Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimedia Foundation has soft launched!

2018-08-08 Thread Peter Coombe
Hi Lodewijk,

I'm not sure exactly what, if any, other sites this new privacy policy
might cover. However I can confirm that the WMF fundraising infrastructure
remains under the existing Donor Privacy Policy:


Peter Coombe
Fundraising Production Manager
Wikimedia Foundation

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 20:00, Lodewijk  wrote:

> I can imagine that this alternate privacy policy is actually covering a
> wider range of sites that are non-wiki, such as the fundraising
> infrastructure and the survey websites, voting websites etc. Rather than
> having a different privacy policy for each of those instances, I think it
> is actually clearer to have two policies: one for the content delivery (the
> 'wikis') that have practically zero cookie tracking to the best of my
> knowledge and one for the other websites that may require other methods to
> be functional.
> As a sidenote, I think it actually could be a totally fair statement to say
> that is, relative to the content projects, not a
> 'major site' of the WMF. It is supporting infrastructure at best. (no
> offense :) )
> Lodewijk
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 7:23 AM Chico Venancio 
> wrote:
> > Indeed an special watered down privacy policy is strange. It is worth
> > noting that the standard privacy policy[1] does not state that it only
> > applies to "wiki based websites" but instead lists what it does and does
> > not cover[2], the only interpretation that allows a separate policy for
> the
> > new website weirdly leaves*
> > <> as being defined to not be a major
> site
> > of WMF. *
> >
> > Irregardless of possible poor wording of both privacy policies, I find it
> > strange that the main website for WMF has a tracking pixel and forces
> > visitors to provide users' personal information (as defined by either
> > privacy policies) to Google and
> >
> > Perhaps this is something WMF could revisit?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Chico Venancio
> >
> > [1]
> > [2]
> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-08-06 2:06 GMT-03:00 Yair Rand :
> >
> > > There are several more issues I've noticed with the new website:
> > > * According to the notice at the bottom, the company "Automattic Inc."
> is
> > > receiving all sorts of data about all visitors to the site, including
> > > location information, cookie data, data from pixel tags/web beacons
> used
> > to
> > > track visitors and target ads on other WordPress sites, and other data.
> > > * The "non-wiki privacy policy of the Wikimedia Foundation" linked at
> the
> > > bottom is different than the regular privacy policy. Why is this?
> > > * Much of the content is essentially English-Wikipedia-only. "Visit The
> > > Teahouse for a friendly place to learn about editing" Most Wikipedias
> > don't
> > > have teahouses or equivalents.
> > > * In "Wikimedia projects": "Wikipedia - All the world's knowledge". See
> > > [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of
> > information]].
> > > * "Working with partners like Google, the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
> and
> > > UNESCO, Wikimedia...". I don't think most Wikimedians are okay with the
> > WMF
> > > describing Google as among its partners. Nor the Met or UNESCO, for
> that
> > > matter.
> > > * In the "Technology" section, there's a paragraph devoted to bragging
> > > about how NASA has an internal Mediawiki wiki. I don't think that
> belongs
> > > there.
> > > * The actual Wikimedia Foundation Mission is kind of buried deep in the
> > > site. The Mission is the definitive version of what the WMF is supposed
> > to
> > > be doing, and I really think it should be highlighted somewhere in a
> more
> > > prominent position.
> > >
> > > "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage
> people
> > > around the world to collect and develop educational content under a
> free
> > > license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
> > > globally.
> > >
> > > In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation
> > > provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework
> for
> > > t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimedia Foundation has soft launched!

2018-08-08 Thread Peter Coombe
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 21:45, Saint Johann  wrote:

> — Donation information website features multilingual text, but it’s
> designed in such a way that most of people won’t know how to use it.
> (
Thank you for this feedback. You're not the only person to raise concerns
about the usability of the translations bar on We're
going to look into some alternatives.

> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

2016-02-23 Thread Peter Coombe
Thank you so much for working on this timeline Molly. A beautiful
presentation of an ugly situation!


On 23 February 2016 at 07:06, GorillaWarfare <> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Theo10011  wrote:
> > Please consider (for later) either linking or making a wiki version for
> > Meta. Thanks for making this effort.
> >
> I intend to make a Mediawiki-friendly version once real life is out of the
> way.
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

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

2015-12-04 Thread Peter Coombe
(resending to thread with subject line, apologies if this comes through

Hi all, just wanted to weigh in on a few things brought up in this and the
other threads.

* The coffee cup stock image was a mistake and miscommunication with a
contractor. IANAL but my understanding is that they had a license from the
stock photo company, so the use was legal, but not free use as we would
like. Once we became aware there was a problem, we stopped using the image
and switched to the current lightbulb graphics. We'll certainly be more
careful about this in future.

* A number of people have suggested using, which is a very
nice image but unfortunately seems to be lacking permission and is pending
deletion from Commons. We've found some other alternative freely licensed
coffee cup images, but for now the lightbulb graphics are doing very well
so we're concentrating on them.

* In the past we have tested a few banners which focused on highlighting
great images from Commons (with attribution of course). [1] Unfortunately
these didn't perform as well as our other banners, but it's something we
would like to revisit in future. We have also been testing using Commons
images in some of our emails to past donors, which has seen more success.

* Uploading fundraising banner images to was simply a
pragmatic decision. Because these images are so widely seen, they could be
a tempting target for vandalism. Uploading to Commons would require
protecting them, which is an extra step that's easy to forget, and would
also require granting Commons administrator or staff rights to multiple
people. We could have used, but it was thought
better to keep all the fundraising images together, and avoid overloading
that project with something it wasn't really intended for. When we produce
artwork or an image that is Commons worthy, we share it there.

* Not showing the banner again if someone donated is a great suggestion,
and in fact it's something we already do by setting cookies when people
reach the Thank You page.


[1] You can see some examples here:

Peter Coombe
Fundraising Production Manager
Wikimedia Foundation

On 3 December 2015 at 17:54, rupert THURNER <>

> One feedback I got today is to not display the banner any more if the
> person donated.
> On Dec 3, 2015 16:37, "Liam Wyatt" <> wrote:
> > TL;DR - we've reached "peak banner", how do we change the fundraising
> > model to be about working smarter, not just pushing harder. This needs
> > to be part of a broader process that involves strategic planning
> > transparency, endowment discussions, editor-recruitment, etc. Not just
> > about fullscreen advertising.
> >
> > I, along with many here, am dismayed that the banners are now at the
> > stage of being fullscreen. However, as others have mentioned, the
> > actual text of the request has been adjusted following a reasonably
> > collaborative process to identify text that is both effective and
> > acceptable to the community. Also, the fundraising team have been
> > placed in the difficult position of being told to raise a LOT more
> > money without being given more methods to do so.[1] Naturally then,
> > there is a point where the existing methods reach their maximum
> > effectiveness, and capacity is stretched to the point where awkward
> > mistakes happen.[2]
> >
> > At this point, I suspect we've reached "peak banner".
> >
> > Rather like "peak oil" - after drilling the same oil reserve for a
> > long time, you have to pump exponentially harder to maintain a steady
> > flow.[2] Furthermore, the harder you pump today, the more difficult it
> > will be tomorrow. I think we've reached that point with the
> > fundraising advertising and emails. We know that the donation amounts
> > are decreasing, but the budget is increasing. There are many suggested
> > reasons for the decreased supply (relevant parables for this include
> > "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" and "the boy who cried
> > wolf"). So it's now time to talk about pumping smarter, not harder.
> >
> > An important part of that shift is the recently-opened (but longtime
> > mooted) discussion about an endowment. I commend Lisa's essay[3] as an
> > excellent start to formulating a long-term plan. There are many
> > important questions that would need to be answered as part of that
> > strategy. People interested in this really ought to read her thoughts
> > on creating a "growing endowment" and the advantages/challenges 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner obscuring site interface

2013-12-09 Thread Peter Coombe
I'm not aware that there ever was such an agreement. Annoyance to users is
certainly something that we do try to minimise, and we've actually rejected
a number of designs so far this year for that reason. However we thought
carefully about this banner before testing it and considered it okay for a
few reasons:

* We've actually heard anecdotal feedback from users that they meant to
donate but were missing/forgetting the banner once they scrolled down to
read the article.
* The floating tab takes up only a very small portion of the screen, and
does not overlap with the article.
* Fundraising banners are no longer displayed to logged in users, who are
the main users of the sidebar.
* There is a prominent close button.

Our donor services team haven't seen any negative emails about this banner.
Moreover adding the floating tab results in an increase in donations of
roughly 15%, one of the biggest improvements we have found so far this
year. So we hope this will help us to reach our target sooner, and annoy
fewer users overall.

Peter Coombe
Fundraising Production Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

On 8 December 2013 18:50, MZMcBride wrote:


 I thought there was an explicit agreement that fundraising banners will
 not obscure the site interface, as it's bad for usability and annoys users. seems to
 break this agreement. What's going on?


 Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner obscuring site interface

2013-12-09 Thread Peter Coombe
Love it! Looks like there's more than one banner too:

Peter Coombe
Fundraising Production Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

On 8 December 2013 19:52, MZMcBride wrote:

 Largely unrelated: it looks like xkcd ( has spoofed the
 DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS donation banner as part of its store campaign: :-)


 Wikimedia-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikipedia Gap

2013-12-09 Thread Peter Coombe
The English Wikipedia has attempted a (non-exhaustive) list at


On 9 December 2013 07:35, Romaine Wiki wrote:

 In various research and media articles is written that in several subject
 groups Wikipedia is missing a lot of articles and those groups are
 relatively unrepresented.

 How can we as Wikipedia get clear which subject groups are missing?

 How can we get lists of less represented subject groups and the articles
 in those groups?

 Let us get practical, ow can we fill the gap?


 Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An idea that may improve Wikipedia's fundraising

2013-08-20 Thread Peter Coombe
Yes MZ, agreed that this is would be good to have documented on meta. In
fact this has been raised in our internal discussion already.

At the moment one of my side projects is a major overhaul of the
fundraising pages on meta, and I plan to incorporate aims and principles
into this prominently. I'm hoping to post a draft in the next few weeks,
and will post to this list when I do.
On 19 Aug 2013 05:57, MZMcBride wrote:

 Matthew Walker wrote:
 In the past days there's been discussion internal to the fundraising team
 -- it appears that the 'fundraising principles' I thought we held are not
 uniformly held by others. In this particular instance it seems that gift
 premiums are not entirely off the table. I've been told that the reason we
 have not done them in the past is mostly due to technical limitations. The
 current view is that we should keep our options open to future
 experimentation if the situation allows.


 I think establishing fundraising principles and documenting them at
 Meta-Wiki would still be a great idea. Would you be able to start such a
 page if one doesn't exist already?

 Outside of purely fundraising techniques, establishing what is and is not
 appropriate for fundraising banners would also be nice to have. For
 example, are splash pages off the table? CentralNotice has previously been
 used to completely block out the site, so it's certainly technically
 possible. What about banners that obstruct or obfuscate article content?
 Are these ever acceptable? Is it okay to stretch the truth if it brings in
 more money (e.g., Wikipedia Executive Director)?

 I think clarity as to what the Wikimedia Foundation fundraising team
 considers appropriate or off-limits in order to reach its goals is
 very important to have.


 Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [X-POST] Universal Language Selector(ULS) Deployment - Phase 1

2013-06-05 Thread Peter Coombe
What is the rationale for moving ULS from the personal toolbar to the
interlanguage links on some sites? I find this change odd:

* makes location and appearance of ULS inconsistent between sites
* personal toolbar seems the conventional place for per-account settings
and tools
* features it is replacing like WebFonts live in the personal toolbar
* interlanguage links are something rather different, taking the user to a
wholly different site

Pete / the wub

On 5 June 2013 20:52, Runa Bhattacharjee rbhattachar...@wikimedia.orgwrote:


 The Universal Language Selector (ULS)[1] provides a flexible way to
 configure and deliver language settings like interface language,
 fonts, and input methods (keyboard mappings). It combines the features
 of two earlier Mediawiki extensions Narayam[2] and WebFonts[3]. From
 June 11, 2013 on, ULS will be made available to all Wikimedia wikis in
 5 phases[4].

 # Phase 1: In the first phase, ULS will replace the Narayam and
 WebFonts extensions on 84 wikis[5]. User preferences from the replaced
 extensions will not be preserved. Affected communities will be
 informed by the Wikimedia Language Engineering team of the upcoming

 # Phase 2: In the 5 weeks that follow, ULS will be deployed on
 Wikipedias in size 11-20,

 # Phase 3: All projects without language versions

 # Phase 4: English language Wikipedia

 # Phase 5:  All other wikis

 The ULS can be visible in two ways:

 1. In the sidebar for wikis with language versions, like Wikipedia, or
 2. In the personal toolbar at the top of wiki pages for wikis without
 language versions, like Wikimedia Commons and Meta-Wiki.

 Based on the geographic location of users, the initial set of language
 preferences is presented. Users can set the input methods and fonts to
 that they want to use. Logged-in users can also change the language
 for the MediaWiki menu items.

 ULS is already available on several Wikimedia wikis like Wikimedia
 Commons[6] and Meta-Wiki[7]. The beta installation of English
 Wikipedia on Wikimedia Labs[8] shows what will be available as the
 look and feel. A cog icon is present in the “Languages” section of the
 sidebar menu. Clicking the cog icon opens the Language settings panel
 that can be used to set the display and input settings.

 Please have a look at the Universal Language Selector feature
 description[9] or the Frequently Asked Questions[10] for more detailed

 Thank you.



 Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
 Wikimedia Foundation

 Wikimedia-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] בקשה למרואיין- translation tool

2013-03-12 Thread Peter Coombe
a few free/open ones.

Pete / the wub

On 12 March 2013 13:15, Mathieu Stumpf psychosl...@culture-libre.orgwrote:

 Le 2013-03-11 22:05, Nathan a écrit :

 I too thought the gmail translate worked really well, until I saw Asaf
 suggest they stop using bad words - which I guess gmail stripped out,
 because I didn't see any!

 Hey by the way, do you know good free/libre translation tools? Especialy
 when it come to idiomatic locutions, the best free(/non-libre) online tool
 I currently know is linguee[1] which built a translation database, mainly
 with UN documents.

 I don't know for the statute of UN documents, but the idea to give you a
 set of human translated equivalents is very interesting. And I think it may
 be an idea to launch such a project within wikimedia, based on not a
 moving target text translations, like texts on wikisource for example.
 Would that interest anyone else ?


 Association Culture-Libre

 Wikimedia-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

2012-07-26 Thread Peter Coombe
Unfortunately people will still be bombarded with coverage of it from
everywhere else, so probably a futile gesture.

We may not be able to get photos of the glamorous sporting events to
illustrate our articles, but there are plenty of associated events
that ought to be documented which the IOC can't prevent you from
photographing and freely licensing: transport gridlock, surface-to-air
missiles on rooftops, soldiers drafted in to cover security etc etc.

Pete / the wub

On 26 July 2012 13:53, Anthony wrote:
 It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.

 This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.

 On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
 Would it make sense to start a more thorough long term lobby on this issue?
 Considering that this will be a returning issue every two years, I guess
 that would be worth the trouble...


 Wikimedia-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list