indelible characteristics as being desirable as contributors
 to any field implicitly devalues the contributions not just of those
 currently contributing who don't fall into that category, but also says to
 any other group of a particular identity that you care more about the group
 you're trying to get more involvement from than them.  Identity politics
 is unfortunately a fact of our current political climate and I hope one day
 we can, as MLK Jr. hoped, judge one another not by skin color (and I'd add
 gender, sexuality, and a few others), but by content of character.  In the
 context of Wikipedia, this would translate to the veracity and
 applicability of contributions made to the vast Wikipedia knowledge-base --
 not who in particular is doing the contributing, nor their indelible
 characteristics of person.

 Because identity politics is today part of general electoral politics
 doesn't mean it need be for anything else, and especially given how such
 things as a person's ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., say nothing about
 what they know about or can do, I don't see how it's relevant to the
 veracity and applicability of Wikipedia's knowledge base.  I don't care
 that, for example, a black person (Charles Drew, MD) came up with the
 process of creating blood plasma, an innovation that has saved millions of
 lives.  He was tragically and mortally injured in a car accident, however,
 and so his potential future achievements were lost to humanity.  (He was
 not refused treatment for his injuries at the hospital he was taken to
 because of his ethnicity, as is widely but falsely believed; he was just so
 badly injured that he died.  See
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Drew#Death ).  I also don't care
 that Adm Grace Hopper (USN) wad female, only that she wrote the first
 computer language compiler so programmers of lesser brain power than her
 (such as myself) could go on to program computers without struggling with
 binary switches and punch cards.  Her contributions were what was
 important, not her gender, skin color, or anything else as far as her
 professional achievements go.

 If you ask any RN the names of the greatest contributors to the nursing
 profession, you'll get a stream of women's names.  To suggest that nursing
 needs more men or else it won't be able to achieve its greatest potential
 would be a crass and inaccurate insult to the many thousands of women who
 have made modern nursing what it is.  Of course there have been and will be
 male nurses who stand out as contributors, but only a very small
 percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio of men to women in nursing.
 And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any
 gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men into nursing?  If so, it'd be news
 to me and many others.  But I ask, if men by and large, for whatever
 reasons, aren't interested in becoming nurses, why make a big deal about
 it?  Are there gov't-sponsored campaigns to get more women into the
 relatively lucrative job of refuse collection?  Or, the likewise lucrative
 jobs of plumber, ordnance disposal engineer, nuclear materials technician,
 etc.?  No.  But other fields that are a lot less dirty and/or dangerous,
 yes.  (Think professional STEM fields.)  This isn't by accident, nor is the
 fact that the nursing profession with its high salaries (for RNs, anyway)
 is in no hurry to recruit men simply because they're men.  But why should
 they?  That one receives care from a female vs. male nurse isn't relevant.
 To trumpet a need for men in nursing minimizes the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

A slight tangent: I did a quick Google search to try and refresh my memory
about the Wikipedia Forever thing, and these were the results:
http://imgur.com/7AU8kTp.

I think it's more than worrying that many of the results have the
fundraising message as a summary.

Cheers,

Michel

On 4 December 2014 at 23:40, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:

 I think this discussion and the uproar is only in part because of the
 wordings used, the size of the banners (which are maybe terrible, and I get
 exhausted from seeing the banner all year round because I have bad luck to
 be in so many test groups somehow). A big chunk is about the usual:
 communication. Somehow we seem to be unable to set up a communication
 workflow where the community feels that they have been involved in the
 process. That they have been able to contribute ideas, thoughts,
 improvements.

 Life is not all about A/B testing and success rates. Keeping Wikipedia up
 is not just about getting enough money as quickly as possible. It is much
 more about growing the community, and involving it - using its strengths
 and diversity on as many places as possible. And somehow, in the field of
 fundraiser and everything surrounding that there seems to be a lot to be
 improved.

 I don't agree things can't get better. After the Wikipedia Forever drama,
 things did get better. Communication was improved a lot, and both chapters
 and individuals were actively involved. Unfortunately, it seems that it has
 gotten worse since. I would appreciate efforts to improve this again.And
 that has to be more than just asking suggestions for more A/B testing. It
 may cost more work in the short run, but I sincerely believe that in the
 long run, it is worth it: better results, more creativity and less
 frustration.

 Best,
 Lodewijk

 On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:20 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
  team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
  running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
  concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
  financial health and future.
 
  Some perspective from my role as a trustee:
  One section of our recent board meeting was spent discussing the
  fundraising trends that Lila refers to, and thinking about the
  longer-term future of fundraising on our projects. These trends
  include: on-site page views are dramatically down over the past two
  years in the US  Europe, where the majority of our revenue is raised.
  At the same time, there are challenges with fundraising in many of the
  places where readership is growing. Additionally, of course we want
  and need a strong financial basis for the projects over the long-term
  -- not only to keep the lights on but also to build better
  infrastructure (ranging from current contributor-supporting projects
  -- see the recent product survey -- to making the software easier on
  new editors).
 
  And, of course, fundraising is only one small supporting piece of the
  overall picture -- so we discussed how shifting patterns in Wikimedia
  project consumption, ranging from mobile to Google knowledge graph
  type products, might affect our mission long-term.
 
  Given all this context, in our meeting the board discussed whether we
  should try to raise more money now to build our long-term reserves
  (which I personally think is wise, given current trends). We also
  discussed and deeply appreciate the delicate balance that fundraising
  has: yes, we can raise more by running more banners, but at what cost?
  I should note that the board didn't set new targets in this meeting.
  But we did express our support and thanks for the fundraising team's
  efforts, which have been remarkable at making sure that our projects
  are funded by a world-wide group of independent readers.
 
  One side note about the evolution of fundraising in Wikimedia that I
  think is worth noting is that the overall length of the fundraiser has
  shrunk dramatically in the last 7-8 years -- from a month at 100% in
  2006 to a targeted 2 weeks (or less) today. Individual readers see
  many fewer banner impressions now than they used to.
 
  Personally, I think readers should worry about Wikipedia. We are a
  nonprofit that exists because of the labor of volunteers. Our readers
  who rely on our work and don't think much about how it gets on their
  screens should recognize that what we do isn't guaranteed in
  perpetuity -- it all depends on help, support and work from our global
  community. If that knowledge motivates people to contribute,
  fantastic. If contributing means donating 3$, great. And if it means
  becoming an editor: even better. Let's all work towards that.
 
  -- Phoebe
 
 
 
  On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
   Lila - thank you for this thoughtful update.  Fundraising trends and
 data
   are always 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Issue on Dutch Wikipedia in relation to BLP violating images

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Quick and easy: don't bother with the Dutch Wikipedia. It is one of the
more toxic environments on the internet. :)

On 28 November 2014 at 14:47, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:

 It is with some degree of sadness that I have to bring this to
 wikimedia-l, but it's something that has to be done I am afraid

 In December 2011, I dealt with an OTRS complaint by an individual
 relating to a photograph of her which was being used in her articles
 on Wikipedia. She was not happy with the image.

 Inline with the WMF Resolution dealing with images of living
 people,[1] I followed: Treat any person who has a complaint about
 images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness,
 and respect, and encourage others to do the same.

 The image[2] was removed from the article and replaced with another
 suitable image. The subject also provided another image via OTRS.[3]

 Fast forward to November 2014, and on Dutch Wikipedia an editor known
 as EvilFreD performed what is known as BTNI reverts over numerous of
 my edits going back several years. It's one of the most pathetic
 policies on any project, which basically says that with no thought on
 how poor an image is, it should never be replaced without two months
 of mindless discussion.[4]

 EvilFreD has left a message on my talk page and I responded to him
 informing him of the complaint about this image.[5] After my revert
 noting BLP, another admin, MoiraMoira has left a message on my talk
 page.[6] Given the timeframe (2 minutes) it is possible she didn't see
 it, so I asked her to please look at the above note to EvilFreD. Her
 response: Hello, I'm very clear here: this is the Dutch wikipedia.
 And there is no space to troll or challenge other people. If you
 continue this behaviour, a timeout will follow. You should know
 better. 

 My removal, because Moira refused to do so, is met with one of the
 most pathetic, trollish comments I have seen;[7] an insistence that I
 speak in Dutch, not English. MoiraMoira then immediately protects the
 article.

 Is this treating people who complaints about themselves with kindness
 and respect? Or is there something else going on on Dutch Wikipedia
 that I don't care to know about? It's not the first time I have met
 such resistance for the removal of problematic images on Dutch
 Wikipedia, as was demonstrated here.[8][9]

 Given the trollish nature of comments directed towards myself, and the
 threats of blocks by MoiraMoira if I dare to challenge them on this
 issue, would someone who has the patience to deal with such behaviour
 please intervene and deal with this issue. Be mindful, you will need
 to speak Dutch, and will also be willing to divulge private
 information from OTRS in order to satisfy the people on this project.

 Also, please note, that in discussion with the subject she was fine in
 having the image kept on Commons, but didn't want it used in her
 article in the infobox. I think this is the least we can do for
 article subjects on our projects.

 Regards

 Russavia

 [1]
 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
 [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justine_bateman_7-10-2007.jpg
 [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justine_Bateman_NYC.jpg
 [4] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BTNI
 [5] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Russavia#BTNI
 [6]
 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Russavia#Bewerkingsoorlog
 [7]
 https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justine_Batemandiff=42577573oldid=42577394
 [8]
 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Russavia#Image_on_Prostitutie_in_Thailand
 [9]
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:9.000919_Pattaya_streetscene5.jpg

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 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
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] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

On 10 January 2014 20:12, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.comwrote:

 I very much agree with this. Currently we just don't have the manpower to
 explain to 'the corporate world' in an understanding and clear fashion that
 what they are trying to do is *all wrong*, and what it is they *can*
 actually do. As long as corporate spam outnumbers well-meaning Wikipedians
 who are willing to invest time and effort in explaining by roughly a factor
 1 : 10, there is little we can do.


Or, as is the case on the Dutch-language Wikipedia; as long as hardcore
anti-anything-to-do-with-corporate-whatever Wikipedians can outgun
well-meaning Wikipedians who are willing to invest time and effort in
creating and maintaining content about corporate entities in the equivalent
of AfD, there is little we can do.

Michel
___
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] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/

--
Michel Vuijlsteke
http://blog.zog.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

On 25 July 2012 22:04, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:

 On 25 July 2012 21:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

  (This is why I'm so disappointed the mobile app doesn't do editing,
  for example. Or, indeed, some way to take a photo and quickly add it
  to an article.)
 
 Yes.

 We also need to be understanding of the 99% - the ones who just want to
 read.

 Our interface should suit the reader - with a prominent prompt to edit.
 Which once clicked opens things up into the world of editing Wikipedia.

 But if you don't click that prompt then you don't get useless fluff to
 distract you.

 This all ties back to my view that we don't think of the average reader
 enough :)


I totally agree.
With the one caveat that it's both tempting and dangerous to speak of or
design for the average reader.

The average car driver, as the joke goes, wants a car that's fast and
flashy, and comfortable and safe, with a large trunk and room for kids,
that looks sexy, gets great mileage and does 0-90 in however few seconds is
impressive enough. And then you end up with The Homer (
http://imgur.com/PO22S) -- a car that should in theory be everything for
everyone, but in fact is nothing for no-one. :)

And that's why interaction designers develop personas and write scenarios
of use, do mock-ups and prototypes, etc. etc.

Michel
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

On 14 July 2012 19:13, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote:


 And I don't think Wikipedia is ugly or lacks user friendliness, which
 is the premise of this article.  And I speak from a reader's point of
 view.


In the words of a far wiser man than you or me: Yeah, well, you know,
that's just, like, your opinion, man. :)

For one thing, Wikipedia is *objectively* ugly, typography and design wise.
It is hard to read -- and that's not talking about the content, it's just
about the form. Sue, you'll get people saying that it's all a matter of
opinion, but the thing is: it's not.

We've been at this laying things out and making readable pages thing
for a couple of centuries now, and there's no dark magic involved.

(Quite apart from the main point, that we make it hard for people to engage
with the content, i.e. edit pages and add stuff.)

And we may want to consider if it is really _everyone_ we want
 to edit our articles.


I don't believe you actually said this.

Michel Vuijlsteke
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

On 14 July 2012 23:48, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:

 I really really don't get all this talk about Wikipedia being ugly.
 To me it's a great example of how text really can move from markup to
 a well-laid-out website with a coherent design philosophy. Wikipedia
 generates results which adapt to window size very gracefully without
 taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the center
 of the page in a fixed size.


Okay, ugly was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.

Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague well yeah,
that's your word against mine way, but in an objectively scientifically
measurable way.

What Wikipedia does is not really adapting gracefully. It's adding a
padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans the
entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left panel).

There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before it
becomes hard to read.

What you're calling a cop-out is not a cop-out at all. The ads, well,
they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills, but
increasing the number of characters per line in the text column would *not*
make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is about
just right. Here, take the test yourself.

This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly: http://imgur.com/sH3HJ

Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (http://evernote.com/clearly/)
version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger font. *
Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line. Margins.
Leading. Kerning.

It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on Wikipedia. :)

Michel
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?

Michel

On 15 July 2012 01:46, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:

 Maybe if we ran a competition for designers to redesign the wikipedia
 mainpage?

 Richard Symonds
 Wikimedia UK
 0207 065 0992
 Disclaimer viewable at
 http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
 Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk



 On 14 July 2012 19:24, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

  I do think the Wikimedia sites look dated, and very male, too.
 
  One example I always think of when this issue comes up is Wikifashion:
 
  http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page
 
  I would love for Wikipedia to have optional skins like that, made by
  graphic designers, just like you can have all sorts of bells and whistles
  for your browser.
 
  Commons is another project that has a very clunky look. I mean, look at
  that main page. This is an image hosting project, for Christ's sake. I
  discussed this with Magnus Manske a few weeks ago at a meet-up, and he
  showed me how Flickr offers people ways to explore their new content,
 like
  this for example, showcasing recent uploads:
 
  http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
  http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2012/07/
 
  Here is Pinterest, which also has a real-time format visualising a flow
 of
  images:
 
  http://pinterest.com/
 
  These sites are beautiful to look at. If Commons were properly designed,
  its front end would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would show
  off its new images.
 
 
  On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org
  wrote:
 
   On 14 July 2012 23:48, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  
I really really don't get all this talk about Wikipedia being ugly.
To me it's a great example of how text really can move from markup to
a well-laid-out website with a coherent design philosophy. Wikipedia
generates results which adapt to window size very gracefully without
taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the center
of the page in a fixed size.
   
  
   Okay, ugly was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.
  
   Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
   reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague well
 yeah,
   that's your word against mine way, but in an objectively
 scientifically
   measurable way.
  
   What Wikipedia does is not really adapting gracefully. It's adding a
   padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans
 the
   entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left
 panel).
  
   There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before it
   becomes hard to read.
  
   What you're calling a cop-out is not a cop-out at all. The ads, well,
   they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills, but
   increasing the number of characters per line in the text column would
  *not*
   make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is about
   just right. Here, take the test yourself.
  
   This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
   This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
   And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly:
   http://imgur.com/sH3HJ
  
   Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (http://evernote.com/clearly/
 )
   version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger
 font.
  *
   Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line.
 Margins.
   Leading. Kerning.
  
   It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on
 Wikipedia.
  :)
  
   Michel
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FSF Blocked by MS Net nanny software

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

I didn't really mind it -- a fun reminder some people still live in the
Micro$haft Winbl0ws 1990s. :)

Michel

On 25 June 2012 06:21, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:

 And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List?

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l