[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results

[Paul J. Weiss]

Chris -

Please don't assume that you speak for the Wikimedia community overall. 
I actually find your email much more objectionable than any of 
Victoria's messages.


I do not see Victoria's emails as undermining the work of WMF, nor of 
WMF's relationship with its volunteers and its partners. I agree with 
Kunal here. It is rare to hear from Board members on this list, 
especially speaking informally or not speaking for the Board as a whole, 
and I very much appreciate Victoria's sharing her thoughts and feelings 
with us. Could she have written in a less antagonistic way? Sure, but so 
could you. Although I disagree with how the Board has handled this 
matter, I actually feel a little better about the Board than I did 
before I read Victoria's emails. So Victoria's message improved at least 
one volunteer's relationship with the Board.


However, I think that your email will likely serve to weaken the 
relationship between the Board and volunteers, because it will likely 
have a chilling effect, making Board members (and WMF staff) less likely 
to want to share their perspectives on this email list.


Paul / Libcub

On 2024-07-22 12:30 AM, Kunal Mehta wrote:

Hi,

On 7/19/24 09:48, Chris Keating wrote:

But you have gone well past the line of communicating your 
reservations about a particular proposal. With these frustrated 
emails, you are now undermining the work of the WMF, and its 
relationship with its own volunteers and its partners. Please stop.


I don't agree with Victoria, but I strongly disagree with this 
contention and request. We don't hear enough from individual board 
members, so I appreciate her for at least explaining herself and 
engaging on this list.


Is there anyone who isn't frustrated at how this process has gone? The 
board being silent and non-responsive to criticism is usually what 
actually undermines the WMF.


-- Kunal / Legoktm
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 
guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 
and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YKT3M4BXQ2FB67UGED3FJYQQTA4CPXSN/

To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/HQNWZUXCKDGFGDSPTIDMTCWCAX4WDMPU/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft

[Paul J. Weiss]

I share many of the same concerns others have raised. However I did want 
to say that I appreciate the time and effort that Nat and Lorenzo put 
into writing the detailed message they sent, and the time and energy it 
will take to read responses and possibly respond to them.


That said, I have a request for the members of the MCDC. If you, 
individually or collectively, feel comfortable doing so, please share 
your thoughts about these issues. If any of you have concerns about 
anonymity/confidentiality because of possible retribution and/or other 
reasons, I would be happy to receive your comments, and post them on 
this email list after removing any information that identifies you, 
other than that you are a member of MCDC. I believe that it is important 
to understand at least 2 differing perspectives on any substantive issue.


One more concern, and this is not specific to today's email: It has 
become almost de rigueur for WMF leadership to send messages they know 
will be controversial on Fridays, often very late in the afternoon for 
US time zones. Professionals use that tactic to reduce and delay 
responses. For me, that is quite inappropriate behavior for WMF 
leadership to engage in. It is disrespectful and insulting, and is 
another sign that leadership does not really care what "the community" 
has to say. I put "the community" in quotation marks because I don't 
think that members of a true community would use that tactic on other 
members of the community.


Paul (Libcub)

On 2024-06-20 7:17 PM, Nataliia Tymkiv wrote:

Dear all,

We are grateful to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) 
members, who have dedicated their time and energy to putting forward 
this final draft of the Movement Charter. They have demonstrated 
tremendous resilience and perseverance in grappling with ways to 
increase our collective sense of belonging as a movement, and 
outlining roles and responsibilities intended to help us all make 
better decisions in steering the Wikimedia movement into the future.


For some, this final draft Charter represents an extension of the 
Movement Strategy process that began in earnest in 2020. There are 
many reflections on this history, some nostalgic and others less so. 
The 2030 strategic direction has guided and continues to guide the 
Wikimedia Foundation’s strategy. As the Foundation’s annual plan this 
year 
 
observed, there is much to celebrate in the collective advancement of 
the original ten movement strategy recommendations 
, 
including shared progress in creating more equitable and decentralised 
decision-making structures.


At the same time, we should all recognise that the world around us has 
shifted significantly since the movement strategy process began, that 
our limited resources require much more pragmatic trade-offs and 
choices, and that the Board has a duty to consider the risk, value, 
cost and benefit of any significant commitments being made to advance 
the mission.


As requested by the MCDC, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 
has, over the last few months, shared with the committee its direct 
feedback on the previous Movement Charter drafts, including its 
perspectives on the Global Council 
 
and its feedback on a previous draft 
 
that we posted publicly. Liaisons have also engaged in regular and 
ongoing meetings with the MCDC members, including inviting the MCDC 
members to all Board meetings and Strategic retreats since June 2022.


Our general observation, which is elaborated in the body of this 
letter, is that the final draft of the Movement Charter *still does 
not address the significant concerns* previously raised by the Board. 
Thus, as liaisons, *our recommendations* to the Wikimedia Foundation 
Board of Trustees are:


  * *not to ratify* the final draft of the Movement Charter *as
proposed; and*
  * *support* the Foundation in developing *concrete, time-bound next
steps* on a more practical scale, allowing us all to *evaluate
progress*, and see what to change or build on.

We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the 
tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not 
be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing 
the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different 
way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides 
us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards 
increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of 
responsibility. We believe this will allow the Foundation, and all

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards on World Press Freedom Day

[Paul J. Weiss]

To me, this award is reaching well beyond the scope of what the 
Wikimedia community should be doing. It does not, to me, align with our 
Movement Strategy's recommendations 
 nor 
their initiatives 
, nor the 
WMF 2023-2024 Annual Plan 
. 
Just because something might be positive for the world or our community 
does not mean we should do such. As a gay man, I appreciate all the 
literature awards for LGBT+ books, but I would not support such an award 
from the WMF or the community. Where would this stop? Is it in scope for 
us to give an award for scientific research? Social justice activism? 
Translation software? These could all be beneficial to our community, 
but I don't think it would be appropriate for us to take on those endeavors.


In addition I am concerned this award will have negative effects on our 
fundraising. I would expect that some donors, if they found out we are 
awarding $3,500 to journalists in no way connected to our wikis, might 
be less likely to donate. I think this kind of thing has happened to 
other non-profits.


We are stretched too thin enough already. I believe that we should stick 
to our core activities, which stem from the documents linked to above.


Thanks,
Paul
User:Libcub

On 2023-05-04 1:47 PM, Olushola Olaniyan wrote:


*Dear all,
*

*
*

*My name is Olushola (User: Olaniyan Olushola). I am from Africa and 
have been a Wikimedia since 2014 and passionate about language. I 
co-lead the Oral History documentation of Nigerian indigenous 
languages ( see more about it **here* 
* ). 
*I am part and parcel of the working group for this Journalism Award. 
Together with other community members and some foundation staff, we 
have co-created the submission guidelines and award criteria, 
including that articles should be English language articles published 
in a major outlet.



Everything regarding the rationale for this award is being done in 
consultation with members of our African communities, aligned with our 
goals to increase exposure for the work we love in the region and 
close knowledge gaps.



One thing to mention is that articles about Africa, especially written 
by journalists with a local perspective, must be better represented in 
our language Wikipedias, including English.



With this being a brand-new initiative, it was the best time to learn.


It is a pilot, and we all see this as an experiment to draw more 
attention to journalists' important role as content creators on 
Wikipedia.



You will agree that we need to celebrate existing journalism 
excellence that helps fill knowledge gaps online.



The working group conferred, and since this is a pilot, we decided 
together that it was a good idea to consider the need to limit the 
scope to collect data and insights easily. We understand the sentiment 
behind language in Africa and beyond, and we always wanted to keep 
everything simple. We know that no language is superior to the other, 
so this is a pilot. From here, we will likely assess the impact we can 
have before scaling.



We wish to expand this initiative with more regional volunteers should 
it succeed - and we hope it will.



We already have more than a hundred entries!


Thank you

Shola


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines 
at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines  
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives 
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UEFHWM4CB5VAQM2IV2UGM65V6FMFYJHQ/
To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BE3PJZB5COV26X5HBY4RFUTFMW7XS35I/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Paul J. Weiss]

To expand on the last part of my previous post, one of the things that
Peter and other posters are doing that is problematic in my eyes is
phrasing their opinions as fact. It is quite clear to me why Dan was put on
moderation. So it is a false statement to say that "this is patently
unclear". I believe that opinion should be stated as such. When I see
opinion being spun as fact, I am less interested in reading the rest of
such a message, and that writer loses credibility in my eyes.

Paul

- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
From: "Peter Southwood" 
Date: 9/11/20 4:20 am
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 

In that case, can we please have an explanation of exactly how the relevant
text was found to be inappropriate, as this is patently unclear, and
apparently the reason for all this debate. I have my own speculation, but as
it is speculation, it would be inappropriate to publicise unless there is no
official explanation.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Asaf Bartov
Sent: 11 September 2020 11:46
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
intention of maintaining a list.

We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.

Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.

As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.

A.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> expressions, and how they are determined?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Anders Wennersten
> Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
> that expression offensive and unacceptable.
>
> Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
> and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
> valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > Please, enlighten me.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> >> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> >> :
> >>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do
I
> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> >> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> _

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Paul J. Weiss]

I for one very much appreciate that the moderators put Dan on moderation. I
support sanctions for insulting and rude behavior. Peter--if you are
looking for exact, quantitative criteria, you aren't going to get it. This
is about impact of communication on the receiver, not specific words used
by the sender. I know that I sometimes come across as being uncivil and/or
disrespectful. I appreciate when someone points out a specific example,
because that provides me an opportunity to change to more civil- and
respectful-sounding communication, which will have a better chance of
succeeding (in whatever the purpose of my communication is).

Many posters seem, like Peter, to want quantitative, legalistic, binary
"right/wrong" guidance. Considering the gender identities "man" and
"woman", this preference is more typical of men than women in "Western"
civilization. Many women (and some men) prefer more qualitative,
contextual, nuanced guidance. (I don't know prevalences for other gender
identities.) I think it is important to understand that our personal
preference is not automatically the preference of others.

Personally, I hope the moderators are considering moderation for several
posters beyond Dan.

Paul

- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
From: "Asaf Bartov" 
Date: 9/11/20 2:46 am
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 

No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
intention of maintaining a list.

We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.

Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.

As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.

A.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> expressions, and how they are determined?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Anders Wennersten
> Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
> that expression offensive and unacceptable.
>
> Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
> and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
> valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > Please, enlighten me.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> >> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> >> :
> >>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do
I
> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> >> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Paul J. Weiss]

"but with more than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to
change the survey now"

This is preposterous and incredibly disrespectful to the community. It is
not methodologically sound to continue a biased survey. If the Board and
WMF truly want a methodologically sound survey, they would immediately stop
the current one, and rewrite a new one, designed with minimal bias. If some
survey asked about ethnicity, and left off "Black/Afican American" as an
option, would you still continue the poorly written survey? As I have said
before, you have staff with survey expertise--use them!

This is yet another sign that those in charge do not truly want to know how
the community feels about the rebranding initiative. Y'all say "Branding
should protect and improve the reputation of the movement". That is
becoming harder and harder to believe. Not stopping a biased survey clearly
damages the reputation of our brand. I wonder if it is time to fork
Wikipedia.

Paul
User:Libcub

At 2020-06-26  04:27 p, you wrote:

Dear all, I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia
Foundation Board of Trustees about the Brand Project. Originally the Board
meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to happen no earlier
than October. The expected outcome from the project were the
recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
August meeting. Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a
briefing about the project and talk about the process between June 2018 -
June 2020. The consolidated materials on what the brand project team has
been working on for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these
materials are also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic
conversation is planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the
materials is needed, and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised,
so the Board can have an in-depth discussion about this, before making any
kind of decision. We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have
discussed the possibility of technical changes to the survey with an
additional option like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind
you), but with more than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound
to change the survey now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses
to the survey will not be calculated as support for a change. The survey
was only designed to collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not
as a yes/no vote on whether to adopt them. Thus the timeline on rebranding
for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows: * Early July - special Board meeting
with the Brand project team to review and discuss the process so far, and
for the Board members to receive the briefing on discussions happening; *
July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be posted
publicly after the meeting; * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming
part of the rebranding, not about the process. The Board will make the
decision about whether to stop, pause, or continue the work on this, within
the framework of a discussion on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs,
and potential next steps. * August (after the meeting) - the Board
statement on the next steps about the Brand project. I also want to
acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming [2] that was
posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position of those of
you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that some would
agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also some who
would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and communication after
them will address the concerns raised in the letter. Stay safe, antanana /
Nataliia Tymkiv Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [1]
https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming *NOTICE:
You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!* ___ Wikimedia-l
mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://met

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative:: Other

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

Other

"We network around our best-known brand to connect the movement together".
That feels like marketing-speak. It is unclear what you are trying to
communicate. I do not think that contributors of non-WP projects want to
"network" around Wikipedia.

The lack of hierarchy in names is detrimental to communication and
understanding of our work.

Paul Weiss
User:Libcub
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: Name of WMF

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

Name of WMF

To me a trust implies one party relegating authority over a resource to a
second party, who is expected to manage it well, and return it at some
point to the first party or a third party. I do not see the WMF's role as
including such as a notion. I also do not think that including "Trust"
makes it any clearer that the WMF is where to go for legal issues. (Also, I
do find it ironic that the proposal suggests incorporating the word "Trust"
in the name of WMF, given how low the community trust in WMF is.)

"Wikimedia Organization" does not sound like the name of something, but
rather a general description of it.

"Wiki" is too generic to refer to WMF projects--there are far too many
other wikis in the world. I have to say I am truly astonished to see this
presented as a legitmate option. Various other wiki communities (such as
those at fandom.com) would be understandably furious with WMF for trying to
co-opt "Wiki" for themselves. How could that possibly not be damaging to
our reputation?

I think "Foundation" is a good word to describe what WMF does.

Paul Weiss
User:Libcub
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia

Our overall community centers around the current Wikimedia concept, not
Wikipedia. Naming the whole from one its parts is ambiguous, confusing, and
disrespectful to non-Wikipedia projects. The majority of the population of
the United States is white, but it would be absolutely preposterous to
rename the country to the White United States of America, even if that is
how people in other countries (and Americans) think of it.

We are not selling a product or service. I think it is _good_ that some
organizations and people do not know about our plethora of projects, as
that gives us an opportunity to talk with them about the other projects. I
believe that changing the name to "Wikipedia" will make it more difficult
to get outsiders to pay attention to non-Wikipedia projects.

I believe that moving to "Wikipedia" will damage our reputation. In
addition to the reasons above, it will likely alienate at least some of
those involved in non-Wikipedia projects. It could turn the community into
the Wikipedia community, as our other projects fade away.

Paul Weiss
User:Libcub
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on the rebranding initiative: "Movement"

[Paul J. Weiss]

[From my comments in the rebranding survey]

"Movement"

Please stop calling us a "movement". I am an active Wikipedia contributor,
but I do not feel part of a movement. Know that I feel excluded when we are
referred to as a movement. I would guess that most Wikimedians do not
consider themselves part of a movement. I feel that I am part of the
Wikimedia _community_.

Note that in the English Wikipedia the title of the relevant article is
indeed "Wikipedia community", _not_ "Wikipedia movement" (which is a
redirect). In fact, the word "movement" does not appear in the main text of
the article at all. "Wikimedia movement" is the title of its article, but
it is described as "the global community of contributors to Wikimedia
Foundation projects". A community of contributors is not the same thing as
a movement. I would say that none of the definitions given in the
Definitions section of the Social movement article apply to us.

One significant problem to using "movement" is that some, including the
WMF, exploit the connotations of the word towards social justice, or a
"greater good", as a rationalization for behaviors that a community might
not support (and in many cases our community has indeed opposed WMF's
behavior). Another is the implication that there is basically a core set of
beliefs and priorities that all those involved support. This is clearly not
the case in the Wikimedia community. I also think there is an assumption
that in a movement, there are institutions that those in the movement
explicitly or implicitly authorize to speak for them. Again, clearly this
is not the case in the Wikimedia community overall.

Paul Weiss
User:Libcub
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Paul J. Weiss]

I share the time concerns that Pine and Todd addressed. But my larger
concern is about the purpose of this next community conversation. You say
that the core team will summarize the community input, and then the
community will have a week to "suggest changes to the posted summary so
that it accurately reflects their viewpoints". So it seems that while
WMF wants to know how the community feels about the upcoming strategy
document, it is not giving the community any say, at this point in the
process, of the content of that document. So then why bother having another
community conversation at this juncture? Why take up so much community time
to develop responses to a document that will a priori not change based on
those responses? That seems to be a textbook case of how to get
dissatisfaction and disillusionment. Although I would prefer for the
community to still have a say in things, if the sense is that the document
really is done, maybe it should just be sent to the BOD now, saving 8 or
more weeks of time.  If the community conversation does go ahead, I think
it is very important to make it very clear what will be and won't be done
with the responses, allowing community members to make informed decisions
about how much time and effort to devote to the conversation. It took a
couple of read-throughs for me to realize that there will be a response
summary and suggestions to that document, but no further round of revision.

Thanks,
Paul


At 2020-01-13  11:46 p, you wrote:

I would tend to agree. This process has been ongoing for many months now,
and the community raised substantial concerns about the initial proposals.
Whether deliberate or not, allowing only a week for discussion of the final
product seems an attempt to ram it through. Surely longer than a week can
be allowed for discussion of such a critical item. Todd On Mon, Jan 13,
2020 at 11:25 PM Pine W  wrote: > Hi Nicole, > > After
reading this email, and taking into consideration a discussion that >
happened during the January online meeting of United States Wikimedians, I
> feel that the timeline here is aggressive and likely to result in
problems. > In particular, giving the core team one week to review feedback
and giving > the community one week to review the core team's summary seem
risky at > best, even if everyone is communicating in English. When taking
into > account the need for translations,my guess is that one week is an >
impossibly short timeframe for quality work in these phases of the strategy
> process. > > I suggesting adding at least one more week to the timeframe
for the core > team to review feedback including translations of comments,
and at least > three more weeks for conversations with the community
regarding the core > team's summary. > > I am concerned that this process
may be heading toward a rushed and chaotic > finish. > > Pine > (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) >
___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list,
guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to:
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
___ Wikimedia-l mailing list,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The wikisites looks like 1996

[Paul J. Weiss]

"I think we all generally endorse incremental improvements, instead
of drastic overhauls."

Um, that is clearly not true, since otherwise, for example, the original
poster would not have sent out his message.

For readers, I think many, if not most, would want a look and feel that
works for them, aesthetically and functionally, regardless of how much a
redesign was evolutionary or revolutionary. Many websites have gone through
major redesigns successfully. (And of course some have been utter
disasters, but many of those disasters came about because of poor design,
not just because the design was a significant departure from the previous
design.)

For WMF wikis with very small editor bases, the degree of change may be
less important than the quality of the change. A meaningful change, however
small or large, may enable that community to recruit new editors who were
previously turned off by wiki syntax (or other) complexities.

As a WP editor myself, I would absolutely welcome a drastically different
design, if it were a great design, that facilitated the editing and reading
activities I want to engage in, and was pleasant to the eye. I welcome each
change, regardless of size, that is an improvement.

One side benefit of a revolutionary design change is that it can make
long-term users reassess their use of a website, sometimes discovering a
"new" feature, which has actually been there all along, nevertheless
creating more engaged users. Another, I imagine, is that often there is a
spike in word-of-mouth surrounding a major redesign, which can also have
positive recruitment effects. A third might be that a drastic redesign
would re-level the playing field, so to speak. New editors might be less
subject to poor conduct from some long-term editors who lord their arcane
wiki knowledge over newbies.

Paul
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Chief of Community Engagement to leave the Foundation

[Paul J. Weiss]

I find the disbanding of the Community Engagement department at WMF to be
quite concerning. I will go so far as to say that I view it as a mistake
that will have negative impacts well into the future.

For one thing, the structure of an organization is in some sense a
statement of priorities. I believe this move does indeed say to employees,
the community, allied organization, and the rest of the world that the WMF
is now placing less value on engaging the community. Given that many in the
community have been feeling this already, this is not an opportune time to
make this transition, even if it were a good idea for other reasons.

Another issue is the specific placement of individual teams. For example,
you say that returning the Trust & Safety team to the Legal department is
intuitive. It certainly is not to me, and that move in particular is
concerning. The team's homepage on Meta states that it "identifies, builds
and – as appropriate – staffs processes which keep our users safe; design,
develop, and execute on a strategy that integrates legal, product,
research, and learning & evaluation to proactively mitigate risk as well as
manage the overall safety of our online and offline communities when
incidents happen." The legal aspect is only one of many in the team's
purview, and hopefully not a large one.

In my experience, units within legal departments take a very legalistic
view of their work. As one example, many colleges and universities have an
office for students with disabilities. In the US, those that are in legal
or policy departments tend to focus very much on doing the minimum they
have to do under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), rather than
being student-centered. (This is the case here at the University of
Washington.) Compare this to the focus of units for women, students of
color, etc., often hierarchically under student services, who are much more
proactive and supportive.

I definitely do not want Trust & Safety to narrow its focus to ensuring
enforcement & reducing liability. As you know, legal but negative behavior
is a significant threat to the future of Wikipedia and sister projects. The
team needs to be organizationally placed to maximize, not minimize, its
access to resources, the community, and other staff as well as its impact.
Placing it in Legal could, for example, decrease significantly contact and
trust from our community members whose experience with laws is that they
are used as weapons and tools to oppress rather than engendering fairness
and cooperation.

Please, please carefully consider the all ramifications of this
reorganization before it is implemented.

Thank you,
Paul Weiss
Libcub on en.wp

- Original Message -
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Chief of Community Engagement
to leave the Foundation
From: 'Katherine Maher' 
Date: 11/15/19 3:36 pm
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' 

Hello everyone,

I am writing to let you know that Val D’Costa, Chief Community Engagement
Officer, is leaving the Wikimedia Foundation. I also want to share some
changes we’re making around how the Foundation organizes staff in the
Community Engagement department.

Val joined us last January, bringing nearly three decades of experience
launching and growing international initiatives in emerging markets. With
the Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy as a guide, Val and her team drafted
an ambitious new vision for the work of Community Engagement—focused on
decentralization of power and resources, safe and welcoming spaces,
equitable collaboration, increased language and cultural fluency, dedicated
programs for groups such as women and young people, and expansive
partnerships in service of free knowledge.

With this vision in hand, Val and I both see this as the right juncture for
her to move on to her next professional challenge. While she will be
leaving the position of Chief of Community Engagement, she will remain on
as a consultant to me for a brief period.

I am deeply appreciative of Val’s time with us at the Foundation and want
to thank her for the contributions she has made to the Wikimedia movement.
She has been a passionate and persuasive advocate for our mission and
pushed us to expand our vision of what could be possible for our movement.
I wish her the absolute best in what she does next.

*== What comes next for Community Engagement ==*

I'll be direct -- we are making changes to the CE department structure.

We will not be starting a search for a new Chief of Community Engagement.
Instead, over the course of the next few weeks, the seven teams currently
within the Community Engagement (CE) department will be integrated into the
Foundation’s other departments. By January, all of the teams will have
joined their new departments, and “Community Engagement” will no longer be
a standalone department.

The teams currently in CE will be integrated with other Foundation
departments aligned with executive leadership goals and based on their
scope and focu