Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 7/31/2013 3:31 PM, Nathan wrote: And another thought - you know what unites most of the other companies represented by the logos in that image? Leaks have confirmed that most of them are the subject of secret orders to turn over huge amounts of raw data to the government. They are all bound to secrecy by law, so without permission none of them are permitted to describe or disclose the nature or extent of the data demands the U.S. government has made. Now if you imagine the puzzle globe on that slide implies that Wikipedia traffic is retained for intelligence analysis, it's a short hop to assume that the Wikimedia Foundation is also the subject of a blanket order transferring its server logs to the NSA. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Twitter, yes. But mail.ru? The shift from most to all in the first paragraph may make it easy to assume the similarity is universal, but it's ignoring the full context. That kind of rhetorical shift is a favorite trick of conspiracy theorists, it's how they get you to make those short hops to unwarranted conclusions. --Michael Snow It's hardly a conspiracy theory. Given the differences between mail.ru and Wikipedia, I should think it would be clear why one might be subject to a direct demand for transferring data while the other is not. If anything, I think it's more reasonable to assume that Wikipedia (which shares many features with Google, Yahoo, Twitter, Facebook and other social networks) has been the subject of this kind of demand than that it hasn't. No one with direct knowledge would be able to do anything other than deny it, but we can easily see why data held by Wikipedia (including partially anonymized e-mails, file uploads, talk page communication, etc.) would be of interest to intelligence agencies. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: I realize this was brought up a couple of weeks ago and I apologize for the late response on this, but it was just recently brought to my attention that the VE opt-out was intended to be only temporary. Firstly: Currently, as per the overwhelming consensus on en.wikipedia at least, VE needs to be opt-in, not opt-out. It's not even stable or usable to the beta stage, but it might be ready for some early user tests. Even beta testing, however, should only be opt-in. Opt-out should only occur once the product is feature-complete and has no (yes, zero) known major flaws or incomplete features. That means it should be capable of making -any- edit to -any- page, and in the manner that its user would want it to, including parsing, not no-wiki'ing, of wikimarkup, as the community has clearly stated. That aside, it's now come to my attention that the opt-out is meant to last only until the project is out of beta. There are some problems with this. First, your (and by your, I specifically mean the project managers) judgment on project readiness is obviously way off. VE isn't even -in- beta. It's not feature-complete, it's not ready, and it's got massive numbers of known bugs. It could be barely described as ready for alpha. Yet it's being treated as release-ready, such as being released as the default for most users. That calls into serious question the judgment of the project managers on this project. I, and many others, do not trust you to properly determine when this project should be released, as you've already made a hugely premature release of software that wasn't even near ready. Secondly, even if VE worked perfectly, some editors will never be interested in using it. An opt-out clarifies that the development team recognizes a significant group of those editors exists, and will ensure their wishes are respected. Some editors will just want raw-text editing, some will be running bots or scripts that depend on it, some just won't want to change, some will be doing tasks VE has been explicitly noted not to support. All must be respected, and raw editing must remain supported, not be squashed by yet another heavy-handed gesture from the same team that's already made far too many of those. I don't want to hear, in a year or two It works great! Source editing is deprecated and we'll be removing it soon!. And believe me, many of us, me included, expect just that, absent a firm commitment. Thirdly, a confirmation that VE will always include opt-out will clearly notify editors not interested in using it that it will always remain optional, and that source editing will remain supported. Currently, given the ram it through approach by WMF and its technical staff, such trust is severely eroded. A clear statement that You may always opt out of VE would go a long way toward rebuilding it, while You may only opt out while we say you can further erodes that already damaged trust. Please make a clear statement that VE will always have an officially supported opt-out for editors who would like to use it, not only during beta. Regards, Todd Allen This went into my spam-folder, along with other posts to Wikimedia-related lists lately. One quick comment on the content of Todd's e-mail - making VE opt-out is not synonymous with preserving the option to edit in raw text. If I understand correctly, the Edit source button (which is not the opt out) is going to remain. That means any editor, independent of VE status, retains the option to edit in the traditional manner. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Communication plans for community engagement
You argued that a North American bias, or differences between American culture and that of Europe and elsewhere, might be part of the problem in why the VE is getting a backlash on projects for European languages. I'll take on faith that anti-Americanism doesn't explain why you jump to this conclusion when there are many that make more sense, but how do you explain then the fact that the English Wikipedia (which, presumably, has a similar North American bias) is having a very similar reaction as the Dutch? I just think this resort to it must be cultural differences between Americans and those of us from the Continent is an intellectual cop out, a way of blaming without finding actual root causes or contributing to a constructive solution. Systemic biases do exist, and culture clashes do occur, but we should not jump to them as an explanation without exploring other factors. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] An idea that may improve Wikipedia's fundraising
YMMV, but I'd prefer if the solid value returned from my donation went to someone in more dire need of it - i.e. if my donation could be used to directly improve access for others who may not enjoy it. Indirectly any donation to Wikimedia fits into the vein of sustaining access to project content, but think of the success enjoyed by charities who drive donations by linking them to the support of individual needy recipients. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: http://feedly.com/k/14WeLcY I wish I was grossly misrepresenting the situation here. If I am, please do set me straight. You're not wrong, but getting the attention of a federal prosecutor would be easier for jaywalking in a National Park. It applies only to extreme situations. Fred I think you misread this, Fred. The case (Craigslist v. 3taps) is a private entity suing another[1] for relief from violations of the CFAA[2], and the article is about a recent ruling in that case.[3] The Wikimedia analog might be the WMF suing Grawp (or similar) for repeated violations of technological barriers (and other means) of revoking access to the site. The ruling seems to establish that Wikimedia is entitled to legally revoke access on a case by case basis, and that an IP ban is a sufficient technological barrier to meet the standard. At least that is the apparent state of the law in the Northern District of California, which incidentally includes San Francisco (and the WMF). [1]: http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/100933709?extension=pdffrom=embed [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act [3]: http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-Denying-Renewed-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 21, 2013 8:56 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: The account and/or underlying IP is blocked. That is the technical impediment. The action that is now a federal offense, it seems, is to defy the warning, by circumventing the block by changing IP and/or account to do what you were told not to do on the warning. Technicalities aside if I follow you right then it is a federal offense to edit Wikipedia when you were told not to (eg. banned but _not_ blocked). If that's the case the IP part of the discussion is mainly irrelevant as one does not have to evade a block to violate the ban. The central issue though, that it seems block evasion is a federal offense, is not affected by the difficulty in proving evidence for it. It is the question whether the evasion is a crime that bothers me. [insert meetoo here] g This is actually incorrect, as were some of your comments about the irrelevance of IP blocks in your prior post. Have a look at some of the links I posted earlier in the thread, I think the issues should become more clear. To FT2's comments - it's not actually true that the IP ban, or a cease and desist, have to be specific to a person. In fact in the linked case, they are blanket to a company. I see no particular reason why the same reasoning can't be applied to a school, or a church. A geographic area is probably harder to support. Additionally, we generally give warnings, and block accounts. For the most egregious harassment, the only instances I can see this ever coming into play for Wikimedia, virtually every perpetrator has a long history of blocked user accounts. I think that makes the debate over the personally identifying nature of IPs irrelevant for this discussion. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia blog moving to WordPress.com
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:51 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: Personally i think this is a bad idea, especially with respect to all the nsa discussions. If wmf is not able to host it might be hosted by one of the chapters, or wikinews might accept a new article type blog, what you think? Rupert This is a very good point - we must try to protect logs of visitors to the WMF blog from the inevitably prying eyes of the National Security Agency! And only by self-hosting it will this be effectively accomplished! ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia blog moving to WordPress.com
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Dan Collins en.wp.s...@gmail.com wrote: At least OTRS and mailman belong inside our security bubble of control, where the only people with access are ops and they can be properly secured. The security risk of those applications potentially introducing and attacker to all our data is minimal compared to the much greater risk of placing our user names, passwords, email addresses, and highly private OTRS queues in the hands of a third party including all their technicians, not to mention their security practices that we have no control over. As for the other question. If the nsa sends a letter to WordPress then they can get the email address and IP of someone who posted a post or comment to our blog. Probably the password too. If we host it over SSL then there's no way for them to know even that a given user commented, and if we did SSL right (maybe in another ten years) no one would know whether an IP was anon browsing, a checkuser or oversight, or reading our highly sensitive OTRS queues. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?hp In which it is disclosed that, unsurprisingly, SSL poses no real challenge for the NSA. In any case, I find it hard to imagine a plausible scenario in which the NSA would be interested in a commenter on the WMF blog. (My previous post in this thread was sarcastic, in case that was unclear). ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
Maybe they don't own the images outright from a legal perspective, but certainly ethics (and particularly medical ethics) is moving in the direction of securing permission from the subject of the images before they are used for purposes other than treatment. Documenting this kind of permission in a format like Commons is going to be tough, but that could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by an organization known to pursue permission where feasible. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and assume that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from all 9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient, radiologist, hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders of hospitals in other jurisdictions). Out of the 9 categories of potential copyright holders, we should be able to eliminate patients as they are not an active part of the creation process and there is no transfer of copyright to them. Mathias ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Chirum sundog...@yahoo.com wrote: If it were Art, the copyright would be clearly defined. If it is technical craft in the medical field, such images fall unto another category all together. Any display of such images would need the patient consent to be HIPPA compliant, or other agreement binding. It's just not that simple, unfortunately. HIPAA applies to personally identifying information; I think it'd be easy to argue that the presumption on imagery, devoid of identifying accompanying text, is that it is de facto de-identified and thus exempt from HIPAA scrutiny. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images
I think the question of who owns the copyright is just plain unsettled law. Debating it here isn't going to resolve an issue that is, in the legal realm, unresolved. My own guess is that the organization employing the people performing the imaging likely owns the copyright barring agreements otherwise, but the circumstances vary so much that only an image by image analysis of the legal conditions that apply will resolve ownership for any particular image. But quite apart from the legal issues, there are ethical considerations that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of expediency. While an x-ray or CT or other image may not fall under HIPAA (because it isn't generally personally identifying), it is still an image of a human being who ought to - and in some jurisdictions may by law - have some control over its use. What James Heilman appeared to be seeking was a quick response affirming that x-rays can be used freely without encumbrance by concerns over ownership or permission. Despite his ultimatum that he would take his considerable energy and effort elsewhere, it doesn't seem like he's going to get that from contributors to this thread. That doesn't mean there is no possible solution. If we use images garnered from journals, institutions and repositories with rigorous patient consent rules, and treat those from other sources carefully, I imagine that encyclopedia editors will find an adequate number of images to properly illustrate articles. But that would have to take place under an EDP, and I don't see Commons getting around the issue of ownership until the legal landscape is more settled. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who will host Wikimedia Conference 2014? Bidding process is open!
Simple solution - until someone else volunteers to host the conference, just have it in the same place every year. You can work out distribution of funding independently from where it is actually held. Since WMDE seems to be in the driver seat, having a backup plan of a conference in Germany seems like a smart idea. That might privilege people with easy travel to Germany, but well organized affiliates can always propose a plan to host it elsewhere. It wouldn't be too bad to have a recurring conference in a fixed location. The staff setting it up won't need to overcome issues related to lack of experience, relationships with vendors and venues can be normalized, attendees can depend on the quality and standards of the event, and participants can expect a higher level of content because other potential distractions are eliminated. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo
Doesn't it seem a little unnecessarily confusing to have the same discussion copied, piece by piece, on to two separate talk pages? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo Message-ID
I think saying these two individuals is meant to point up the fact that they aren't representing a bloc or group or organization in the movement; they are individuals. I don't see it as depersonalizing. People should focus on the core debate here, and not get distracted going down every avenue of attack against the WMF that seems slightly plausible. Jones Day is just a major, blue chip law firm with expertise in this area. Calling two people two individuals is not a deeply personal slight. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention
Thanks for the pointer, Tomasz. I made a couple of points I'll reiterate here: 1) Under Secure and Confidential Storage this is a sentence describing how the WMF will share / release the information submitted by volunteers. Part A allows the WMF to disclose the information to third parties with a WMF-approved non-disclosure agreement, without limitation. Part D allows it to disclose the information to third parties to protect the rights and property of the WMF, contractors and employees. Both of these parts need to be substantially tightened, in my opinion, to limit the purpose for which information is disclosed and the circumstances under which any recipient of the information can retain copies. 2) The policy really doesn't make an effort to justify the data retention. Data is retained for three years in case an Arbitration Committee (project undefined, no limitations expressed) needs to see it? Honestly, I'm struggling to understand why any ArbCom would need access to the preserved copy of a government issued ID to begin with. ArbComs are evidently on the need to know list for access to stored IDs? That's concerning. I think the policy needs to make a strong argument for why this type of data retention is necessary and useful, and it needs to consist of more than convenience for the WMF. 3) The process for data destruction is pretty weak. It doesn't mention anything about data that has been shared (nowhere in the document is it discussed how and in what form the data will be shared), the process it describes doesn't currently exist, and it relies on the actions of volunteers. Destroying data at the end of the retention period ought to be a WMF responsibility, assigned to an employee, and treated with the seriousness it deserves. Overall I don't know that the legal team has taken into account the likely reaction of European functionaries in particular; those countries have very popular, and very strict, rules and expectations around the use and retention of private information. Given the conditions set by all the surveillance revelations recently... I'd hate to see an exodus of advanced users on our non-English projects because of this policy. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention
This is directed at the Wikimedia legal team, whom I have cc'd: Even though the pace of contributions to the discussion page of the policy has picked up in the last couple of days, no one from the legal team has commented in about a month. I think it would help the discussion if the legal team would engage while members of the community are also engaged, so that it is truly a discussion and not people talking past each other at different moments in time. Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Hi, I've been aware of this brewing, but can only say that I'm pleased to finally reach the surface. There is no good reason for part of the WMF's budget to be privileged or quarantined from the same scrutiny that the rest of movement spending is subjected to. I therefore urge Sue and the WMF to accept the FDC's proposal in full. Regards, Craig Franklin (personal view only) Except that from both a practical and legal perspective the authority of the FDC comes from the WMF; this is the fundamental problem with having it purport to review the Foundation's spending and activity. If the Foundation's Board disagrees with the FDC decision on funding the WMF, it has not just the option but the legal duty to overrule it. The most likely outcome, then, is that the FDC functions as a rubber stamp for the WMF - perhaps with cosmetic adjustments or changes for appearances sake. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote: As for I, I have totally given up with the idea of preservation of confidential data when the US are somehow involved (if the NSA is already involved in recording German president phone conversations or French diplomatic department communications, who are we to hope that our every steps can be private anyway ?). This bit is extraneous and unnecessary because (a) no one is asking the WMF to hide details from the NSA, who let's agree couldn't care less about that bit of data and (b) anything the NSA is capturing in Germany or France was already quite certainly being captured by the governments of Germany and France (or really, both). That said, I agree with your three main points and think the WMF legal team should consider them very strongly as they bring their failed policy proposal back to the drawing board. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Attention needed for Croatian Wikipedia issue
Hi Dalibor, Could you describe what type of aid you are looking for, and how you think it fits with the overall governing ethos of Wikimedia projects? (For example, if you ask for WMF staff to intervene, would you argue that the WMF can and should intervene in project disputes when one side makes a request?). Thanks, Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hours for VisualEditor
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.orgwrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many
people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by
it.
There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is
unambiguously the first of the day. It makes as much sense to be
hesitant about it as it does wondering whether Jan 1 is part of the
previous year or not*.
-- Marc
* Hint: It's not.
Just a shot in the dark, but maybe Risker asked because she's confused. So,
now you have at last seen someone confused by it! Congrats, and may all
your future demands for citations supporting the personal reactions of
other people be met so easily ;)
___
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] First Wikimedia-related contributor Kickstarter?
A post is live on Gizmodo today about a Commons contributor (Evan-Amos) who takes high quality photos of video game systems and hardware.[1] Towards the end it mentions that Evan started a Kickstarter to fund his efforts to buy and photograph more systems as part of an online museum.[2] Anyone know if this is the first Wikimedia-related Kickstarter campaign, or has it happened before? What do people think about someone raising ~$13k to contribute photos to Commons? How does that fit in the debate about paid editing? To me it has a very different feel than, say, Wiki-PR. But... [1] http://gizmodo.com/how-i-became-gamings-most-popular-and-anonymous-photog-1456749754 [2] http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1699256938/the-vanamo-online-game-museum ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] First Wikimedia-related contributor Kickstarter?
I think this particular campaign seems to be really well structured, which is clearly part of why it has such substantial support. But as a general rule, not all Kickstarters are created equal - yet many attract money regardless. Now that this new trend is kicked off, I'm a little concerned about future efforts to raise money using work on Wikimedia projects as a hook. I'd much prefer to see this kind of stuff get done through grants that responsible organizations administer and monitor, rather than in a sort of free for all with no accountability. It may be worth it to think about some guidelines for when the WMF will intervene against fundraisers using Wikimedia trademarks in future Kickstarter campaigns. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright infringement - The real elephant in the room
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Marco: I agree, we had also issues on the Dutch Wikipedia - these have been around for ages, the English Wikipedia is just less aware of them. Not sure if you meant this how it sounds, but the English Wikipedia community is acutely aware of copyright problems and have undertaken many, many large and complicated cleanup tasks of the sort Marco described. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright infringement - The real elephant in the room
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote: On 11/13/2013 10:39 AM, Nathan wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Marco: I agree, we had also issues on the Dutch Wikipedia - these have been around for ages, the English Wikipedia is just less aware of them. Not sure if you meant this how it sounds, but the English Wikipedia community is acutely aware of copyright problems and have undertaken many, many large and complicated cleanup tasks of the sort Marco described. I think he meant that the English Wikipedia community is less aware of the fact that we face these sorts of large-scale challenges in many other languages as well. In other words, the antecedent to them is issues on the Dutch/Italian/etc. Wikipedia, rather than copyright issues generally. Most people participating in other languages are reasonably aware when major concerns surface from the English Wikipedia; people participating only in English often haven't a clue about the concerns being dealt with in other languages. --Michael Snow That makes sense, thanks for clearing that up for me. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediaindia-l] Fwd: A2K, its lies and irresponsibilities
I feel like there is some context missing from this thread To me it looks like five replies to an e-mail from a few weeks ago that wasn't sent to the list? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 11 wiki
I think it would be better to reformulate it into book format and make it available as an e-book, for free download either directly from Wikimedia or other outlets like iTunes or Amazon. That would be searchable, and I don't know that hosting it in wiki form provides any benefits. Certainly as a wiki it will never be rescued from permanent obscurity. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sep11wiki I think it's disrespectful to solicit contributions towards a memorial website, and then to fail to maintain that memorial website in a searchable format. Today, searching the web for phrases in contributed memorial pages brings up only ancient, presumably unmaintained Wikipedia mirrors, such as these: http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/da/Daniel_Brandhorst http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Daniel_Brandhorst/ In time, those will disappear from the web, as all other copies have done. Thus, relatives of the deceased will have no way to discover that these pages ever existed. In 2007, the September 11 wiki was moved to a non-Wikimedia site, evidently hosted by an individual without the capacity to preserve that content for posterity. It was offline after only 3 years. The data is still on our servers. I propose bringing the wiki back up, in read only mode, and leaving it like that either until such time as there is interest from a non-profit or government organisation in taking over the responsibility of indefinite hosting. It would only take an hour or so of ops work. It could stay like that for decades without needing any further maintenance. -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraiser Launch Today
Hi Megan, quick question - when the campaign goal is hit, will the fundraising campaign return to the low profile version you now run year-round? Or will the banners stay up until a specific ending date? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising: are we trying what we tried on July 30?
If the number of donations and the total amount donated stayed the same, how did the amount of the average donation spike by a factor of 10? Looks like a data glitch, not some special strategy. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:39 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: I'm still very interested in July 30, when average donations peaked; Ref.: http://i.imgur.com/3oXk7jq.png What could have caused that? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method
I'm a little skeptical about the charitable nature of Bitpay's offer to hold funds for the WMF. It doesn't help that they refer to Wikipedia's bank accounts, but in the absence of other evidence I suspect that Bitpay is taking advantage of the volatility of Bitcoin exchange rates to profit from the delay between receiving Bitcoin transactions and forwarding dollar donations. That assumes that they are, in fact, forwarding donations at all. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Matthew Walker mwal...@wikimedia.orgwrote: That assumes that [Bitpay] are, in fact, forwarding donations at all. We have received some funds from them. ~Matt Walker Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Technology Team Thanks Matt. I'm still concerned that they are offering the service at least partly to profit from the currency spread. That may be true of any potential third party Bitcoin payment processor, at least at this point in the currency's effort to go mainstream. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: In my opinon this whole bitcoin debate is framed incorrectly. The question is not if it should be accepted or not, but which parameters make any currency or payment method acceptable. If I had to name a few, I would say: * less than 10% variation against WOCU (or any other currency basket) last fiscal year * at least 10b USD transaction volume last fiscal year I don't have any preference for or against bitcoin either, but I think any payment method should fulfill certain stability requirements. Once bitcoin or any other currency fullfills those requirements (the ones I have mentioned or others), it should be accepted. Cheers, Micru It'd be simpler to state that the major factor in accepting a new payment type is enabling donors who otherwise might not be able to donate. Adding a currency with a small constituency might make sense, even if the currency is unstable, if it permits donations from supporters in their native currency. Bitcoin isn't native currency for anyone, and anyone who wishes to make a Bitcoin donation could certainly do so using a more standard currency. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2013-14 Round 2 FDC/annual plan grants timeline moved out by a month: proposals due April 1, 2014
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan srik.r...@wikimedia.in wrote: I would like to note that this is highly irregular, biased, and unfair. Last year, Wikimedia India had formally requested for similar concessions during FDC Round 2 of 2012-13 and were denied the same and we had to wait for Round 1 of FDC 2013-14 to make a request for FDC funding. WMF needs to hold itself to the same requirements as it holds us to, at the very least. We do not understand why the date to meet eligibility requirements has been moved to March 15th and for whose benefit that has been done. -- Regards, Srikanth Ramakrishnan Treasurer Wikimedia Chapter [India]. I don't agree. The situations are not similar, and Anasuya's explanation on behalf of the FDC is clear, reasonable and sufficient. It does seem just a tiny bit odd, though, that the announcement was made by a WMF employee instead of a member of the FDC. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Qrpedia domain transfer
Thanks Katherine, I just have a couple of questions if you have a moment... 1) Why did WMUK choose to incorporate a new company to host the qrpedia IP? 2) Who are the officers / trustees of Cultural Outreach Ltd and how are they chosen? 3) Are there already or will there need to be cross agreements between WMF and other Wikimedia entities and Cultural Outreach Ltd? Thanks, Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Fæ faewik+comm...@gmail.com wrote: The URAA is rather more than theoretical. There is more milage in developing a defensive approach for orphan works. Again I think an inclusive discussion on Commons is more useful if anyone intends to progress this. Fae I'm finding it interesting to read this discussion, even though I don't normally scan through discussions on Commons itself. Decentralized discussion is practically hallowed tradition at this point, so I don't see the harm in it. I'm sure anyone reading this thread is fully aware that you believe it should be elsewhere, it is probably unnecessary to remind us again. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
Let's be clear, Russavia - the terms of use bar sockpuppetry, and the cease and desist refers to concealing the identity of the author to deceive the editing community. I don't see that you've accused Sarah of sockpuppetry, so why not cut the bullshit? Thanks for notifying Wiki-PR, by the way, I'm sure everyone on this list really appreciates that. If there's one thing I love about Wikimedia, it's when tendentious and self-righteous barnacles on the community make it a mission to tear down good-hearted and dedicated Wikimedians at the expense of the movement. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, Nathan, please let us cut the bullshit, for I have a pretty low tolerance for it, and I am happy to call you out on it. You are right, I don't see anywhere in Odder's blog or in my posts on this list that Sarah is being accused of sock puppetry. I don't know why you are making this totally irrelevation correlation, or is this you simply trying to run interference? (Very poorly I might add, but certainly a better attempt than Gerard). I suggest that you re-read the cease and desist letter ( https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/ ) at the very top of page 2 you can see in pretty plain English that the WMF has invoked Section 4 of the Terms of Use, in which the WMF makes veiled legal threats of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is showing severe naivety on your part if you think the Wiki-PR case was built around a farm of sockpuppets; that was merely the catalyst for the anti-paid editing crowd to really sink their teeth into the situation -- that should surely be evident from Sue's press release. You must not have read the actual cease and desist letter. I understand, it's several paragraphs, and that level of investigatory work is too burdensome when you are racing to cause maximum drama. To quote a part of the relevant portion This practice, known as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, is expressly prohibited by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. This is supported by the actual text of section 4 of the Terms of Use, which mention sockpuppetry but do not mention paid editing. So the bullshit, to return to the point, is you accusing Sarah of violating the Terms of Use. Even if she did write an article for $300, she did not violate the ToU. Your claim otherwise is meant to be incendiary, and is at a minimum ignorant but much more likely simply dishonest. Your support of Wiki-PR, a group that did indisputably break the ToU and caused hundreds of hours worth of clean up work, proves that whatever motivates you in this thread it certainly isn't the benefit of the Wikimedia movement or any legitimate part of it. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Nathan, I am unable to find a mention of sockpuppetry in the Terms of Use, whether in Section 4 or elsewhere. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use I don't think there could be such a mention, really, given that project policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks. A. The term isn't used, but the behavior is clearly encompassed by the prohibition described in the Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation or Fraud - specifically using the username of another user with the intent to deceive. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
We should thank them for editing using a major banner, a la the fundraiser. I don't know why we do huge fundraising drives but seem to neglect editing drives, even though editing is really the core way for people to donate to Wikimedia. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote: * Nathan wrote: We should thank them for editing using a major banner, a la the fundraiser. I don't know why we do huge fundraising drives but seem to neglect editing drives, even though editing is really the core way for people to donate to Wikimedia. That would make many editors very annoyed and angry and drive them away. I very seriously doubt that is the case, and if they object to efforts to publicly attract new editors to Wikimedia projects... Banners irritate people, but anyone with a sincere interest in contributing to Wikimedia should be able to accept the necessity of maintaining both the financial and human resources of the movement. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch
You know what, I think this outcome is not just disappointing, it's positively astounding. I have a lot that I could say about it, but I can't imagine what the point of saying it could possibly be. Chalk one up for the trolls. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Basic income Wikimedians
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Seb35 seb35wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: If a basic income is implemented somewhere in the world, people will have more time for themselves in mean (probably more partial-time work), so they will have more time to edit the Wikimedia projects, among other possible activities. ~S Even with my basic undergraduate economics knowledge I can see that the economic picture is more complicated than this. Where does the money come from? Will the resulting inflation offset most or all of the value of the basic income? Will the massive increase in government expenditure make the country less competitive? Etc. etc. And anyway as Fae said, this all seems to be fairly far afield from the topic of this list. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users
I think we should just thank everyone, on at least a yearly basis, with a thank you drive similar to what we do for fundraising. It doesn't need to be for a specific edit or tied to any one IP. After the fundraiser hits the goal we usually run it a little with a thank you banner, and if we did that separately and used it to encourage participation by our readers, all the projects should benefit. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Extensive feedback from WMDE to the FDC process
Thanks to WMDE for the thoughtful and very interesting feedback to the FDC. As an observer but not a participant, I found it very helpful in organizing and restating the criticism we've all read about the FDC process. The statement is highly constructive, and I understand why it doesn't get into great detail about proposed changes (that would detract from the overview nature of the statement). The only off note was the declaration that WMDE plans to drive a reworking of the FDC process at a time and place of its choosing, inviting movement entities but not specifically the WMF. It needs to be recalled that the funds available, and the primary channel for gathering those funds, belong to the WMF and are under the sole final authority of the WMF's Board. Dariusz' suggestion for Wikimania makes sense; so would a separate convention for stakeholders organized by the FDC/WMF. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?
There's an article about the debate up from yesterday on Ars: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/wikimedia-considers-supporting-h-264-to-boost-accessibility-content/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?
One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and 6.5 million videos that are explicitly educational. Are we sure focusing on our own base of uploaded videos is the approach best calibrated to serving Wikimedia's mission? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and 6.5 million videos that are explicitly educational. Are we sure focusing on our own base of uploaded videos is the approach best calibrated to serving Wikimedia's mission? Actually it did come up, allow me to reproduce the comment in a vote posted by Brad Patrick (former WMF general counsel): I agree that the dominant file format means we need to be able to comprehend what is ingested. But it is not okay to ingest and spew using that file format if it means we are putting on someone else's intellectual property yoke. Commons' great benefit to the world is no-questions-asked reusability, and I don't want to see it compromised in this fashion, license freebie or otherwise. I'm with User:David Gerardhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard on this. On the whole it is of far less importance to me as there is no guiding principal or idea that WMF is intended to be an *exclusive* repository of anything. Others do nothing but video, and that's great. I want there to be video, *but it is not part of a grant vision to out-YouTube YouTube, or Vimeo, or any other huge site with billions of hours of video*. User:Fuzheadohttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fuzheado is right - we lack the present toolset to be able to address such volumes of video, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.--BradPatrickhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:BradPatrick (talk https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BradPatrick) 14:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Emphasis is mine. I'm sure smart people have debated this before, can anyone point me to it? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure what debate you're referring to. If it's about whether video belongs in Wikipedia, I don't think it's even in question. Wikipedia started in 2001 as all text. It didn't have photos then, we now have photos. It didn't have audio then, we now have audio. It didn't have video then, we now have video (albeit not that much). Video shouldn't need special justification to be a full-fledged part of Wikiepdia's content. More specifically, if growing Commons as a repository for video in the same way it is for images is the best use of Wikimedia resources. I'd think lobbying Google to be more expansive in its license permissions for cc-by YouTube videos, curating existing educational video content, etc. might bear more fruit. Not to say that using video from Commons to illustrate other projects isn't valuable, but hosting millions of videos not used on any projects (as it is with images on Commons) seems like a misuse of time and effort given the far more popular alternatives. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: Ah. Well if you're not even buying into the legitimacy of photos on Commons, I'm not sure there's a way to have a productive discussion about video. -Andrew No, I think the vast repository of images, properly curated, is valuable and useful. But Commons is still pretty close to square one with video, so it seems natural to discuss whether it can fulfill the same role for video content that it does for images, and whether there exists out there enough interested reusers to make large investments worthwhile. Reading the multimedia vision and watching the video answers some of my questions, in that it seems the goal for videos is more limited than it is for images. I don't think it would be of much value to have 100 million videos where only 50,000 are used in another Wikimedia project, but judging by the video presentation that clearly is not the WMF's goal or direction. Some of the comments in the RFC seemed to suggest that as an object and I'm glad that isn't the case. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMIL Board members withdraw from international activities
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: Hi Nathan, Allow me to correct - WMIL is not withdrawing from international activities. For example, WMIL will probably going to be one of the leading chapters supporting WLE, and many others international projects with others chapters. Alongside participating in the ChapConf and Wikimania (although right now it seem like we can't offer scholarships to editors from Israel like recent years). The board only asked, for a temporary period of time, from his members who are active in working groups and others committees, to understand that it's gonna be a hard year for WMIL and we need every help that they can give. Meaning that if before I dedicated my volunteering time 70% for the chapters and 30% for others international committees and for writing blog posts and updates, now I'm going to dedicated 100% of my time to help stabilize my chapter, in order to allow us soon to be back on track and return to our international involvement like before. WMIL is proud to be a leading chapters as part of the Wikimedia movement - and will continue to be one like that also in the future. Hi Itzik, I am glad to hear this clarification of your intent. In your announcement you asked members to minimize time and effort in international involvement and said that the board would, in accordance with the request, resign from international roles. If WMIL plans to continue to encourage some types of international involvement after all, at least in specific projects, that's good. I might be confused, if I were an Israeli chapter member, on what you wanted continued and what you wanted minimized, but I am sure you will have discussions with your members on that if you haven't already. The point remains that the Wikimedia movement has as defining characteristics its international scope and cooperative nature, and asking members to minimize participation is the most severe step against the movement that I have seen a chapter take since chapters were established. It presents very clearly how disillusioned and upset your board is with its $200,000 allocation, because I can't imagine a chapter taking such a decision without very serious deliberation on its role in the movement and the value of the international community. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
differently than the Board has, which perhaps speaks to some miscommunication between the staff and the committees and maybe with the Board liaisons as well. For me in these debates about funding, which often present the staff on one side pushing to reduce the relative power and centrality of chapters on one side and chapter representatives pushing the opposite way on the other side, there is always a little mystery about the role and interests of the people commenting. While some posters point out that they speak in a personal capacity, few offer a disclosure about their personal interests in the funding debate... but I would find it both enlightening and interesting if those expressing opinions about budgets would disclose whether they receive a salary or other financial benefit (including travel, conference fees, etc.) from the WMF. I would like to know, without further research, if someone arguing that chapters should get more money is dependent on a salary drawn from that pool of money. Since the list archives form a public record and not all list subscribers know everyone else, it would be very helpful if posters considered including this kind of a disclosure in posts where it may be meaningful. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.comwrote: Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com a écrit : Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all Chapters. All of us are volunteers. We do not get any salary from Chapters or Foundation. In short, we do the work we do here for free. In our capacity as members, and in order to allow us to fulfill our duties towards the organisations/committees that we are part of and thus towards the Wikimedia movement, we do get some or all of our travel expenses and/or attendance fees for Wikimedia conferences reimbursed out of movement funds (chapters or foundation budgets) insofar as our presence in an official capacity is deemed useful. Hope this clarifies the strange notion you seem to be putting forward of anyone of those of us *speaking in a personal capacity* having any kind of financial benefit. Best, Delphine (Speaking in her capacity as Delphine, you know, the not-a-fish) Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without at all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are anything but sincere, let's take the example of Nicole Ebbers. She of course discloses in her e-mail signature that she is an employee of WMDE, so its clear (though not stated in the form of a disclosure) that her income depends, in part, on WMF funding. It's typical in professional circumstances, at least in my business, to disclose personal conflicts when discussing virtually any topic where the audience would not naturally assume that a conflict exists. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without at all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are anything but sincere, let's take the example of Nicole Ebbers. She of course discloses in her e-mail signature that she is an employee of WMDE, so its clear (though not stated in the form of a disclosure) that her income depends, in part, on WMF funding. It's typical in professional circumstances, at least in my business, to disclose personal conflicts when discussing virtually any topic where the audience would not naturally assume that a conflict exists. Oops, excuse me, I meant Ebber. Sorry for the error! ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Ukraine -- is everyone safe?
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote: Please refrain from using this list for political claims. The purpose of this thread was to know if our WMUA fellows are safe. Thanks, Galileo Vidoni Presidente A. C. Wikimedia Argentina Galileo, that is not the policy of this list. Wishing a safe and healthy life to all Ukrainians during their time of turmoil. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use
Is there a way to incorporate the local policy by reference into the TOU, something like The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all users being paid to contribute follow the disclosure, conflict or related applicable policy on each project where said users contribute.? Might that be a solution to establishing a binding policy with legal weight, without superseding local intentions? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l archives
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: The archives were rebuilt (and then restored up to January) under request of a user who shared private information in February. Old links are not broken and you can normally access the specific volumes: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-February/thread.html Nemo _ Was that done so that anyone who wanted to know precisely which post contained sensitive info would simply need to compare lists of posts between the official archive and the various services that publicly archive the list? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l archives
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.netwrote: Hear that sound? That's the sound of a million data miners working to figure out what juicy bit of info has been redacted. Cheers, Craig Found it: http://bit.ly/1fsZjVI ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Plz ignore again
So the lesson here is that list archives should not be messed with. I don't think that is news, I seem to remember hearing about the havoc potentially caused by selectively editing list archives many years ago and once in awhile ever since. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 February 2014 22:03, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote: We remain convinced that something is fundamentally wrong when its practical result is self-inflicting the highest possible loss of contents. And we remain convinced that there is space for a way more prudent implementation of URAA that prevents deleting educational resources until there is complete copyright information and no legal alternative, which to our understanding (and to our interpretation of WMF's communications) can mean waiting for DMCA takedown notices. This is the essential point of the problem: * Commons has a long-running attitude of absolute copyright paranoia, so that no reuser will ever be put in legal danger. This is extremely unlikely to change, and particularly not with what the Commons community perceive as outside intruders (rather than e.g. its main users) coming in to question it. * Commons policy is, here, being directly damaging to the projects who are its main users. At this point, Commons policy constitutes damage and needs to be worked around. Note that this implies no bad faith or bad actions on the part of Commons admins; just that Commons' aims are increasingly incompatible with the rest of the movement. - d. I was going to just repeat the point that any community that wants a more liberal interpretation of the rules can host its own images, but then I thought through the implications of that... Sure, the individual projects would have more liberty than they do relying on Commons, but if each community hives off its uploading then the meta community no longer benefits from that work. Which led to the thought that hey, what we really need is a meta-project for hosting images that is *explicitly* intended to serve the other projects. We tried this before, right? But maybe this time we make the meta-project a technical implementation without its own community, where local uploads can be toggled to make files globally available without giving some global intermediary the right to turn that toggle off. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Statement for the police about the fundraising?
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Stryn@Wikimedia strynw...@gmail.com wrote: The corrected report seems to be http://www.finlandtimes.fi/national/2014/03/02/5152/Report-submitted-to-police-duly,-says-Wikimedia Regards, *Stryn* Wow, that's one hell of a correction. Good on Finland Times. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] More new editors?
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote: We've tried this before and so far it hasn't worked very well. See results from 2012-13 at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Donor_engagement/Thank_You_campaign Generally speaking, we're moving away from trying to use banners to blast lots of readers with the same messages. That's true in both fundraising (where they've learned to only show someone a donation request 1-2 times) and in editor engagement work. Our next work trying to convert unregistered people to become editors is going to be focusing on targeting anonymous editors, asking them to signup, and teaching them about the benefits of having an account so they can make an informed choice. See draft docs at: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Anonymous_editor_acquisition Steven Are you sure that's not because the banners are poorly suited for what you want to achieve? The create account link is hidden, the fact that the banner is trying to entice you to join and contribute is not obvious, it's content is similar enough to the regular fundraising banners that people accustomed to ignoring the banners won't notice any difference, etc. It seems... obvious that those banners would not ultimately be very effective in converting readers to registered users, but I wouldn't use that as a basis to dismiss the entire idea of outreach campaigns. Certainly the WMF iterated the fundraising presentation many times before finding highly effective methods. So, as has been suggested on this list before (by me, and others), maybe you should run a separate outreach campaign, with actually useful and targeted banners, and not make it an exhausting carry-on of the fundraiser or indistinguishably similar to fundraising banners. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: sarcasm Wow, we've made an entire 1.6k out of bitcoin? This totally seems like the highest-value way to spend our time! Thanks, Bitcoin! I'm sure that the value of these items won't wildly vary in short spaces of time based on things like, oh, your propensity to have banking neophytes host your exchanges and end up shut down. /sarcasm Sounds like an interesting headache for Jimmy's tax accountant! Income tax implications of getting donations in bitcoins, cashing them out and donating them to a tax exempt organization... might be complicated. It's hard to credit that people are still pushing for the WMF to accept Bitcoin payments after the worlds major venue for trading them, the Magic: The Gathering Online Exchange, crashed and disappeared $500m. Obviously not a safe and secure payment modality right now, where is the rush to jump into something so risky? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Erik Moeller wrote: You tend to add a drama factor of 10x to any discussion I've ever seen you participate in, and it gets tiresome after a while. Give it a rest. Why are you making this issue unnecessarily personal, Erik? This isn't about Fae, you, or even Timothy Sandole -- so give it a rest, okay? Tomasz Erik is right, and anyone who regularly reads this list (or especially the WMUK list) knows that he is right. Fae's legitimate points (of which there are many) tend to be obscured by the massively off-putting way in which he makes them. That said, Fae's points (which are really your [Tomasz'] points, and better said by you in the blog post) are perfectly legit. You pointed out a couple of edits where it looks like Sandole was promoting the director of the Belfer Center. While many other edits seem useful and additive, those are concerning and point up the risks generally of paid editors (including WiRs). Sandole's disclosure of his link to the Belfer Center on his userpage does not solve the problem, though it does mostly satisfy the disclosure requirements of the ToU -- as it seems to have been the Belfer Center directing his actions and not the WMF. Since Sandole says he wrote a comprehensive report on his WiR and submitted it to the WMF, when Erik gets that report publicized I'm sure things will become much more clear. Meanwhile, use of an accusatory or interrogatory tone towards WMF employees is probably not helpful, as it rarely is in professional communication. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Setting ticket prices
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:35 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: as i overrun my monthly limit of mails allowed on this list already, and i do not want an unrelated discussion on a public mailing list, this in private: nathan, would you be so kind to invest a little bit more thought into your mails? i pay bandwith for receiving your mails, and thousands of others also. just a couple of questions you might consider answering for yourself before contributing to a discussion about ticket prices on wikimania: * do you edit wikipedia, and how much? * if you do not edit, why? and why you use the time to write emails? and make others read your emails? * do you give money to wikimedia, and how much? * do you write software for wikimedia, and how much? * do you participate in conferences, meetings, and how many? * do you know accounting, and are able to calculate the price of attending? * if paid persons help organizing, this means a conference in UK is much more expensive than say in tansania? * should we host conferences then only in low wage, good connected cities, like mumbai? * if you go, what persons you want to meet there? beggars? subsidized people? not price sensitive people? * if you give money, would you like to attach a string, like only for server operations? * did you ever think that subsidizing people who need is a government business in many countries? * do you think i missed some angles in the above list? i even did a little research before sending this email. if you look at your stats, you write minimum 10-20 mails to the movement every month: * http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Nathan.html * http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/_PowerPosters.html and by writing such emails, you even earn recognition: http://sciencepolice2010.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-wiki-wankers-2-nathan-awrich/ i'd be really glad to see mails from you where i can notice that you put some work into that mail, which helps me to learn new things, get new angles, and progress. and i even would not care if, instead 20, i only have to read 2 a month. best regards and a happy sunday, rupert. Hi Rupert, I've been reading and responding to the list since 2007. I edit the English Wikipedia from time to time, under my name or anonymously, although not nearly as much as I used to... but I remain a believer in and supporter of the Wikimedia movement, and I try to keep current on its progress. Once in awhile I offer my thoughts on one of the mailing lists, and I have donated money in the past (but not since WMF revenue crested into the tens of millions). I do attend conferences, and I am familiar with the principles of accounting. It is true that sometimes I get recognition of the type you link to, where a banned user researched my background, discussed it on his blog, labeled me a psychopath and suggested I be fired from my job. Along with an old threat of a lawsuit from an Italian megamillionaire, I consider such interactions the price of supporting Wikimedia under my real identity. Yet though I have answered your questions, I no more need to justify how I use my time to you than I do to the sciencepolice blogger. If you would prefer not to waste bandwidth on receiving my posts, feel free to filter them out. I won't return the favor, because telling people I disagree with to sit down and shut up just isn't my style. Have a great rest of the weekend yourself, Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Setting ticket prices
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:19 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.comwrote: IMO if Nathan felt that a peaceful and private resolution couldnt or shouldnt be achieved via one-on-one email exchange, I think the appropriate response is to forward it privately to the list admins. Rupert should also have taken his concerns about Nathan to the list admins, or started a public discussion about top posters to Wikimedia lists who have more opinions on mailing lists than contributions to the projects, without directly focusing on a single individual. -- John Vandenberg Sounds like the split here depends on whether you agree with Rupert or not. In any event, points taken and further posts in this thread on this topic are probably unnecessary. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's April Fool's Joke?
Which part do you think is a joke? The same notice is posted on all the proposal forms. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
I agree with Mike Peel on 'maybe' - I think donations from the WMF to non-profit organizations could be great and very useful, but that the WMF should 1) ensure that the donations have a substantial impact (i.e. not $500 to ICRC, where WMF funds would get lost in a sea of other contributors), 2) that donors have a strong track record of management such that the WMF does not find it necessary to oversee how the funds are used (i.e. a donation and not a grant), 3) and that the mission of the organization is linked to the overall mission of the WMF (avoid general good thing advocacy such as is sometimes suggested on this list). I'd also personally support in-kind donations (i.e. dedicate an FTE or portion of an FTE to integration work that benefits a non-profit, or implements a feature that is requested for a specific platform, etc.). Training or consultation provided by a paid employee to a non-profit at no charge would also fall into this category. I don't know that it would be beneficial to have the vetting process be community driven, and I'd like to see the implications for affiliates considered (i.e. does the WMF/FDC have a position on whether affiliates should be redirecting WMF funding to third party non-profits?). ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
Many of the chapters are still in startup mode - a challenge that the WMF should avoid when targeting organizations for sponsorship or donation. Perhaps more saliently, OSM, MariaDB, Internet Archive etc. are not representing the Wikimedia movement, aren't using Wikimedia trademarks, and presumably would receive a much, much smaller portion of their total operating revenue from the WMF than chapters typically expect. All good reasons why the WMF should not treat them in the same manner as Wikimedia chapters, user groups or thematic orgs. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI editing by WMF staff
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: snip In February 2010, either shortly before or during his application for a top level executive position as Chief Community Officer, Zack created[1] a user page with the following content: Mainly, I just fix typos when I come across them. I depend on Wikipedia and I'm happy I can help improve it in at least a small way. That was absolutely false as a description of how User:Wikitedium had operated in the preceding four years. The user account's edits had been almost entirely devoted to expanding content related to Zack Exley and his career. It was a bad decision to create that user page -- specifically, a bad decision for somebody seeking to set the direction for how the Wikimedia Foundation would build its relationship to community. After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more responsibly, yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page, or disclose his connection to it. In my view, another bad decision. And now, close to 24 hours after all this has been brought up, neither Zack, nor anybody at the WMF, has addressed this on the wiki. Now, this is looking to me like a *really* bad decision. snip There is one incorrect fact and one bad faith assumption in what you've written. Zack described his activity on his userpage; you have no way to assume that all of his minor typo fixes were made under the Wikitedium account. Personally, I often don't login when I'm making very minor edits. Moreover, edits summarized as typo actually form a large portion of the Wikitedium account contributions. So wrong all around here, Pete. The incorrect fact, which you have not acknowledged, is your assertion that Zack never disclosed his connection to the other account. I suppose it might be slightly challenging to connect Wikitedium to Zack Exley, rather than the other way around. He did disclose it. While it was two years after he was hired by the WMF, the Wikitedium account was editing at the rate of a handful of edits per year. Incidentally, the Zackexley account has made less than 15 edits ever. You haven't mentioned it on this list, but you actually accused Zack of violating the sockpuppetry policy on his talk page, and you threaten to pursue further action. But the most cursory review of the sockpuppetry policy, which I assume you performed before making an accusation, reveals that even if he had not disclosed the Wikitedium account he would hardly have violated any part of the rules. Perhaps your personal feelings have indeed influenced your behavior here. You may want to reconsider further involvement. Hopefully we can drop discussing Zack and move on to whatever this thread is supposed to be about. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliation in username
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Preferable for the affiliation to be a variable linked to the username. It can then be changed if/when applicable. Is should be possible to link a string of affiliations to a username. User should be able to add affiliations at will but probably should have to request to have them removed Peter - Original Message - From: Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliation in username Do WMF accounts still get the staff usergroup? If so, then the affiliation variable already exists. Building the (WMF) into the username makes the affiliation close to indelible; if it is confined to a usergroup, then the removal of the usergroup hides the previously obvious connection between edit and affiliation. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliation in username
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 04/21/2014 12:07 PM, Nathan wrote: Of the 120 staffers that don't have a staff account, how many have accounts with (WMF) in the username - or accounts at all? I honestly do not know the numbers, though I'd wager most is close to reality - certainly any recent addition to the teams. Ah, interesting. I wonder why its necessary for most or all WMF staffers to have accounts with an explicit WMF affiliation. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliation in username
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:16 PM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 04/21/2014 12:07 PM, Nathan wrote: Of the 120 staffers that don't have a staff account, how many have accounts with (WMF) in the username - or accounts at all? I honestly do not know the numbers, though I'd wager most is close to reality - certainly any recent addition to the teams. Ah, interesting. I wonder why its necessary for most or all WMF staffers to have accounts with an explicit WMF affiliation. Aye, given the nature of our work the vast majority of staff have a staff account of some sort (not everyone uses separate accounts though we strongly encourage them to). In the end almost everyone on staff has a reason, at some point, to edit on a public wiki whether they are HR/Finance ( discussions or postings about FDC proposals/budget publications etc) or technical/community/grant focused. For many that need actually tends to lean towards meta and/or mediawiki only though a fair bit stretch elsewhere on the projects ( engineering and community people especially ). Philippe and I have worked hard to try and make the 'staff' user group as it traditionally stands a very 'as needed' right and so the default is now to give out no rights or smaller, more focused, rights (meta admin, central notice admin, global interface editor etc) that fit their need. ( we ask for a use case for every rights request, you can see most of them here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd5YmhmSzFaZHcsingle=truegid=5output=htmlsysadmin rights aren't on there because they are generally handled by engineering). Overall we don't actually require separate accounts at the moment but I strongly encourage them, I think it behooves everyone to have a clear distinction between 'personal' and 'work' actions and the separate accounts help that significantly. I also think it helps in locking down access if they depart the foundation at some point. James Thanks, that makes sense. After I asked I thought about project specific wikis, meta, wikimediafoundation.org, etc. I do see that any staffer may need access to one or more of these wikis, and with SUL that accounts get propagated across all projects anyway. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The upcoming TOU amendment
Pete's emphasis on transparency, disclosure and an absolutist approach to conflict of interest brings up an interesting issue. Pete is the only Wikipedian I'm aware of to have developed a full time consulting career centered on the English Wikipedia. His Wiki Strategies company has a fairly robust statement of ethics, including assertions that any editing by either himself or his clients will come attached to a conflict of interest warning. The statement is impressive and laudable, although it does not link to any list of projects or clients that an observer might use to see it in action. Still, a very good start, and Pete rightly encourages other entrepreneurs to adopt his standards. But despite some searching, I haven't found any overt disclosures of a relationship between any companies and Wiki Strategies, or any detail about which companies or articles Wiki Strategies have had a hand in guiding. I notice that on his Signpost interview Pete links to the Pixetell article as an example of his work; Pete apparently edited that article at least once several years before disclosing that he had (at one time) a connection with Ontier/Pixetell. While Pete does say that he worked with the company on the article, I don't see where it was made clear that this was in his capacity as a for-profit, paid consultant. The limited disclosure came only after the company was evidently acquired and shut down, and barely 50 edits before he mentions it in the Signpost interview. I'm also a little concerned that Pete created his consulting company in February 2009, prior to his employment by the WMF (which began towards the end of 2009). The announcement of his hiring describes his background in some detail, but does not refer to his consulting business. The consulting business and his employment at the WMF then continued in parallel for two years, and there is no reference on his site, his LinkedIn profile or his userpage that the business was mothballed while he was employed. I don't mean to accuse Pete of doing anything that violated policies on the English Wikipedia, and I'm not aware of any internal policies that might apply. But it does strike me that his userpage is a bit of an advertisement for his business (on it, he links to the Wiki Strategies contact form and invites people to contact him there), and that there is some mystery surrounding the consultancy and its activities. Of course all this serves to support part of Pete's point in his blog post; transparency is tough to successfully mandate, and hardly solves all of the inherent issues surrounding for-profit engagement with Wikimedia content. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement regarding Host for Wikimania 2015
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: No, Aya, I don't think there will be a public report - I don't think it's happened in previous years. I for one would not be happy with making my marking grid public because the bidders didn't know that the marking grids were going to be made public - and for that matter, neither did I! I am also a little worried about being second-guessed by the community at large. Imagine, *for example,* if the jury was split down the middle, with half hating the Mexico bid and half loving it: it could be very damaging for the volunteer team morale to show that not everyone supported them, and it might damage the conference. Perhaps in future it would be a good thing to do... However, I see where you're coming from - it would be good to have feedback on the individual bids for posterity's sake, and to make sure that mistakes or omissions aren't repeated in future... Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Maybe start by releasing the blank grid? Meta has judging criteria, but I don't see a grid. Does the jury bottom line the grid scores and then average them up? Maybe that final score by the jury as a whole could be released to the parties who submitted bids? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: Hi Risker, On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: However, having accepted the validity of the proposal, the FDC does not have the authority to delegate its role. I think you're misunderstanding what has been delegated here. The FDC is asking WMDE to do the 'staff assessment' of the proposals, e.g. here's the one for WMDE from last round: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment This is normally done by the WMF/FDC staff, not by the FDC itself. It's a separate document from the recommendations that the FDC makes each round. None of the role of the FDC itself has been delegated here. The potential problem is straightforward. Look at the FDC recommendation for WMDE in the same round as the staff assessment you linked; they are very similar - same conclusions, even similar or identical language. A little analysis would reveal how often the FDC deviates from staff assessments, perhaps someone has done that already? If the answer is not often, then pointing out that the FDC writes its own recommendations is disingenuous - the staff assessments are clearly quite influential in the final decision. particularly when there are obvious conflicts of interest involved. The lack of recognition of that conflict of interest on the part of the FDC is a very serious matter, and raises doubts about the impartiality of the FDC as a whole. In my personal opinion, WMDE has no more a COI here than the WMF/FDC staff has when they do the staff assessments of the other FDC applications. Remember that WMDE/WMF aren't in direct competition for money from the same pot here. I agree here. In the context of the WMF and WMDE seeking approval for funding from the FDC, staff of both organizations have unavoidable conflicts when performing assessments of the proposals. Obviously in this immediate situation the WMF are not asking for funding approval. But obviously there is the hope that eventually they will be, and it seems likely that the practices established in this round may be carried forward. It's all well and good for your members to step out of the room while discussing certain applications, but with 4 of 9 FDC members being directly affiliated with supplicant groups, your standards for avoidance of conflict of interest need to be significantly stronger. There was good reason for concern that the FDC is becoming a self-dealing group without this delegation of responsibility. I think you're going off on a tangent here, and I don't think there's a big problem with how things are working at the moment with COI handling on the FDC, but I'd be interested to know how you'd strengthen this? This is definitely a tangent, but a real point. The FDC members come from interested parties. Conflict is unavoidable, no matter how careful you are. It's built into the structure of the committee and there may be no superior alternative. The stakeholders want a vote in where the money goes. That's not unreasonable, but there are risks. Mitigating those risks would take serious reform, and I don't see much appetite for that right now. On the subject of consultants performing the staff assessment.. It's not necessary for consultants to be deeply embedded in open access, free software culture or the tech non-profit world. The work to be done is not rocket science. There are many consultants experienced in reviewing grant proposals for non-profits. At worst the assessment would be more quantitative than those of the past; that may be a feature rather than a bug, as it allows the FDC to develop its own qualitative assessment without outsourcing that work. The WMF and the FDC can afford genuine outside help, and the cost is well worth it if it neutralizes many potential sources of future conflict. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] general strategic goals
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:46 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2014-01-31#Strategy_discussion The Board discussed how they will develop the process for the next strategic plan. The Board would like the strategic planning process to involve input from the community, but the exact process should be flexible. Sue advised that the Board should design the process with the next Executive Director. The Board reflected on the process for designing the previous strategic plan, and questions, such as movement roles, which should be addressed in the next plan. The Board agreed that the next strategic plan need not be a five-year plan in the model of the previous strategic plan, but agreed to settle on the plan's form with the next Executive Director. 1. Does anyone contend that the general strategic goals created when the volunteer corps was apparently growing exponentially are no longer appropriate? 2. Is it appropriate to augment current strategic goals which would allow including more content with goals designed to result in more volunteer time for existing and potential volunteers? 3. Do the proposed policy additions listed at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-February/000395.html cover a sufficient extent of such potential goals for additional volunteer time? 4. Is the fact that I proposed such a list the reason that I am now unable to post to the advocacy_advisors list? If not, what is that reason? 5. Is there a more appropriate way to involve the community in making decisions about the Foundation's general strategic goals than offering pairwise comparisons between random selections from a combined list to active community members to produce a ranking for the ED and Board to work from? 6. When creating such a ranking, should the preferences of volunteers with many contributions be weighted more than those with fewer contributions? Can this question be resolved by producing both unweighted and weighted rankings for the ED and Board to discuss? Sincerely, James Salsman Not being the moderator I can't know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say the reason you are moderated on the advocacy list is because you repeatedly (and I mean *repeatedly*) suggest the same actions on multiple lists. There is only so long people will tolerate you grinding the same ax before switching you off, and judging by the replies (and lack thereof) to your posts... there is very little, if any, support for most of your demands. ___ 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] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I want to point out something that stands out to me. This is not an outright contradiction, but it's a puzzling contrast. In an unrelated thread on this email list, Executive Director Sue Gardner recently said: Editorial policies [for WMF staff] are developed, and therefore also best-understood and best-enforced, not by the WMF but by the community. [1] That is the WMF policy as it applies to WMF staff: essentially, no special rules, use your own judgment in interpreting how to best comply with community standards. But here, in the report Sue authored, it seems there is a very different standard for movement partners who seek funding or endorsement from the WMF: In the future, the Wikimedia Foundation will not support or endorse the creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus, regardless of who is initiating or managing the process. [2] Again: this is not a direct contradiction, and it is entirely within the rights of the WMF to apply different standards to its own staff vs. to other organizations. But I do think it deserves some careful consideration, as to *why* such different standards would be appropriate. Decision point #1 in the Belfer Center report is not something that is based in any Wikipedia policy. It does have a basis in the Wikipedian in Residence page on the Outreach Wiki.[3] That is an important page, and I believe many in the movement consider it to have the weight of a formal policy; but I don't. Elevating it from a best practice recommendation to an absolute rule is a significant step, and one that I don't believe should be taken lightly. Hi Pete, Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, and I hope you can clarify for me so that I can follow your position. I don't see the contradiction at all between the two policy-related statements. In the first case, the WMF says that the editorial policies that apply to its employees are promulgated by specific projects and their communities, not the WMF. In the second, it says effectively that the WMF will not sponsor paid editing. The presumption in the first instance is that the WMF already does not pay its employees to edit, so Sue was not referring to paid editing at all. Russavia's question was about editing with a conflict of interest, not payment. I'm not seeing any conflict between those two statements, and the WMF does not appear to me to be applying different standards to others than to itself. In fact, the only time paid editing by an employee has come up as an issue, the employee was quickly dismissed. Perhaps you can explain? ___ 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] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 May 2014 23:14, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: For what it's worth, there was a recent external study of Wikipedia's medical content that came to unflattering results: http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full Osteopaths. Perhaps we could ask the chiropractors and homeopaths what they think too. - d. You misunderstand - these are doctors of osteopathic medicine in the U.S. They are effectively the equivalent of typical medical doctors. The term osteopath as you use it in the UK and elsewhere has a very different meaning here. ___ 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] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I'd like the Foundation to invest in such research, which is why I brought it up here. I cant think of several instances of donors' money being spent on things that to me seemed less supportive of the Foundation's core mission. ___ Perhaps while the UK chapter pursues automated methods of assessment, another chapter can apply for a WMF grant to pursue a more traditional review effort. Maybe Wikimedia DC? I don't think this kind of research is really the WMF's purview; for reasons everyone is familiar with, it's important they remain distant from reviewing and managing content. ___ 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] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I'm a total newb here, and I know the grant system between WMF and the different chapters has been debated in the past. But I have a simple question: if WMF is funding these efforts through grants and the grant money is used to review and/or manage content, wouldn't it be indirectly getting involved with reviewing and managing content? ,Wil Depends on the nature of the grant. In any case I think affiliates are better placed to perform this kind of work anyway, since we'd want it to be done in more than one language and using diverse panels with members from more than just the U.S. But I do think it would be really cool research and the results would certainly be very interesting. It also makes sense as complementary to automated efforts, and then the results of the different methods could be compared to assess effectiveness of the review processes. ___ 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] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I looked at WMF's grant page here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants. I don't see any mention of grants for academic research. Does the WMF give such grants? If not, why not? ,Wil https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/The_use_of_Wikipedia_by_doctors_for_their_information_needs The WMF focuses on submitted grant proposals. The IEG grants cover a pretty wide range of projects, but some of them are research oriented and involve academics and academic institutions. While WMF executives can make a much better judgment of the boundaries of content involvement, there seems to be a substantial difference between agreeing to fund grants and commissioning specific research into a core topic like quality. However, affiliates should have no such concerns. I really hope someone picks up on this kind of project, perhaps I'll suggest it on the Wikimedia DC list or to Wikimedia New England. ___ 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] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I imagine this isn't the first time someone has thrown something like this in to the Wikipedosphere. If so, what did people think? If not, what do you guys think? :) ,Wil I think it sounds a little bit like wikidata.org, with some innovation of potential future applications. ___ 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] Defining impact for Wikimedia programs, grants and evaluation
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Edward Galvez egal...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Hi Pine, Thank you for your bringing this page to our attention and for raising these interesting questions. I would have to agree that the “Program evaluation basics” page is not well-designed and should be revisited. We are actually going to be redesigning the entire evaluation portal soon and this page will likely be revised and included in the new design in some way. We are also continuing to build tools and learning resources (like the learning modules [1]) on evaluation to help explain some of these concepts. I also agree that we need to think more about how we can define “impact” within the context of Wikimedia. Before we can reach a final “impact”, there are different layers of success in terms of outputs and short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes that help to measure success along the way. We have been working on this approach to evaluation—we have developed resources for mapping a program’s theory of change in order to identify measurable outcomes, both near and far. Specifically, logic models are a useful tool for drawing out the steps needed to reach long-term impact and identifying more immediate indicators for evaluation; there is a resource page within the Evaluation portal on logic models [2] and I am working on a learning module that will guide anyone through what a logic model is and how to create one. As far as the term “impact”, it is very jargonistic and can be used in many ways which can be confusing. Since we began last year, we have been working to generate a growing glossary of a shared language around evaluation [3]. That glossary page is more current and inclusive than the original “Program Evaluation basics” page you linked to. Please feel free to discuss this and any other of those terms and definitions there on the portal. Coincidentally, we are asking the community to provide feedback on some of the initial evaluation capacity building efforts our team has engaged in thus far. We’d like to hear feedback on the metrics and methods used so we can continue towards a shared understanding of Wikimedia programs and their impacts. We invite you (or anyone!) to read about the Community Dialogue [4] and join in the discussion on the Evaluation portal Parlor [5]. As always, I’m available for any questions! Best, Edward [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Learning_modules [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/Logic_models [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Library/Glossary [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Parlor/Dialogue [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs_talk:Evaluation_portal/Parlor/Dialogue Interesting exchange, thanks guys. This particular topic needs a great deal of attention - not just because of how crucial it is to measuring success, but also because it has traditionally been both difficult and sensitive. Sue and others have raised questions over the years about how we determine if the various programs run by the WMF and chapters are useful or not, and if so to what degree. The WMF and the Program Evaluation team are just beginning to take steps to answer these questions, and in my opinion much more needs to be invested in this effort. I would like to see compliance with program evaluation standards integrated into every grant of funding drawing on donor funds. To smooth the way for this increased level of scrutiny each grant of any type should include an earmark for just this purpose. Why? Because ultimately we are where we've always been -- with clear knowledge of what impacts matter but difficulty in working out whether anything any movement partner does or has done helps the bottom line. Tens of millions of dollars a year get spent, but most non-core spending would be hard to justify using strict measures of impact. That doesn't mean they don't *have* impact, just that because we don't forcefully ask the questions we don't and can't get the answers. Every project, chapter, grant, initiative and expenditure should be scrutinized with basically the same few questions: 1) Does it add to the quantity and / or quality of content? 2) Does it add readers, either by increasing interest or improving accessibility? 3) Does it add editors? Any major expense, grant request or new initiative should be measured by the answers to these questions, and every answer should be quantifiable to some degree. I would suggest that if the answer to all three is no for any non-core expense, heavy scrutiny should be applied to ensure funds aren't being wasted. The FDC does this to some extent now, although it asks the same questions much more vaguely and in terms of strategic alignment. The logic models are useful tools for thinking through and explaining to an audience the structure and goals of a program, but they are
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 May 2014 00:14, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I did give serious consideration to going and properly categorizing the image, but given the underlying threat from Russavia, and my disinclination to be blocked, I'll leave it to someone who finds the Commons experience less threatening. You perhaps, David? One would think you would see that improvised vibrators would be a much, much more likely search term for that image than electric toothbrush. I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than ridiculously specific subcategories. - d. ___ Come on David, keyword tagging is a bit too Web 2.0. Let's try to stick to realistic expectations only... ___ 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] Commons tagging and/versus categorization
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:16 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: David Gerard wrote: I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than ridiculously specific subcategories. Commons has tags right now: they're called categories. Or is there a distinction you're making? :-) Tim and I discussed this a few weeks ago and I was mostly on your side, but when he asked what would be different, I had difficulty articulating a great response. It seems to really come down to a social problem on Commons. Some Commoners seem to have very specific views of what categories should be for and how they should be constructed and named. But this isn't a technical problem, per se. Poor labeling or other interface design problems (or outright limitations) in MediaWiki may contribute to this problem, but is there a larger technical issue here? It seems to primarily be a social issue, from what I've seen, not a technical issue. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. There are specific features we'd like to have (such as built-in intersections), but is there a fundamental difference between categories and tags? Or perhaps put another way: what are we waiting for, exactly? MZMcBride Sure - ease of use for tagging and the sometimes complex hierarchical nature of categories. Tagging is also common web technology that a large proportion of users should be familiar with. At the moment, I suspect almost all new users to Wikimedia projects find categories difficult to navigate and to apply. There are many other differences off the top of my head, which I'm sure you grasp better than I do, so is there a deeper meaning to your question that I'm missing? ___ 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] Commons tagging and/versus categorization
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:44 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Nathan wrote: Sure - ease of use for tagging and the sometimes complex hierarchical nature of categories. For ease of use (adding and removing), I think most wikis have HotCat (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/HotCat). Is that insufficient? Regarding hierarchy, there's absolutely no technical reason, as far as I'm aware, that categories must be hierarchal. It's certainly an intended feature that categories have subcategories and the capability to be hierarchal (i.e., you can have subcategories), but you can concurrently use categories with a flat structure. Right? Tagging is also common web technology that a large proportion of users should be familiar with. It's a common term, sure. It's been suggested that this may simply be a user interface labeling problem, though. If we renamed Categories at the bottom of the page to Tags, what else needs doing? MZMcBride I know I'm accustomed to the type of interaction that modern keyword tagging provides. Simple Add a tag or just tag, predictable and easy to understand results when you click on the tag, etc. Right now Hotcat isn't (I don't think?) enabled by default, and even the Hotcat interface is sort of clunky and weird. Then when you click on a category you get lists of subcategories, thumbnails of media, and then a mess of links to pages with no organization whatsoever beyond alphabetization. So perhaps the technical difference between cats and tags are not that great, but the larger point that tagging is better rests on the substantial implementation and interface differences between typical tagging and MediaWiki cats. ___ 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] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2014 13:19, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ... 2. Probably not. See http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-registering-a-charity/can-i-register-the-uk-branch-of-an-overseas-charity/ This means that the WMF would need to establish an independent fundraising institution in the UK in order for it to be a registered charity. This would be in exactly the same ways as other global charities successfully manage it under UK law. 3. I'm not sure where the 50% figure came from, but it is incorrect. The correct figure for that year is 69%. For this past quarter, the correct figure is even better, at 80.24%. In addition, our fundraising costs as a percentage of total spend have dropped from 22% to 10%. If anyone wants more information on this, our treasurer is happy to discuss it with them by email. A strange response from WMUK as Russavia included a link to the analysis in his email, so this seems to be a tangent to the issue of the most recent accepted and analysed financial report, showing that more than 50% of funds are spent on non-project activities. Just in case people missed it, the link was https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Proposal_form#Programme_5.E2.80.94Finance The technical way of redefining English words in such a way so that the significant expenses of running trustee board meetings with staff support, or paying for highly expensive lawyers and management consultants as part of governance issues, gets reported as a deliverable open knowledge Wikimedia project, is unhelpful as a way to convince the Wikimedia community, or the WMF, that the UK charity is efficient compared to WMDE or the WMF. Using words this way undermines the value of the reports. As a bizarre example the SORP way of conveniently redefining English words, I could re-employ Jon Davies as a temporary management consultant rather than a permanent employee, even giving him twice the income to take home, and yet this could be reported as a significant increase in the efficiency of the charity, as an expensive line item would move from administration to programme costs. I doubt that many Wikimedians are taken in by this management jargon, as opposed to common sense or plain English use of words. 4. As for the planes - it is indeed fantastic and a good example of how, even where we may disagree, we can still all pull together to do great work for the movement. Speaking personally, it's a shame we don't have something similar for ships! ... On this, we can agree. The Avionics Project represents less than 0.1% of funds handled by the UK charity, yet these volunteer centric and cheap-as-chips projects now represent the significant majority of tangible outcomes for Wikimedia Commons, if one, say, counts the actual number of media files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, rather than soft (so-called narrative) measures, or internal facing measures of success like supporting the Wikimania conference. As for ships, I have uploaded many thousands of historic images of ships to Commons which are highly valued by other unpaid Wikimedia volunteers, however these were not supported by Wikimedia UK due to previous concerns raised about my volunteer uploads from a potential partner institution that might have employed a WIR and might have done something similar. If the charity wishes to extend the project to media such as this, the trustees know how to find me. PS For those unfamiliar with my background, I was previously a trustee of Wikimedia UK and even served time as the Chairman, until I resigned after lots of political unpleasantness. My awareness of WMUK figures comes from that hands-on experience, not so long ago. Fae -- Reading over the linked Meta page, it actually looks like this disagreement over expense ratios might be a misunderstanding. It's at least possible that the performance ratios Richard Nevell reported were misinterpreted as a description of how costs were classified. I looked up the 2013 budget for WMUK[1] and did a rough classification of expense types. I get *£*434,552 in programmatic spending vs. 336,568 in administrative costs. Out of 771,119 in total planned expenditures, the programmatic spending is 53%. That's the inverse of Fae's calculation on the linked meta discussion.[2] Of course, 53% is still quite low and I'm glad to read that the recent quarter has climbed past 80%. In any event, this is only tangentially related. I agree with Max's criticism of the letter as a little less professional and more emotional than I would have expected, particularly given WMUK hasn't participated as a payment processor since 2011. The smart move is to seek a re-evaluation with the next ED, without poisoning the well. I'm sure that the WMUK
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
I'm not against anyone participating in any site that criticizes or mocks Wikipedia or the WMF. But I do get the sense that Wil is jumping into his wife's new territory with both feet, and not necessarily taking the ginger approach to the most controversial issues that have confronted the projects. Wil - the aversion to Wikipediocracy doesn't come from the mocking or trash talking. You haven't experienced the history of that site (and its predecessor) or the regular crowd there. Many of them are perfectly fine. Some of them have done some pretty seriously fucked up things, and some others have made themselves a persistent nuisance for no better reason than that they can. They have certainly exposed some major scandals, and brought insightful commentary to knotty problems. But please understand that those who choose to avoid them aren't simply too thin-skinned to take a critical comment or a bit of strong language. Lastly, standard Internet comment on free speech: Your legal right to free speech is not a protection against criticism or a limit in any other way on what others can say to or about you. ~Nathan ___ 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] Participating on Wikipediocracy
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: And this conversation is getting pretty repetitive, isn't it? Yep! Remember that some of the harsher reactions here have more to do with WR/WO than you. Hope the long string of uniformly negative reactions on the list haven't put you off Wikimedia or participating, though it doesn't look like it has. At least it serves as a good warning and example - this is what Wikimedians are like ;) ___ 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] New Chair of the Supervisory Board – the 14th WMDE General Assembly in retrospect
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Markus Glaser markus.gla...@wikimedia.dewrote: Am 27.05.2014 15:18, schrieb Andy Mabbett: On 26 May 2014 13:38, Tim Moritz Hector tim-moritz.hec...@wikimedia.de wrote: The wording regarding the quorum to hold an exceptional general assembly has been changed from “members” to “active members”. How is active members defined? This is a membership status. Active members can vote and are elegible for any position that requires elections, such as being on the board. This is a status each member can choose freely when they become members (and they can change their status afterwards). If you choose to be a supporting member, you basically choose to support the chapter with your membership fees without wanting to get involved in the politics. The above mentioned change basically makes it way easier to request an extraordinary assembly. Best, Markus The fees are the same for either type of member, 24 euros per year? The changes are interesting. Double the term length of the supervisory board, permit them to be paid expenses, make it much easier to hold a meeting at which bylaws can be changed (by eliminating supporting members in calculating quorum), and allow supporting memberships to be easily terminated. This is in addition to the rule that allows membership applications to be denied without providing a reason. Were the changes enacted because supporting members largely don't attend meetings or participate in chapter activities? What types of expenses do you expect to reimburse, and are there caps already set up? ___ 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] About Wikipedia medical entries
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote: American Osteopathic Association I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the numerous faith-based 'medecine'? -- Marc That issue was discussed before too. From what I remember from it is that what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called Osteopathy in the US, where the UK one is basically voodoo, and the US one a legitimate specialty in medicine (but correct me if I'm wrong) -- Martijn __ You are correct. In the UK osteopathy is a woo woo homeopathic discipline, in the U.S. (where the study was conducted) the training and degree granting processes for osteopathy are equivalent to medical doctors and the two are treated identically. ___ 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] About Wikipedia medical entries
FYI - Here is the previous thread on this list about this study / topic: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/460005?do=post_view_threaded ___ 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] New Chair of the Supervisory Board – the 14th WMDE General Assembly in retrospect
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Markus Glaser markus.gla...@wikimedia.dewrote: Hi Nathan, I put my answers inline. Am 27.05.2014 16:18, schrieb Nathan: The fees are the same for either type of member, 24 euros per year? Yes. Double the term length of the supervisory board, A term length of one year is considered to be very short. At the board workshop in London, e.g., a term length of three years was recommended. It takes some time for a new board member to get familiar with their tasks. permit them to be paid expenses, To be clear about this: we do not have permission to be paid expenses. In order to do so, we would need another resolution by the general assembly, which we do not have and do not aim for. The change in the bylaws was proposed for taxation reasons. It is specially designed to prevent accidential risks to our tax exempt status. make it much easier to hold a meeting at which bylaws can be changed (by eliminating supporting members in calculating quorum), This is about extraordinary assemblies. We do have regular general assemblies where bylaws can be changed twice a year. As we have more than 1 members now (90% of them being supporting members), it is vitually impossible to reach the quorum for an extraordinary assembly. Please also note this change to the bylaws was proposed by a member, not by the board. Were the changes enacted because supporting members largely don't attend meetings or participate in chapter activities? That is the nature of supporting members. Otherwise they'd change their status to be active. In the recent years, we have had a huge increase in the number of supporting members, shifting the ratio between active and supporting members. As I said, roughly 90% do have supporting status. The changes adapt the bylaws to this fact and strengthen the position of the active members. What types of expenses do you expect to reimburse, and are there caps already set up? As I said before: There will be no changes in our expenses. You wrote, you think these changes to be interesting. Is that still the case now? If so, could you be more specific? Interesting, sure. But with your clarifications it all makes sense (with the exception that I don't really understand the reimbursement change, but accept that it will not result in any money changing hands). I did not realize WMDE had 1000 active members! I can imagine a quorum could be difficult to achieve under any circumstances. Thanks Markus. ___ 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] About Wikipedia medical entries
That's a weird content architecture, right there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_physician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_manipulative_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy No redirects listed. On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Amy Vossbrinck avossbri...@wikimedia.orgwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States Osteopaths also have chiropractic training. Take care, Amy On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote: American Osteopathic Association I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the numerous faith-based 'medecine'? -- Marc ___ 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 -- *Amy Vossbrinck* *Executive Assistant to the* *Chief of Finance and Administration, Garfield Byrd* *Wikimedia Foundation* *149 New Montgomery Street* *San Francisco, CA 94105* *415.839.6885 ext 6628* *avossbri...@wikimedia.org avossbri...@wikimedia.org* ___ 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Welcome Rachel diCerbo, Director of Community Engagement
Welcome Rachel! Erik (or someone else), is there a succinct description of the mission of the Community Engagement and Community Advocacy departments, and/or especially a summary of the difference between their roles? Your e-mail from December included some of this information, I'm just curious if it has been codified in a way that would allow an outsider to quickly grok the split. Thanks! ___ 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] A personal note.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago: I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out. Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but I am asserting that it is possible to do so. There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the discussion that includes the comment above: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600 ,Wil Hi Wil, This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus on learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before jumping into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges. To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their channels. Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels prohibit people from publishing logs. It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or suppressed altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good and necessary. In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have made it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the concerns that posters have described. ~Nathan ___ 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Welcome Rachel diCerbo, Director of Community Engagement
Perfect. Thanks as always Philippe for being awesome. ___ 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] A personal note.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: Nathan, I was responding to Lila's note to clarify that I had made the decision to not discuss anything privately with any WMF employee. The IRC discussion was referenced by Fae, so I sent a link to the discussion so everyone could see what he was talking about; I will absolutely stand by my words. I think it's very important for everyone to understand that the WMF is not trying to directly control my communication with the community and with WMF employees. These are all my decisions. Everyone who is encouraging me to stop posting on this thread seem to be the people who were asking for the clarification of my role in the first place. These people seemed to think this matter was urgent and that we shouldn't wait any longer- much less for me to understand the intricacies of those IRC channels- to get clarification. I was not the person to bring up the IRC discussion, but once it was brought up, I don't think many people would disagree that it was appropriate for me to respond with my account. We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss. After all, you could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox, if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly. Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are saying about this list? Are they right? ,Wil I'm way post having posted too much on this subject, so one last brief message and that will be it for me. Wil, I don't think anyone has objected to criticism of Wikimedia or enwp policies on this list (other than over forum selection for certain issues). People *have* objected to your decision to associate with WO, and have attempted to describe to you why they object. Others (including me) have pointed out that your inexperience hampers your power as a critic of internal processes. There are just a long list of things you don't know much about, but that doesn't seem to prevent you from complaining about them in high visibility forums like this list. My advice is to take time away from lists and forums and controversial discussions and just learn and experience the projects. Then come back and join the more meta discussions. I suspect you won't choose to follow that advice, since its been given multiple other times and you haven't yet, but I hope you understand the distinction between suggesting that you listen and learn before you opine and demanding that you piss off and stop posting full stop. I'm doing the former, no one has done the latter. ___ 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] A personal note.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: Wil, Just for the record, hands-off is the best way to describe our approach to wikimedia-l moderation. We (the administrators) sometimes step in when a thread or a poster gets way out of control, but for this list, that bar's set pretty high. The soft post limit that's been pointed out to you exists as a guideline to keep individuals from dominating a conversation, which... yeah, you kind of are, at this point. Nobody wants to take away your ability to defend yourself, but you might want to try limiting the number of things you have to defend all at once. Sorry your experience turned sour. If it's any consolation, we've had way worse. Austin I meant to say this a month or two ago, but... Welcome back, Austin! ___ 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] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sam, If all the steps could happen at the same time, and decisions were made by a single person, then the process could indeed be done in 30 minutes under ideal circumstances (a person being 24/7 online, and all information being available at the time of application). However, currently there are a number of checks and procedural safeguards in place that add to the process and utilize the knowledge and wisdom of the whole AffCom. After taking into account such practicalities as limited and non-overlapping volunteer schedules (i.e. non-work time, non offline time across different time zones) of both the applying group and the group processing the application, a few weeks seem to be the ideal we can aim for at this point without giving up guarantees of due diligence. As a breakdown of this idealised process, see: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/9/97/User_group_process.svg Best regards, Bence P.S.: I myself have argued for the 30 minute recognition process many times, but at the same time understand that the movement relies on the Affcom seal of approval to mean something, which in turn requires a bit deeper due diligence somewhere along the line. Is it necessary for the full committee to weigh in on user group decisions? If you have a relatively straightforward rubric for assessment, couldn't it be completed by a single member of the committee? Given the low weight of consequences anticipated by user groups, you could either permit an individual member to issue a decision on behalf of the group or ask them to distribute the completed rubric for up/down votes by the body. ___ 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] Edit #1 and Challenge #1 - user privacy
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:48 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Lila, My read of the *new* Privacy Policy is that nonpublic emails sent to WMF should remain nonpublic unless the user gives consent to the contrary. The policy states that We may share your information for a particular purpose, if you agree. Otherwise emails are considered personal information and their redistribution is restricted. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#share-to-experiment and https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Access_to_and_release_of_personally_identifiable_information So, please do not take the view that Otherwise, we will consider them public if you do not hear back from someone who has contacted you. The general practice in the community is that emails are considered private by default. Private doesn't mean absolutely private, for example it's common for members of certain committees to circulate emails among themselves, but those emails don't usually get forwarded outside of the group or republished without opt-in permission from the sender. Similarly, WMF may circulate emails internally. User privacy is a big deal in this community. Perhaps you know more about the Privacy Policy than I do, but my understanding is that your announced plans are inconsistent with the current and draft policies. Fortunately, that is easy to fix in this situation. I am glad you have taken an interest in the experiences of new editors. (: Pine Let's not be so quick to criticize; Lila's e-mail is the invitation to participate. By responding to her prompt and not asking for your comments to be private, you agree with the solicitation that the comments be public. ___ 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
