Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-22 Thread Risker
Without commenting on the quality of the work of the Ombudsmen, I'll just
point out that there has never been a vote for this position.

Risker/Anne

On 22 April 2012 15:43, Etienne Beaule betie...@bellaliant.net wrote:

 Still, a vote for new members should of been done.

 Ebe123


 On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
 wrote:

  I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
  least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...
 
  Richard
  On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of
 running
  a new process, Philippe?
  _
  *Béria Lima*
 
  *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
  livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
  construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
 
 
  On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
 
  A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
  undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
  with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser
 tool,
  the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
  efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the
 Board,
  who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
  took
  it on.
 
  Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
  the
  ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
  the
  exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit,
  who
  has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
  member
  of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
 
  It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
  extremely
  remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
  commission,
  and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
 
  Best wishes,
  pb
  ___
  Philippe Beaudette
  Director, Community Advocacy
  Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
 
  415-839-6885, x 6643
 
  phili...@wikimedia.org
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Risker
On 23 April 2012 12:41, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:

 2012/4/23 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
  Top posting.
 
  This is getting a bit ridiculous. Frankly, while I see the need for
  *some* statistics, I don't see how the number of emails exchanged is
  in any kind of way relevant to the work this ombudsmen commission, for
  one. Seriously, if they solve a case with 2 emails or 200, I couldn't
  care less. Second, I understand Thomas' reluctance to skim through 600
  emails to give a report that was not part of his mandate in the first
  place, if I am not mistaken.

 I am very surprised that it would require going through 600 emails to
 find out how many cases the OC has dealt with over the past year. If
 they don't have that information somewhere, then they can't have been
 doing a good job. There is no way they can do their job properly
 without knowing what cases they've received...



I don't think your correlation is correct.  Simply because they have not
maintained a list of case dispositions (not required or expected to this
point, and more particularly very difficult to do when there's no
confidential place for them to retain it) does not mean that they have
failed to do the job properly.

I note the plan to create accesses to CRMs for community uses in Q3 of
the draft Engineering annual plan.  I'd encourage the Ombudsman Committee
to ask that they be put at the front of the line for access to this
software.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Contribute box on wikimediafoundation.org

2012-04-29 Thread Risker
On 29 April 2012 22:53, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 Hi.

 A few months ago I created Template:Contribute at
 wikimediafoundation.org.[1] It displays above the edit window whenever a
 logged out user presses the Contribute (previously Edit) tab.

 There were some concerns that this message was still too obscure, so I've
 now implemented a namespace notice via a MediaWiki gadget. When viewing
 any page in the Talk namespace, you'll now see the contents of
 Template:Contribute below the page title. The relevant code can be found
 here.[2]

 MZMcBride

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:Contribute
 [2]
 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-NamespaceNotice.js

 MZM, do you think you could make it more clear where exactly the links go
to?  It's not clear that it is taking the user to another project where his
message will be publicly accessible.  I am familiar with one case where
someone clicked on one of those links, expecting that his message would go
directly to the WMF and not be publicly available on Meta.  While there's
something to be said for users having to be net-savvy, I think we're all
just a little too used to open discussion on public forums, where there's
no telling who might decide to respond and put their two cents in.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clerk role description?

2012-05-01 Thread Risker
On 1 May 2012 15:00, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hey folks,

 I had a 90-second conversation the other day with SJ about whether it
 would make sense for us to use volunteer clerks as support for the
 FDC (Funds Dissemination Committee), and I'm wondering if anyone can
 point me towards any documentation of the role -- a description of how
 it's typically used, either inside Wikimedia or outside. I have the
 gist, but am curious to learn more, if anyone's got links they could
 point me towards.



I'd suggest that before giving any thought to whether or not the FDC
process would benefit from clerking, it would be better to determine what
that process actually is, and whether or not the members of the FDC think
that clerking would be useful.  In other words, this decision is at least a
few months down the pike.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clerk role description?

2012-05-01 Thread Risker
On 1 May 2012 16:47, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:

 On 5/1/2012 12:37 PM, Risker wrote:

 On 1 May 2012 15:00, Sue Gardnersgard...@wikimedia.org**  wrote:

 Hey folks,

 I had a 90-second conversation the other day with SJ about whether it
 would make sense for us to use volunteer clerks as support for the
 FDC (Funds Dissemination Committee), and I'm wondering if anyone can
 point me towards any documentation of the role -- a description of how
 it's typically used, either inside Wikimedia or outside. I have the
 gist, but am curious to learn more, if anyone's got links they could
 point me towards.

 I'd suggest that before giving any thought to whether or not the FDC
 process would benefit from clerking, it would be better to determine what
 that process actually is, and whether or not the members of the FDC think
 that clerking would be useful.  In other words, this decision is at least
 a
 few months down the pike.

 I don't know, is it actually that hard to make a determination that
 creating this kind of support role is useful? We may not have worked out
 all the details of the process, but it seems clear that the process will
 have a certain weight appropriate to the importance people are placing on
 this issue. That could make it quite natural to need clerks, even if we
 don't know yet exactly what the clerks will do. If people like SJ and Sue
 are anticipating a possible need, that's a decent indicator that we might
 as well have the conversation and not simply postpone it.

 If some kind of clerk position is created, I expect it can evolve fairly
 naturally as the funds dissemination process itself gets more developed.
 It's not that different from arbitration clerks, who have picked up various
 tasks over time as it was deemed practical and helpful for them to do so.


Really?  As best I can tell (given the paucity of information available at
this point), it won't be any more complex than the Grants Advisory Group;
that certainly doesn't need clerking.  I am actually quite concerned that
there is consideration to create a bureaucracy to support a committee whose
responsibilities haven't even been delineated; doing so would set the
course for the committee before the FDC Advisory Group even gets its teeth
into the question.

More particularly, since Sue has asked about job descriptions, the two
clerk areas on English Wikipedia are sockpuppet investigations and
arbitration committee pages. The former is quite active in the process
itself, including blocking of suspected sockpuppets; in many cases, they
act as checkusers without the tool.  Arbcom clerk responsibilities are
more oriented to keeping cases together, properly formatted, and tracking
voting.  English Wikipedia has repeatedly refused to permit the development
of any other recognized clerking roles within the project, usually with
good reason.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clerk role description?

2012-05-01 Thread Risker
On 1 May 2012 17:06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 1 May 2012 21:47, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
  I don't know, is it actually that hard to make a determination that
 creating
  this kind of support role is useful? We may not have worked out all the
  details of the process, but it seems clear that the process will have a
  certain weight appropriate to the importance people are placing on this
  issue. That could make it quite natural to need clerks, even if we don't
  know yet exactly what the clerks will do. If people like SJ and Sue are
  anticipating a possible need, that's a decent indicator that we might as
  well have the conversation and not simply postpone it.

 I think it is fairly obvious that the FDC will need some kind of
 administrative support. The only question is whether that should come
 from volunteer clerks or WMF staff. There are pros and cons to both,
 so it's a conversation worth having.


I agree that it is likely they'll need some kind of support.  The type of
support they will need is mostly dependent on what their scope and
responsibilities are, though.  This is very much cart-before-the-horse in
my mind, kind of like hiring the cafeteria staff before you decide whether
or not you're going to have a cafeteria.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clerk role description?

2012-05-01 Thread Risker
On 1 May 2012 17:13, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 1 May 2012 22:11, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  I agree that it is likely they'll need some kind of support.  The type of
  support they will need is mostly dependent on what their scope and
  responsibilities are, though.  This is very much cart-before-the-horse in
  my mind, kind of like hiring the cafeteria staff before you decide
 whether
  or not you're going to have a cafeteria.

 All Sue has done so far is ask for some information in order to inform
 a discussion. We're a long way from actually appointing any clerks.



Yes, which is why I provided the information about the roles of the English
Wikipedia clerks.  Having said that, the FDC Advisory Committee is having
its first meeting today, according to the Meta page (I note that the names
of the Board members and outside members aren't included on the list yet).
I'm just making it clear from my perspective that I find it concerning that
there are discussions about the infrastructure to support the FDC when we
are at the very beginning of the discussion about what the FDC should
actually be doing, and that  there are some considerably more disparate
views about what they will do than meets the eye.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clerk role description?

2012-05-01 Thread Risker
On 1 May 2012 18:13, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 David Gerard wrote:
  The arbcom clerking role evolved from the tedious paperwork of
  arbitration getting annoying. Best not put a bureaucracy in place
  until it's absolutely needed. We have enough of a tendency to
  instruction creep without planning it in advance ...
 

 Thomas Dalton wote:
 
  I don't think we are at the beginning of that discussion. The WMF
  board's resolution  instructing Sue to sort out the creation of the
  FDC (which followed on from lengthy discussions on meta, and had a
  great deal of consensus) is pretty clear about what the FDC will be
  doing. There are plenty of details to be finalised, but the basic idea
  of what the FDC is there to do is already decided.

 The most significant block of work that was done ad-hoc last year
 which would presumably be done by the FDC this year, was requesting
 and reviewing annual plan and budget deatils from chapters that needed
 infrastructure grants.
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Plans_2011-2012

 That was reportedly a difficult process, in which some parties felt
 paperwork was tedious and annoying or underspecified and inconsistent.
  It would be good to preempt that this year.


I don't see how having a clerking staff would make this process any less
challenging; the chapters and partner groups would *still* have to come up
with the budget, justify it, explain what it was going to be used for, and
all the clerking in the world isn't going to change that.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hours reminder

2012-05-02 Thread Risker
On 1 May 2012 15:32, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:

  On the IRC front, I note that Sue last had an IRC office hours session on
  13 March and there doesn't seem to be any scheduled sessions with Sue in
  May. Might it be an idea to have another office hours session with Sue
 soon?


 I've currently got a suggestion in for Sue to have an office hours on 5/11,
 we're just in the midst of scheduling. :)



Have to say that the last several office hours (of varying nature) have all
been during business/school hours in the Americas - and in some cases for
(western) Europe/Africa as well - and the ones on the current schedule are
all pretty much in the middle of business hours for these regions.  When so
many office hours are occurring within the same narrow time window, it
really limits the potential participation group to the same people all the
time, and risks becoming a walled garden.  Please consider a more diverse
window for office hours in the future. And no, I don't expect that every
office hour be during a time that I'm available, but there's only been one
(out of fifteen) that occurred during the period where Wikimedians are most
active.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-01 Thread Risker
On 1 June 2012 17:12, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 June 6, 2012 is IPv6 Day ( http://www.worldipv6day.org/ ). The goal of
 this global event is to move more ISPs, equipment manufacturers and
 web services to permanent adoption of IPv6.

 We're planning to do limited production testing of IPv6 during the
 Berlin Hackathon 2012 (June 2-3). Provided that the number of issues
 we encounter are manageable, we may fully enable IPv6 on IPv6 day, and
 keep it enabled.

 MediaWiki has been used with IPv6 by third party wikis for some time.
 Wikimedia uses a set of additional features (GlobalBlocking,
 CheckUser, etc.) which weren't fully IPv6-ready until recently. In
 addition, we're working to ensure that all of Wikimedia's various
 services (mailing lists, blogs, etc.) are IPv6-ready.

 == What's the user impact going to be? ==

 At least in the June 2-3, 2012 time window, you may see a small number
 of edits from IPv6 addresses, which are in the form
 2001:0db8:85a3:::8a2e:0370:7334. See [[w:IPv6 address]].

 These addresses should behave as any other IP adress would: You can
 leave messages on their talk pages; you can track their contributions;
 you can block them. CIDR notation is supported for rangeblocks.

 An important note about blocking: A single user may have access to a
 much larger number of addresses than in the IPv4 model. This means
 that range blocks (e.g. address with /64) have to be applied in more
 cases to prevent abuse by more sophisticated users.

 In the mid term, user scripts and tools that use simple regular
 expressions to match IPv4 addresses will need to be adapted for IPv6
 support to behave correctly. We suspect that IPv6 usage is going to be
 very low initially, meaning that abuse should be manageable, and we
 will assist in the monitoring of the situation.

 User:Jasper Deng is maintaining a comprehensive analysis of the long
 term implications of the IPv6 migration here:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jasper_Deng/IPv6

 We've set up a test wiki where you can see IPv6 IP addresses. This
 works by assigning you a fake IPv6 address the moment you visit the
 wiki, and allows you to see the behavior of various tools with the new
 address format:
 http://ipv6test.wmflabs.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

 The best way to report issues is to register them in Bugzilla and to
 ensure that they are marked as blockers for the IPv6 tracking bug:
 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35540

 We'll post updates to wikitech-l and elsewhere as appropriate.

 All best,
 Erik



Erik, as I am sure has been conveyed to you, some very serious concerns
have been identified with respect to this from the checkuser corps (and I
mean  the global level, not just one or two projects).  In particular, the
lack of notification, the inability to suddenly redevelop hundreds of tools
and scripts that are not IPv6-friendly, and the fact that there is
significant uncertainty as to exactly how various standard tools such as
CheckUser and Block actually will work, all mitigate against a full,
WMF-wide implementation, even for the short term.

I would very strongly urge two things:

1) Get the global notice up and running now.  Mailing lists reach less than
0.05% of regular users.

2) Consider implementation on only a small segment of projects, preferably
ones that have a small but active Checkuser/Admin team who is interested in
participating in this experiment.

Frankly, I do not believe that many of the aspects of this proposed
implementation have been considered; in particular, there are pretty
significant privacy issues that have not been discussed or addressed.  When
one is giving a Bugzilla link to illustrate that something has been
discussed, it demonstrates pretty soundly that probably no more than 40
users (out of tens of thousands) have any knowledge whatsoever about the
proposal.

Let's try to find some middle ground here, okay?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-01 Thread Risker
Indeed, a long time. Discussed on Mediawiki and bugzilla; it's not even
discussed on Wikitech-L.  Neither of which 99.9% of users, including
many volunteer developers, have time to follow.  This is not just a
technical change, it's a cultural one.

I've long stood up for the Engineering Department when it is making changes
that have only minor effects on the public face of the project; I know that
sometimes users can be hyperactive about minor points.  But this isn't a
minor point.  I'd compare it to Vector - something that there was longterm,
active communication about throughout its development cycle, with lots of
outreach to volunteer developers and to the community, and opportunities to
test things out.

I can't stand up for them this time, though. It's not even discussed well
on Mediawiki, and is mostly in passing on the Roadmap.[1]  And the few
community-based questions that have come up, specifically on Erik's meta
userpage, have not been given the courtesy of a reply.

Risker




[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Roadmap

On 1 June 2012 19:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 2 June 2012 00:08, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fully enabling IPv6 has been coming a *long* time - over a year, with
 months of planning and work before even that - as Erik's first message
 in this thread notes, and it was hardly a secret. Your objections may
 be entirely too late - it is vanishingly unlikely that two years'
 effort will suddenly be thrown away. Were you literally unaware until
 now that this was in the works?


 - d.

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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-01 Thread Risker
I've got about 18 months worth of Wikitech-L in my archives, and there are
two threads that talk about IPv6; one from March, that didn't provide a lot
of information, and this one. There may be others, but they're not popping
up on my search.

Forgive me for failing to read this week's signpost from cover to cover
yet; it refers to the previous coverage from June 2011, and quotes Erik
Moeller from some unknown and unspecified source.  I don't know where he
told the community that. Do you?

Risker

On 1 June 2012 20:10, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Wow Risker, you obviously don't read any mailing lists/ blogs or sign
 posts. I just did a quick search of my email records for wiki tech and ipv6
 the first result that I see is from July 2007. Almost 5 years ago, I also
 remember a big push last year about this same time for ipv6.

 On Friday, June 1, 2012, Risker wrote:

  Indeed, a long time. Discussed on Mediawiki and bugzilla; it's not even
  discussed on Wikitech-L.  Neither of which 99.9% of users, including
  many volunteer developers, have time to follow.  This is not just a
  technical change, it's a cultural one.
 
  I've long stood up for the Engineering Department when it is making
 changes
  that have only minor effects on the public face of the project; I know
 that
  sometimes users can be hyperactive about minor points.  But this isn't a
  minor point.  I'd compare it to Vector - something that there was
 longterm,
  active communication about throughout its development cycle, with lots of
  outreach to volunteer developers and to the community, and opportunities
 to
  test things out.
 
  I can't stand up for them this time, though. It's not even discussed well
  on Mediawiki, and is mostly in passing on the Roadmap.[1]  And the few
  community-based questions that have come up, specifically on Erik's meta
  userpage, have not been given the courtesy of a reply.
 
  Risker
 
 
 
 
  [1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Roadmap
 
  On 1 June 2012 19:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com javascript:;
  wrote:
 
   On 2 June 2012 00:08, Risker risker...@gmail.com javascript:;
 wrote:
  
   Fully enabling IPv6 has been coming a *long* time - over a year, with
   months of planning and work before even that - as Erik's first message
   in this thread notes, and it was hardly a secret. Your objections may
   be entirely too late - it is vanishingly unlikely that two years'
   effort will suddenly be thrown away. Were you literally unaware until
   now that this was in the works?
  
  
   - d.
  
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 snipping FT2's comment



 Why is improving anonymity a goal? Our privacy policy governs the
 disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors
 without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors
 clamoring for more privacy? Is masking IPv6 addresses more important than
 the uses to which IP addresses are currently put? Is masking a better way
 to solve the problem of potentially more identifiable information in IPv6
 than, say, a more prominent disclosure and disclaimer? Would masking the IP
 addresses only for logged-out users be a worthwhile change, given the ease
 of registering an account? Would they remain masked in the histories of
 project dumps? There are a lot of questions to answer here before it's
 reasonable to start suggesting changes be made, and these are only some.



I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the
*publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses.  The only reason that we publish the IP
addresses of any logged-out user is for attribution purposes, although some
use it for other reasons (both positive and nefarious).  Quite honestly, it
doesn't matter what information is put in place in the publicly viewable
logs, provided it's consistent.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 14:29, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking
 the
  *publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses.  The only reason that we publish the
 IP
  addresses of any logged-out user is for attribution purposes, although
 some
  use it for other reasons (both positive and nefarious).  Quite honestly,
 it
  doesn't matter what information is put in place in the publicly viewable
  logs, provided it's consistent.
 
  Risker
 
 
 Sure, that's the assertion, but it leaves unanswered a lot of why
 questions. Why should we make publicly viewable attributions less
 identifiable than they have been for a decade? Is that step valuable at
 all, given the reality that anyone likely to use the IP address for
 nefarious reasons would simply register an account?


I think perhaps I was not clear in what I meant by nefarious purposes.
The IP addresses in our contribution logs have been used by others to
locate editors, to make allegations against individuals and organizations
because their IP address showed up in those logs, and so on. It is a key
reason why accidentally editing logged out is one of the top reasons for
suppression requests, because it can provide a non-negligible amount of
information about the user.




 I think a stable, predictable privacy regime that doesn't discourage users
 is a perfectly good goal which Wikimedia has largely achieved. I'm not sure
 there is a lot of value in FT2's suggestion from a privacy perspective (it
 would make far more sense to make the mask applicable to everyone but CUs
 or admins), let alone whether a significantly more anonymous method for
 contributing is either necessary or desirable.


I would put to you that, actually, our publishing of full IP addresses of
our logged-out contributors is a very significant privacy issue. There is
no other top-10 website that publishes this information; in fact, the
number of websites that attributes contributions to specific (often
traceable) IP addresses is minuscule.  The only rationale that has ever
been given for publishing of IP addresses is for the purpose of edit
attribution.  That can be done any number of other ways.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 15:06, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

snip


 I have to disagree for several reasons. First, while you are correct that
 no other top 10 website publishes IP information of users, that is in no
 small part a byproduct of how different Wikipedia is from the other 9.


snip

I am struggling to think of any other website of any nature that I have
ever visited that publicly identifies editors/posters by their IP address,
except for a few other wikis.  I've seen unregistered user before, and
similar nomenclature. Can anyone think of another site (regardless of
purpose) that links the editor/poster publicly to their full IP address?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 15:39, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 Risker wrote:

 I am struggling to think of any other website of any nature that I have
 ever visited that publicly identifies editors/posters by their IP address,
 except for a few other wikis.  I've seen unregistered user before, and
 similar nomenclature. Can anyone think of another site (regardless of
 purpose) that links the editor/poster publicly to their full IP address?

 IP address, no. Facebook profile (which is, as for most people, under my
 real name)? Sure. Even so, a comparison between Wikimedia and Google or the
 NY Times or Facebook or Gawker etc. fails because it does not recognize the
 many philosophical and practical differences between those sites and a
 Wikimedia project.


Nathan, I'm still trying to come up with *any* site that permits
unregistered users to post but also publishes their full IP address.  Can
you think of any at all?  Let's not limit it to the big guys, let's really
think this through and explore what is going on outside of our own
bailiwick.  Just because we've done things for a long time doesn't mean we
shouldn't improve ourselves.

Risker

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has
 been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and
 why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action
 as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a
 period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed and
 any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves
 (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to provide
 information to the accused.

 See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing, where
 the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would be a
 violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of the
 checkuser.

 This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the
 ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before something
 can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo
 Catch-22

 I know checkusers  keep a private wiki
 https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to our
 privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on wiki
 CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of
 private information on the wiki?

 My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to be
 notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any
 point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be retrievable.



Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John.  You are a checkuser
yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser
wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia
(which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request);
you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list
because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on
enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes in
standards),   It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and
instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to
propose an entirely different checkusering standard.  I'll point out  in
passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers
were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can
hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects.

Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of the
Arbitration Committee.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
My apologies to you John - and also to John Vandenberg, whose name popped
up when I cursored over this.

Please do consider expressing a concern to the Audit Subcommittee with
respect to this case, or alternately to the Ombudsman.

Risker

On 13 June 2012 19:37, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I am not a checkuser, I do not have access to checkuser-l, the CU wiki, or
 any other private information. This goes far beyond the one case, I was
 just using it as a recent example

 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has
   been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it
 and
   why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU
  action
   as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a
   period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed
  and
   any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves
   (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to
  provide
   information to the accused.
  
   See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing,
  where
   the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would
 be
  a
   violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of
  the
   checkuser.
  
   This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the
   ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before
  something
   can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo
   Catch-22
  
   I know checkusers  keep a private wiki
   https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to
  our
   privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on
  wiki
   CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of
   private information on the wiki?
  
   My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to
 be
   notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any
   point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be
  retrievable.
  
  
  
  Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John.  You are a
 checkuser
  yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser
  wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia
  (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request);
  you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list
  because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on
  enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes
 in
  standards),   It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and
  instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to
  propose an entirely different checkusering standard.  I'll point out  in
  passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers
  were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can
  hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects.
 
  Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of
 the
  Arbitration Committee.
 
  Risker
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may
be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy.
These standards vary widely.  So, the correct place to discuss this is on
each project.

Risker

On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software
 automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply
 whether you have an email address attached to your account or not.

 This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done
 with their data.
 On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has
   been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it
 and
   why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU
  action
   as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a
   period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed
  and
   any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves
   (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to
  provide
   information to the accused.
  
   See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing,
  where
   the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would
 be
  a
   violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of
  the
   checkuser.
  
   This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the
   ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before
  something
   can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo
   Catch-22
  
   I know checkusers  keep a private wiki
   https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to
  our
   privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on
  wiki
   CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of
   private information on the wiki?
  
   My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to
 be
   notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any
   point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be
  retrievable.
  
  
  
  Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John.  You are a
 checkuser
  yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser
  wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia
  (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request);
  you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list
  because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on
  enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes
 in
  standards),   It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and
  instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to
  propose an entirely different checkusering standard.  I'll point out  in
  passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers
  were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can
  hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects.
 
  Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of
 the
  Arbitration Committee.
 
  Risker
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-14 Thread Risker
On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:

  Least surprise is one way to try and get around this problem of not
  relying on the community's own judgement in all edge cases; I'm not
  sure it's the best one, but I'm not sure leaving it out is any better.


 The present usage (to mean you disagree with our editorial judgement
 therefore you must be a juvenile troll) is significantly worse.



I'm not entirely certain that you've got the usage case correct, David.
An example would be that one should not be surprised/astonished to see an
image including nudity on the article [[World Naked Gardening Day]], but
the same image would be surprising on the article [[Gardening]].

The Commons parallel would be that an image depicting nude gardening would
be appropriately categorized as [[Cat:Nude gardening]], but would be poorly
categorized as [[Cat:Gardening]].  One expects to see a human and gardening
but not nudity in the latter, and humans, gardening, *and* nudity in the
former.

Now, in fairness, we all know that trolling with images has been a regular
occurrence on many projects for years, much of it very obviously trolling,
but edge cases can be more difficult to determine.  Thus, the more neutral
principle of least astonishment (would an average reader be surprised to
see this image on this article?/in this category?) comes into play. I'd
suggest that the principle of least astonishment is an effort to assume
good faith.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Risker
On 14 June 2012 16:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:

  I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established
  user have the right to be notified when and why they are being
 checkusered.
  The evidence checkusers get do not need to be disclosed, Its as simple
 as:
 
   X performed a checkuser on you because Y at Z UTC
 
  that provides clarity and openness while keeping the information
 checkusers
  use confidential. A note like that would provide vandals with very little
  information. And the second step of defining a threshold would eliminate
  most of the vandal checks.
 
  To me this screams of lets keep oversight of checkuser to a minimum.
 Right
  now there is the ombudsman committee globally (to ask for review from
 them
  we need evidence, realistically only other checkusers can provide that)
  and on enwp there is the Audit Subcommittee, which 75% of are either
 arbcom
  members (be defacto are granted CU ), former arbcom, or former CU. To me
  that really reeks of lack of independent oversight. Notifying an
  established user that they are subject to a CU doesnt harm the CU's
 ability
  to do their job unless they themselves have something to hide. Its not
 like
  I am asking for CU's to release IP addresses/user-agents or anything else
  that could assist me in avoiding scrutiny.
 

 Don't even need to go that far - just say A checkuser viewed the
 information stored by the web server about you, this information may
 include [[xyz list if informations]].



I do see where folks are coming from. To the best of my knowledge, for the
past few years on English Wikipedia anyone who has asked the Audit
Subcommittee if they have been checked has been told the correct response,
and I think this is a good thing.

On the other hand, what's being proposed here is essentially providing
sockpuppeters or otherwise disruptive users (such as those under certain
types of sanctions) a how-to guide so they can avoid detection in the
future.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC

2012-06-24 Thread Risker
On 24 June 2012 18:22, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF) smazel...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 Date: 2012-07-18
 Time: 16.30 UTC
 Venue: #wikimedia-office

 You are invited to a Wikimedia Foundation IRC Offfice Hours in Wednesday
 July 18, 2012 at 16:30 UTC (time zone information: http://hexm.de/j6).

 The Wikimedia Foundation features, product, design and legal teams want to
 discuss with the community how they see they use of e-mail in the future,
 as development of new features will increasingly make more use of e-mail as
 a way to contact and engage new, current and previously active users.

 Please mark this date in your calendar if you wish to participate in the
 discussion. We will send a reminder a few days before the meeting.




Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading out
the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of increased
diversity in times, it seems ALL office hours are now being scheduled
during a very narrow window of time from roughly 1530 UTC to 1800 UTC.
Now, I don't have a problem with *some* office hours being scheduled then.
But I can't remember the last time an office hour was scheduled outside of
that narrow window.  So...if you wish to have diverse opinions, you need to
engage people who aren't available during normal business hours throughout
the Western world.  At this point, office hours have essentially become the
same group of people meeting at about the same time to discuss whatever the
topic of the day is. Now, maybe that's the objective here, and I'm
misunderstanding.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC

2012-06-25 Thread Risker
On 25 June 2012 13:56, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading
 out
  the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of increased
  diversity in times, it seems ALL office hours are now being scheduled
  during a very narrow window of time from roughly 1530 UTC to 1800 UTC.
  Now, I don't have a problem with *some* office hours being scheduled
 then.
  But I can't remember the last time an office hour was scheduled outside
 of
  that narrow window.  So...if you wish to have diverse opinions, you need
 to
  engage people who aren't available during normal business hours
 throughout
  the Western world.  At this point, office hours have essentially become
 the
  same group of people meeting at about the same time to discuss whatever
 the
  topic of the day is. Now, maybe that's the objective here, and I'm
  misunderstanding.
 

 I'm glad you brought this up Risker, but to be fair, Siebrand can't speak
 for everyone scheduling office hours, since there is no one person who
 coordinates them all -- each team is responsible for their own, and some
 are not associated with the WMF.

 Anyway, I'm willing to test out doing this at a different time that's not
 during North American working hours. The editor engagement experiments team
 is due for another office hours. How does 10:00 UTC next Monday sound?



Well, let's see - that's 7 a.m. Eastern time, and 4 a.m. Pacific, so it's
certainly not North American business hours.  Perhaps the bigger question
is who the target audience is, and whether or not you're likely to attract
it during that time.

Now, it's entirely possible that the WMF staff and those of other projects
using the usual timeslot have decided that their target audience is the
people who are available during that timeslot (I don't think Wikidata's
ever had an office hours outside of the same slot, for example).  However,
I know that a very significant percentage of Wikimedians are not able to
participate during those hours, and the effect is strongly exclusionary. In
many cases, those office hours are really the only way to keep current and
participate in the discussion of various projects, unless one has a direct
pipeline to one or more of the project co-ordinators.

I'm the world's worst wikitable creator, and even I can see how these
constant overlaps can be avoided by creating a table on Meta to map out
which office hours will occur when and having rules about how many office
hours can be in a given two- or three-hour period.  For example, the rule
could be only 50% of office hours can start between 1600 and 1830 each
month or no more than two office hours in a row can start between 1600
and 1830, if you're the third one then you have to choose another time, or
unless you are trying to reach a specific identified target audience, half
of any project's office hours must be held  outside of North
American/European business hours of 0800 UTC to 2000 UTC.

There are sometimes good reasons for holding office hours consistently at a
specific time, most particularly if there is a desire to draw in editors
from a certain geographic area, or if that is the time that a specific
language group finds most convenient. But if the subject is intended to
have global effects, then there needs to be variety in the timing so that a
wider range of voices can participate. If it's something primarily focused
at English Wikipedia, the office hours have to be late enough for North
Americans to attend outside of business hours, at least some of the time,
and some thought should also be given to ensuring our ANZA editors can also
be included, at least some of the time.

Now, none of this is specifically about Siebrand's office hours. It's about
the fact that this consistent scheduling implies nobody's interested in
hearing from those who aren't available during the San Francisco mornings.

Best,

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours The future of e-mail usage in Wikimedia projects 2012-07-18 16:30 UTC

2012-06-26 Thread Risker
On 26 June 2012 07:47, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote:

 2012/6/26 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
  On 25 June 2012 13:56, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
   Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading
  out
   the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of
 increased
   diversity in times, it seems ALL office hours are now being scheduled
   during a very narrow window of time from roughly 1530 UTC to 1800 UTC.

  Now, it's entirely possible that the WMF staff and those of other
 projects
  using the usual timeslot have decided that their target audience is the
  people who are available during that timeslot (I don't think Wikidata's
  ever had an office hours outside of the same slot, for example).
  However,

 Since we have been named explicitly: our three English office hours
 have so far been at 16:30 UTC (twice) and 12:00 UTC (once), so one out
 of three was outside that narrow band you mentioned.

 I have to admit that the next one was again scheduled for 16:30 UTC,
 but in order to respond to the critique we will move it to 22:00 UTC
 (which is, by the way, midnight for us. I hope that someone
 appreciates that effort).

 We will try to keep that in mind for further scheduling and to make it
 more diverse, and if we do not, anyone is free to remind us. We're not
 perfect :)


 Thanks for pointing it out,
 Cheers,
 Denny

 _


Denny - Thank you very much.  I for one will make every effort to attend.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation

2012-07-28 Thread Risker
I'm more curious about where the 9.9 million in revenue will come from in
Q4, to be honest.  (P.64 of the plan) Absent that, I'm not seeing how all
those new positions (particularly the 30 in Engineering) will be paid for.

Risker/Anne

On 28 July 2012 22:32, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:

 46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a
 joke.
 _
 *Béria Lima*

 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
 livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
 construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*


 On 28 July 2012 00:58, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  Hi all,
 
  the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
 
 
 
 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf
 
  accompanied by a QA:
 
 
 
 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers
 
  The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in
  Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the
  Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff
  meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video
  recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical
  difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
 
  --
  Tilman Bayer
  Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
  Wikimedia Foundation
  IRC (Freenode): HaeB
 
  ___
  Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
  directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
  community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
  ___
  WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
  wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2012-13 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation

2012-07-29 Thread Risker
On 29 July 2012 03:32, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:



 On 29 July 2012 03:16, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Keegan Peterzell, 29/07/2012 08:29:

  For editing, that is.  I have what I presume to be my obituary on the
 wiki:  
 http://wikimediafoundation.**org/wiki/User:Kpeterzellhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Kpeterzell


 The situation of WMFwiki is indeed frustrating, but could we avoid OT in
 this thread? Unless it's a subtle strategy to make the thread useful and
 make people go to https://meta.wikimedia.org/**
 wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#**2012-13https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13
 (which I'll now try to link from the main page and what not if it isn't).



 Never mind - that links to a historical page.  I have started the new page
 here:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan



 Risker/Anne


Well, despite my best efforts, the discussion has been redirected back to 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13

In other words, it is now on the bottom of a discussion page that has not
been touched in 3 years simply because it says something about the WMF
budget.  I'm sorry, but whenever we're having a discussion about $46
million, I think it deserves its own page.  Not to mention the fact that
this annual plan (which is a bit different than a budget) isn't even in the
same league as the ones from 2004-2009.  Nothing on the actual Wikimedia
budget page[1] is up to date, and it doesn't even include the links that
Tilman started this thread with.  Perhaps a bit more budget in the area of
community engagement is called for here.

Risker/Anne

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_budget - last edit March 2009
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-02 Thread Risker
On 2 August 2012 21:07, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 Brandon Harris wrote:
  On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
  What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
 
  You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in
 November
  2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
  before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
  Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
 
  Good question.
 
  This is inserting a conspiracy theory where one does not exist.
 
  The English Wikipedia community voted on the blackout and directed it
 into
  existence, not the Foundation. We merely facilitated.

 To be clear, my question isn't about Google or donations or anything like
 that. My question, more directly, is: if the SOPA action from January 2012
 were held in August 2012 (following the implementation of this new
 statement
 from the General Counsel's office), would it be considered a community
 initiative or not?

 Given that this statement was written as a response to the January 2012
 SOPA
 blackout, it seems like a reasonable question. Philippe and others have
 indicated that such actions would _not_ fall under this new doctrine. Is
 this correct?


My sense is that the statement is written as a response to the overtures
that have been made to the WMF since the January 2012 SOPA blackout. Like
many people outside of the WMF umbrella (and quite a few inside it, as
well, based on comments we see regularly), it seems that many of these
advocacy groups believe that WMF=Wikipedia.  Those of us in the know
understand that there's an awful lot more that is involved, and that there
are widely divergent opinions on many issues between projects and within
the broader community.

It's easy to forget (in fact, most people have forgotten) that the English
Wikipedia community had been discussing some form of action in relation to
SOPA for almost two months before the blackout. The Italian Wikipedia
blackout in late 2011 demonstrated some significant fault lines if a large
project suddenly closes up shop; because of this, I think the WMF
justifiably had an interest in ensuring that if the English Wikipedia
community followed suit, it was done in a controlled way that would not
cause short-term or long-term harm to the actual project. I'm not talking
reputational harm, but damage to the hardware, software, and data that
are integral to the project.




 The line between what constitutes a community initiative and what's
 considered a request from an outside group still isn't clear to me,
 especially when I consider the Wikimedia Foundation to view the entire
 Wikimedia editing community as an outside group some days.


Ah, interesting point.  My read of this was that the guideline would
consider an initiative requested by a non-WMF community or organization to
be an outside group, whereas an initiative from one or more WMF
communities, or from the broader general WMF community, would not fall
under these guidelines.  The recent request for comment with respect to the
Internet Defense League[1] would be an example of an initiate that would
fall within this guideline, I think.

I think your questions illustrate the need for improving some of the prose
within the guideline so that these issues are clear to future readers, both
inside and outside of our broader community.  It's quite possible that my
own interpretation is off the mark as well.

Risker/Anne


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Internet_Defense_League
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

2012-08-03 Thread Risker
On 3 August 2012 22:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 lots of stuff


Andreas, I'm sorry, but you've been involved in Wikimedia projects for
quite a while now.  What in heaven's name would ever give you the idea that
the WMF could possibly get itself organized enough to co-ordinate something
like this with Google?

Now, could you please get back to the subject, which is how the WMF should
handle third party requests to participate in advocacy, and drop this whole
Google/SOPA thing, or at least take it off this list?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!

2012-08-11 Thread Risker
My thoughts are as follows:  These paywall resources only make accessible
information that has already been published, and which editors would
otherwise have to purchase or access through other financially-restrictive
means.  But the same is true of our readers, who would have to check the
references in exactly the same way.  Therefore, we have not changed the
effect on the reader. Indeed, the key reason that we include the
information that the reference material was extracted through these various
web resources is to appropriately identify that there may be variations
from the original reference source. (Highbeam's scans sometimes come out a
bit funny, particularly the symbols, for example.)

Risker/Anne

On 11 August 2012 17:56, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

 Hi all,

 I'm still trying to figure out whether these partnerships are a good or
 bad thing for Wikimedia.

 Yes, it's good/great that Wikimedia volunteers are able to access these
 resources so that they can develop Wikipedia articles, and hence increasing
 the amount of knowledge that we can freely provide to the world.

 But on the flip side, what about our readers - as a result of these sort
 of partnerships, we're increasing the number of times that we'll be
 pointing them towards paywall-protected services to be able to verify the
 information we provide, and hence the amount of money they'll be forced to
 pay to these organisations. And perhaps, as editors, we're supporting
 paywalls by accepting these offers (and hence making paywalls more
 prevalent), rather than refusing them until they make the content that they
 provide freely available.

 So this is a balancing act - but I'm not currently sure which side
 outweighs the other, or whether the two sides are currently balancing each
 other out… What does everyone think? And is there an on-wiki page where we
 can discuss these offers in general?

 Thanks,
 Mike
 P.S. I've deliberately biased the view of this email a little towards the
 negative, to try to offset the positive expectation set out in the previous
 email a little. I think that I'm currently completely neutral on this
 issue, though...

 On 9 Aug 2012, at 19:16, Ocaasi Ocaasi wikioca...@yahoo.com wrote:

  The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining
 momentum.  Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for ''right
 now'':
 
 
  * '''[[WP:Credo|Credo Reference]]''' provides full-text online versions
 of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in
 every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and
 encyclopedias.  There are '''125''' full Credo 350 accounts available, with
 access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation.
  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits.  Sign up
 [[Wikipedia:Credo#Sign-up sheet|here]].
  * '''[[WP:HighBeam|HighBeam Research]]''' has access to over 80 million
 articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic
 journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias.  Thousands of new
 articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a
 wide range of subjects and industries.  There are '''250''' full access
 1-year accounts available.  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000
 edits.  Sign up [[Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications|here]].
  * '''[[WP:Questia|Questia]]'''  is an online research library for books
 and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences.
 Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including
 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper
 articles, as well as encyclopedia entries.  There will soon be '''1000'''
 full access 1-year accounts available.  All you need is a 1-year old
 account with 1000 edits.  Sign up [[Wikipedia:Questia#Apply here: Round
 1|here]].
 
  In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the
 next-generation idea to create a central '''Wikipedia Library''' where
 approved editors would have access to ''all'' participating resource
 donors.  It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea,
 add your feedback to the [
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_LibraryCommunity
  Fellowship proposal] to start developing the project.  Drop by my
 talk page if you have any questions.  Now, go sign up!
 
  --[[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia redefined -- typography and UX and such

2012-08-17 Thread Risker
On 17 August 2012 10:47, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
  On 8/17/12 12:02 PM, Magnus Manske wrote:
 
  http://toolserver.org/~magnus/redefined/?page=Pyramid
 
 
  This is quite nice, especially on a larger screen! Our current layout,
 which
  uses the full browser width for text, makes articles hard to read and
  cluttered-looking on larger screens. The text column with images and ToC
 in
  the sidebar is a nice change. Though on the other hand, I do like flowing
  text around images below some with threshold. When reading on a smaller
  screen, with this layout you can end up with a very narrow text column
 down
  the middle. But overall I like it. The only thing I'd really want is some
  way to get to more of the functionality. For example, I can't find how to
  view edit history.

 Thanks! This is just a demo, most functionality is missing; no point
 in implementing all of it unless there's a potential long-term user
 and developer base :-)

 That said, it uses only the MediaWiki API, so it can run anywhere,
 even on a blank page served by Wikipedia, in the far future, when
 there is no more server-side full-page rendering...

 It's pretty useless on mobile devices, but then we have a nice mobile
 interface; this whole auto-collapse-on-mobile thing only goes so far,
 IMHO.

 Upshot: Unless I get at least, say, five people who'd help debug it,
 and at least one person who'd help coding, I'm not going to add more
 functions to it. Also, the redefined people might sue me for
 stealing their layout proposal ;-)



It looks pretty clean and less cluttered.  It also draws attention to some
of our internal issues, such as massive listing of references at the bottom
of the page, and all those templates linking groups of articles together;
between these two, they're taking up nearly a quarter of the 'space'.
They're both important issues, although separate ones.

I'm looking at this from a fairly small screen, and I wonder how wide the
text will be when the left-side links are added in, or if your proposal
is to drop that entirely. As it is, the text is a bit narrow now, leading
to a very long article, but I think that balances out with the increased
white space and different font, both of which make the article easier on
the eyes.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion

2012-09-18 Thread Risker
On 18 September 2012 14:00, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:

 On 13 September 2012 12:10, Yaroslav M. Blanter
 pute...@mccme.rujavascript:;
 wrote:

  Btw it occurred to me that we never (to the best of my knowledge) tun a
  Wikipedia banner asking to donate pictures. Smth like to take a World
  Heritage site article without illustrations, or a town, and to say that
 this
  is easy to illustrate in several clicks - just to donate pictures. Or
 about
  your town.

 Enwiki used to have a system where articles about people without images got
 a placeholder - No picture available! Can you donate one? - but it was
 taken down a few years ago, partly due to community dislike of it and
 partly due to technical problems.

 I believe a number of those technical issues have since been resolved, so
 it might be worth thinking about trialling it again on a small scale...



My recollection is that that one of the key reasons the English Wikipedia
community stopped using the image placeholders was the fact that we were
receiving a very significant number of non-free images, including obviously
commercial ones that people were claiming they owned, and we wound up
deleting a lot of images that were 'donated'.  I like the idea of inviting
people to contribute images for *select* articles, but not *every* article
without an image.  But we should really make sure that we're getting some
statistical information if we trial this again, to ensure that what we are
getting is helpful and not a copyright timesink.  It would be a shame to
return to the old days when everything operated on the assumption that
there were always warm bodies around to clean up these kinds of messes.  On
many projects, that is no longer the case.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing language wide

2012-09-19 Thread Risker
On 19 September 2012 13:17, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

  Hello
 
 
  Is there a place (I looked on meta and saw nothing) where the situation
  with regards to paid editing or more generally the practices toward
  declaration of conflict of interest in all linguistic versions of
 Wikipedia
  summarized ?
 
  For example, I more or less know that the English version requires the
  user to not create an account with the name of his company; requires to
  basically mention when there is a potential COI; and ask preferably to
 edit
  talk pages rather than directly.
 
  I more or less know that the French version does not seem to care if
  accounts feature a company name (or rather a derivative version of the
  company name); that indicating a potential COI is better; but that
 directly
  editing the wikipedia page is fine.
 
  I have no idea how other languages deal with this.
 
  I was interviewed today by a journalist from a historian publication
 and
  she asked me what was the status of this for a couple of other languages,
  in particular Spanish and Italian (I guess she knew these languages,
 which
  I do not). I realized I had no idea
 
  If there is a Spanish and/or an Italian person around, I would be happy
 to
  know.
 
  But more generally, would not it be interesting to gather somewhere (uh,
  meta) the current practices with regards to COIs ?
 
  Florence
 

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_editing for a
 placeholder.



Just for the record, there's a difference between paid editing and conflict
of interest editing.  One can easily have a conflict of interest without
receiving any financial remuneration.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transparency about Wikimania costs

2012-09-21 Thread Risker
No, they should not.  Those applications contain a very significant amount
of private information.

Risker/Anne

On 21 September 2012 17:22, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:

 I also think all recipients should be publicy disclosed as long with
 their applications for transparency purposes (on the same way all
 grants are publicy disclosed with the GAC process). It`s impossible
 for this year, but we should think of include this info in next year
 application process.

 JP


 2012/9/21, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il:
  On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
  nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
 
  Thank you very much for starting this discussion and publishing this.
  In the past I've had a really hard time finding some data, e.g. for 2009
  all I found is this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/**
  wiki/Wikimania_2009#Expenses
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2009#Expenses
  See also the related discussion here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/**
  wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#**Wikimania_travel_question
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Wikimania_travel_question
 
 
 
 
  Thanks, I didn't know about this discussion. Thank you for sharing this.
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 

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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access catastrophic for Elsevier

2012-09-23 Thread Risker
On 23 September 2012 22:24, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On 23/09/12 05:24, David Gerard wrote:
  It's such a pity that Elsevier's attempt to legally block open access
  requirements [1] means that they must be destroyed utterly with not
  one stone left upon another and the ground salted. I'm crying real[2]
  tears here.
 
 
 http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2012/09/21/how-do-you-recognize-a-catastrophe/
 
 http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/files/2012/09/Berstein-report-on-Elsevier.pdf
 
  The world's smallest violin is playing the world's quietest tune, at
  $39.50 a play for non-subscribers.

 According to the PDF, each published article costs them 1954 GBP, and
 brings in a revenue of 3256 GBP. A very nice business to be in. They
 already charge the authors a processing fee of 2000 GBP per article,
 so they could break even with open access, without increasing the
 author fee at all. That would be bad for investors, but the company
 would survive. So maybe it's not quite time to dance on Elselvier's grave.



I tend to agree with Tim Starling that Elselvier (and other for-profit
journal publishers) still have a place.   The author's processing fee
(which covers peer review and publication costs) that Elselvier currently
charges would probably not even cover the cost of peer reviewing; they
depend on sales to make up the difference. Remember that they bundle the
less popular journals with the popular ones, to defray those costs across
several publications.  Thus, the scientist in the little-known field whose
professional journals are read by hundreds doesn't pay significantly more
for processing  than the scientist whose professional journal is read by
tens of thousands.

Even open access journals will need to ensure that they charge enough to
cover the costs of peer review, or their publications will be essentially
useless:  even Wikipedia expects that sources used to back
scientific/medical statements be from peer-reviewed journals. That cost
will have to come from the researcher; the articles that David links to
indicates that the true cost of peer review is more than double what most
of these journals are currently charging as processing fees.   A decrease
in the number of peer-reviewed journals in any scientific topic area can
have fairly disastrous effects on research: almost all research grants
require publication in peer-reviewed journals.  If the number of journals
available for consideration of publication is increasingly limited,
scholars will have an increasingly difficult time publishing and may have
to pay those processing fees to multiple journals before their report is
accepted.  That's money that's being taken away from the actual science.
It also increases the motivation to seek out research grants from
organizations with deep pockets (including those in the private sector),
and we all know that scientists who accept research grants from Big
Business tend to be considered sell-outs.

There's no good answer here.  In an ideal world, there would be lots of
Open Access journals with low processing fees that would publish good
peer-reviewed scientific studies regardless of their popularity.  There's
a long way to go before this will make fiscal sense.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access catastrophic for Elsevier

2012-09-24 Thread Risker
On 24 September 2012 21:20, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
  It's funny, most organizations point to our community as am example of
 how
  to manage such things with volunteers.
 
  Another example: law reviews offer an excellent and widely reproduced
 model
  where the most esteemed publications are run by students.


Well, perhaps. But their peer review is courtrooms, where the decisions
are made publicly and are produced by the justice system free of charge to
the journals.  Otherwise, the articles are written by students with faculty
advisors reviewing their work.  I don't think anyone wants medical studies
to be peer reviewed by medical students.




 Another amusing example is The Economist current affairs magazine. I hear
 their
 contributors don't, as a rule, run to grey whiskers and tweed jackets.

 --


You're correct; a lot of them are paid journalists, and the rest are paid
columnists.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naming for the Travel Guide project (James Heilman)

2012-09-28 Thread Risker
I think there are enough options that we don't need to look further than
domains that are already under the control of the WMF or a person/group who
has stated in writing that they are willing to transfer the ownership.

Further, allowing voting on any name that comes to people's minds (a)
pretty well guarantees squatting and (b) has the potential to create so
many options that there's no reasonable way to suggest there's anything
close to agreement.

Risker

On 28 September 2012 14:50, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 If there is a squatted name that people *really* like, there could also be
 a ranked vote and if the most popular name is one that is being squatted or
 is in light use we could see if it was reasonably available before moving
 to the next name on the list.

 SJ

 On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:21 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

  We need to make sure we own the names before voting on them. Else we
  risk someone else buying it or choosing a name that is either already
  used or too expensive. Domain names that are not already owned
  typically go for $10. There are some like Wikiplanet that are being
  sold for $25,000. The latter is thus not an option.
 
  --
  James Heilman
  MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
 
  The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
  www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 



 --
 Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Info action

2012-10-22 Thread Risker
Concur with Philippe.  Thanks for letting us know about this.

Risker

On 22 October 2012 17:59, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation 
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Now that's just cool...
 ---
 Philippe Beaudette
 Director, Community Advocacy
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc


 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

 -Original Message-
 From: MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com
 Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:41:21
 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Info action

 Hi.

 This is just a heads-up that you'll start seeing a Page information link
 in the sidebar (under Toolbox) in the coming days on Wikimedia wikis. It
 is deployed now to a few wikis already. This Page information link leads
 to a newly reimplemented info action:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Pageaction=info

 Many, many years ago, the info action was added to MediaWiki, but due to
 performance issues, it was quickly disabled by default and was mostly
 forgotten about. This year, with the wonderful help of Madman, Krenair, and
 others, we have reimplemented the info action to provide an information
 dashboard of sorts about a particular page title to users.

 This dashboard includes a variety of metadata about the page, including the
 page's protection status, length, default categorization sort key, internal
 page ID, templates used on the page, and more. The content is somewhat
 dynamic: for some pages it will omit certain irrelevant fields and for some
 users (such as administrators), certain additional fields (such as the
 number of page watchers) will be displayed. This will slowly allow for the
 deprecation of outside tools that currently provide information of this
 nature.

 The hope is that this action will evolve over time to become a valuable
 resource for users. If you can think of data points that are missing from
 the current action's output or have other ideas to improve the info action
 (it desperately needs a little design love), please feel free to e-mail
 this
 list or file a bug at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/.

 MZMcBride



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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board resolutions on bylaw amendments and appointment of Foundation staff officers

2012-11-05 Thread Risker
It would strike me that one of the urgencies that might be involved is
the fact that this resolution was passed so that the Board member who had
previously been the secretary could participate as an individual board
member, and the appointed secretary could take the minutes. It's extremely
rare for a staffed charity/non-profit to have sitting trustees acting as
secretary or treasurer, and none of the discussion here has indicated any
concern about this decision; this was essentially housekeeping.  Therefore,
the only thing I can take from this is that it is a process issue, and that
some members of the community wish to know in advance and in detail what
the board will be discussing.  I can understand that; at the same time, I
think that attempting to micro-manage the board over housekeeping items is
not terribly helpful. Now, if the Board had been deciding on its
composition (which as best I can tell was never publicly discussed the last
time it was changed), I think that would certainly benefit from community
input.

Risker


On 5 November 2012 18:25, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:

 (just for the record: in case someone does have a valid reason, I'm still
 very open to hearing good reasons why the board chose the procedure they
 chose (behind closed doors), and whether there was any urgency to the
 changes proposed. I somehow missed that in the replies but may have missed
 it. Knowing about such reasons might be helpful in the light of proposing
 changes to procedures.

 Lodewijk)

 2012/11/2 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org

  Hi Bishakha,
 
  2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com
 
  On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
  wrote:
 
   Dear Bishakha,
  
   could you please elaborate why the board has chosen for a secretive
   amendment procedure here, rather than sharing the proposed amendments
  with
   the community and asking their input on it? Especially where it
 concerns
   such non-trivial changes.
  
  Ok, now that the document showing old and new has finally been
 uploaded, I
  will try to answer your question.
 
  The legal team proposed that we amend the bylaws, primarily to ensure
  compliance with Florida non-profit laws.
 
  Since most of the changes are legal in nature, they were not referred to
  the community for prior input.
 
  I understand how this action can be seen as secretive or opaque, even
  though it may not have been intended as such.
 
  Is it also possible to see this action as reasonable, given the nature
 of
  most of the changes?
 
 
  I don't see how this validates the fact that you did not consult the
  community on these changes. If the changes are fairly trivial and
  legalistic, then the community will likely have little objection. But as
  you noted, there was at least one significant change (I haven't been able
  to check myself) and I'm having a hard time understanding why you (the
  board) would /not/ want the input of the community on such decisions.
 
  If people talk rubbish, it is easy to ignore. But maybe they have a very
  good point that you want to take into account. If they come up with an
  argument that changes your mind - wouldn't that mean that the goal has
 been
  accomplished?
 
  Especially with the second most important governing document of the
  Wikimedia Foundation (after the Articles of Incorporation) I don't
  understand why changing it is not considered to be relevant to the
  community. Maybe this specific change was a good one (I'm not sure yet I
  agree, until I heard the explanation of the why) but maybe next time the
  changes are more drastic and infringing. I find it silly that we do
 require
  chapters to let their bylaws approved by the Affiliations Committee
  (although enforcement of that could be improved), and make them public
  before doing so - but that the Wikimedia Foundation wouldn't have to
 follow
  the same standards.
 
  But let me make this constructive: I will set up a page on meta (I'll
 send
  a separate email about that) where the community can discuss measures to
  make the Wikimedia Foundation more democratic.
 
  Kind regards,
 
  Lodewijk
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board resolutions on bylaw amendments and appointment of Foundation staff officers

2012-11-05 Thread Risker
Well, that's the point. Phoebe *was* responsible for this, just as Bishakha
has been so far this year.  Who's been sending out the minutes and posting
resolutions?

Further, it's to improve compliance with legislation. Thus, it's
housekeeping.

Risker

On 5 November 2012 19:04, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:

 I would be very surprised if the trustee Secretary actually took minutes...
 That would usually be delegated...
 On Nov 6, 2012 12:02 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  It would strike me that one of the urgencies that might be involved is
  the fact that this resolution was passed so that the Board member who had
  previously been the secretary could participate as an individual board
  member, and the appointed secretary could take the minutes. It's
 extremely
  rare for a staffed charity/non-profit to have sitting trustees acting as
  secretary or treasurer, and none of the discussion here has indicated any
  concern about this decision; this was essentially housekeeping.
  Therefore,
  the only thing I can take from this is that it is a process issue, and
 that
  some members of the community wish to know in advance and in detail what
  the board will be discussing.  I can understand that; at the same time, I
  think that attempting to micro-manage the board over housekeeping items
 is
  not terribly helpful. Now, if the Board had been deciding on its
  composition (which as best I can tell was never publicly discussed the
 last
  time it was changed), I think that would certainly benefit from community
  input.
 
  Risker
 
 
  On 5 November 2012 18:25, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
 
   (just for the record: in case someone does have a valid reason, I'm
 still
   very open to hearing good reasons why the board chose the procedure
 they
   chose (behind closed doors), and whether there was any urgency to the
   changes proposed. I somehow missed that in the replies but may have
  missed
   it. Knowing about such reasons might be helpful in the light of
 proposing
   changes to procedures.
  
   Lodewijk)
  
   2012/11/2 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
  
Hi Bishakha,
   
2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com
   
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Lodewijk 
 lodew...@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
   
 Dear Bishakha,

 could you please elaborate why the board has chosen for a
 secretive
 amendment procedure here, rather than sharing the proposed
  amendments
with
 the community and asking their input on it? Especially where it
   concerns
 such non-trivial changes.

Ok, now that the document showing old and new has finally been
   uploaded, I
will try to answer your question.
   
The legal team proposed that we amend the bylaws, primarily to
 ensure
compliance with Florida non-profit laws.
   
Since most of the changes are legal in nature, they were not
 referred
  to
the community for prior input.
   
I understand how this action can be seen as secretive or opaque,
 even
though it may not have been intended as such.
   
Is it also possible to see this action as reasonable, given the
 nature
   of
most of the changes?
   
   
I don't see how this validates the fact that you did not consult the
community on these changes. If the changes are fairly trivial and
legalistic, then the community will likely have little objection. But
  as
you noted, there was at least one significant change (I haven't been
  able
to check myself) and I'm having a hard time understanding why you
 (the
board) would /not/ want the input of the community on such decisions.
   
If people talk rubbish, it is easy to ignore. But maybe they have a
  very
good point that you want to take into account. If they come up with
 an
argument that changes your mind - wouldn't that mean that the goal
 has
   been
accomplished?
   
Especially with the second most important governing document of the
Wikimedia Foundation (after the Articles of Incorporation) I don't
understand why changing it is not considered to be relevant to the
community. Maybe this specific change was a good one (I'm not sure
 yet
  I
agree, until I heard the explanation of the why) but maybe next time
  the
changes are more drastic and infringing. I find it silly that we do
   require
chapters to let their bylaws approved by the Affiliations Committee
(although enforcement of that could be improved), and make them
 public
before doing so - but that the Wikimedia Foundation wouldn't have to
   follow
the same standards.
   
But let me make this constructive: I will set up a page on meta (I'll
   send
a separate email about that) where the community can discuss measures
  to
make the Wikimedia Foundation more democratic.
   
Kind regards,
   
Lodewijk
   
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board resolutions on bylaw amendments and appointment of Foundation staff officers

2012-11-05 Thread Risker
 the community in the discussion. I
don't think it's necessary for straightforward housekeeping items.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board resolutions on bylaw amendments and appointment of Foundation staff officers

2012-11-06 Thread Risker
On 6 November 2012 03:07, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:

 On 11/6/12 3:26 AM, Risker wrote:

 On 5 November 2012 20:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:

  Bylaw changes are never housekeeping.

 This resolution does change the composition of the board.

 Two seats had a defined role, with clear responsibilities. Now they dont.
 Of course there is always shared responsibility, but having one person
 chiefly responsible ensures someone is focused on those responsibilities
 and does not allow themselves to be distracted.


 I do not understand how you have come to the conclusion about seats having
 defined roles. None of the seats have a defined role.  If there was, then
 the selection would be for Secretary or Vice Chair, not for chapter
 selected or community selected or board selected trustees.
 Appointment to the Board of Trustees is completely independent from the
 assignments one might take on if appointed.


 Errr. No. At least historically, this is incorrect.

 Michael Davis was the first treasurer of the board (appointed by Jimbo at
 the beginning of the WMF). After some time, Michael announced his desire to
 quit the board and move on with his own life. Over the following months, we
 sort of waited for a board member with financial background to be elected
 on the board by the community so that we could replace Michael. Quite
 naturally, none of this happened.

 This is the primary reason why we added appointed board members. It was
 done so that the board could finally fill in the gaps. We looked for
 additional board members to be appointed, WITH the wish to have a treasurer.

 Appointment of Stu was completely dependent on the assignment.

 Florence


I get that Stu's selection as a Board-appointed trustee was based on his
qualifications.  However, there is nothing in the bylaw now or at any time
that specified the Treasurer must have certain qualifications, nor is there
anything in the bylaw's description of Board-selected trustees that
specifies that any of them must have specific qualifications.  It was
entirely appropriate that the Board sought out and appointed a trustee that
had qualifications that the Board felt was necessary in order for it to
meet its obligations; however, if by chance a community-selected or
chapter-selected trustee had held the necessary qualifications and was
willing to act as Treasurer, then it would not have been necessary to use a
Board-selected appointment to ensure that the role was filled.  I realise
this seems like a pedantic argument; however, one of the purposes of
Board-selected trustee seats is to fill whatever needs the
otherwise-selected seats don't fill, not to fill the Treasurer seat
specifically. There are roles that must be filled, and there are seats that
must be filled. Those are both described in the bylaws. However, which seat
is used to fill which role is not described in the bylaw.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure

2012-11-07 Thread Risker
On 5 November 2012 22:03, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 FYI


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
 Date: Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:38 PM
 Subject: [Tech/Product] Engineering/Product org structure
 To: Staff All wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org


 Hi folks,

 snip



 - It’ll give us the ability to add Director-level leadership functions
 as appropriate without making my head explode.

 snip

An excellent motivation.  :-)

More seriously, this sounds like a reasonable way to separate the functions.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraiser launch update

2012-11-25 Thread Risker
On 26 November 2012 02:10, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 We have some information on the fundraiser launch to share.  We are still
 planning on launching Monday, November 26, but we're going to make a change
 this year in the timing of campaigns around the world.


 snip


 Our volunteer translators have already done a ton of work translating our
 current best messages -- and we are very thankful! We're using all of those
 translations now, in our testing and they will be the basis of the April
 campaign. We will be engaging the community of volunteers, donors and
 readers even more in the coming months to optimize the translations of the
 new messages and ramp up testing in various languages.  Moreover, there are
 technical updates to the translation system that we'll be able to use
 during the April campaign that are not released yet.

 We are looking forward to more of our readers receiving better messages and
 donation experiences in countries around the world.



After thinking about the implications of this for a bit, a few thoughts
have struck me:

*Anything that shortens a campaign for any area of the world is a good
thing.  Having the chance to use better, well tested messaging, and giving
our wonderful volunteer translators the time they need to do a great job in
localizing these messages, will mean shorter campaigns everywhere.
*We've all seen on previous campaigns that sometimes there comes a banner,
mid-campaign, that just takes off.  But when that banner is found, it means
everyone going like mad to try and spread it around.  Now there's time to
do it well and benefit more areas.
*This also spreads the workload on both volunteers and staff a lot better.
This should be particularly beneficial for our non-English colleagues, as
there will be more opportunity to focus on any issues that they encounter
and to address improvements that they suggest.

Good luck to the fundraising team in the campaign that's about to kick off,
and the new one in April.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please have a look at the new list of successful grant applications!

2012-12-03 Thread Risker
On 3 December 2012 11:49, John Andersson john.anders...@wikimedia.sewrote:


 Hi everybody,

 Today I created a page on Outreach called List of successful grant
 applications. I hope that you will add your Chapter's success stories there!


 Based
  on what grant applications we know have worked in other countries we
 can copy the successful ones when we apply for external funding. This
 will help speed things up and hence, increase our efficiency and
  our external funding. This would be especially valuable for smaller
 Chapters. If you have suggestions on how to improve the page I encourage
 you to be bold!

 So please add your examples there and let the successful examples of other
 Chapters inspire you!

 All the best,

 John


Thank you for creating that list, John.  One suggestion - it should be
clear from the title of the page that the grants are not Wikimedia
Foundation grants.

I'm uncertain whether this should be on the Outreach project  or on the
Meta project.  Since it deals with financial issues that are otherwise
grouped together on Meta, and it also seems to focus on Chapters which
generally do their reporting on Meta as well, that might be a better place
for it.  Keep in mind that the Outreach wiki is not an SUL wiki, and anyone
who wants to edit there must create a new account and log in separately.

Congratulations to Wikimedia Sweden for their successful work in obtaining
grants from third parties.  I think we will all look forward to seeing the
results.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Alpha version of the VisualEditor now available on the English Wikipedia

2012-12-11 Thread Risker
On 11 December 2012 22:30, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 TL;DR: Today we are launching an alpha, opt-in version of the
 VisualEditor[0] to the English Wikipedia. This will let editors create
 and modify real articles visually, using a new system where the
 articles they edit will look the same as when you read them, and their
 changes show up as they type enter them — like writing a document in a
 word processor. Please let us know what you think[1].



Nice work, James and team.  And yes, I found a problem on my first try -
and have completed the feedback form to let you know about it.  I agree
completely that this is something you want to target at experienced users
who have an interest in testing out the new software - and I think as the
bugs get worked out, you're going to find plenty of people who gravitate
toward it.



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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-03 Thread Risker
 of new Wikipedians.  I do think the community knows that it
needs these things.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] 15% off merchandise today at the Wikimedia Shop

2013-01-14 Thread Risker
On 14 January 2013 14:02, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote:

  snip

 But if you really want me to get excited about the shop, try stocking flip
 flops with modified soles. I'm sure I'm not the only person who'd like to
 walk along the beach leaving a trail of [citation needed] tracks.

 WSC


I have to saythis is brilliant. Plus it made me laugh out loud.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voice Intro Project

2013-02-08 Thread Risker
Okay.  So I looked at this a couple of times, and couldn't come up with a
good idea for notable people to want to deliberately record and upload
with an open license a recording of their own voice - knowing that it
*will* be abused and misused and mashed.  (There's little question that
this will happen. Just because Wikimedians are pretty decent sorts doesn't
mean the rest of the world is.)

Now, I have no objection whatsoever to supporting article subjects who
*wish* to do this, but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to actively try
to persuade them.  I'm not convinced that recordings of a person's voice is
actually information about the person, either, except in the way that
their fingerprints are.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Your support is wanted: The WMF Board of Trustees is looking for a new Board member

2013-02-18 Thread Risker
The link you provided said Wikipedia board manual, Jan-Bart.  The correct
link is: 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_manual#Roles_and_responsibilities


Risker/Anne



On 19 February 2013 01:52, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 Hey Nemo,

 I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. I looked at the talk
 page and could not find a hint. In what way is the board manual a highly
 misleading link?

 Jan-Bart


 On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Jan-Bart de Vreede, 18/02/2013 21:09:
  I, and most of the non-profit world (not to mention the law ;)
  respectfully disagree and would argue that the main function of any board
 of trustees is more governance related. For a good summary of what our
 Board of Trustees' function is I would refer you to:
 
 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_board_manual#Roles_and_responsibilities
 
  I'm getting sick of this linking [[Wikipedia board manual]], can you
 please fix your highly misleading links?
  I'm considering restoring the original page under that title and adding
 a disambiguation note, please express disagreement on talk page if you
 don't want me to.
  Thanks,
Nemo


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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread Risker
On 23 March 2013 20:45, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will
 Beback a return to editing
 herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmh649/Will_Beback.
 I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was
 made without community input and in secrecy and two the evidence to support
 the original indefinite ban is so weak. Much of the evidence provided
 pertains to Will's position regarding COI and his interactions directly
 with Jimmy Wales. In light of current issues with arbcom and seperately
 with COI now might be a good time to consider the need for community
 oversight of abrcoms activities. Note that I was involved and did see the
 private evidence in question. It however is interesting to look at the
 public evidence as quoted by arbcom.




James, can you please explain why you have decided this is a Wikimedia-wide
issue (and thus posted to this list), while not bothering to notify the
Committee whose decision you are questioning that you are doing so?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread Risker
On 23 March 2013 21:21, Tomasz W. Kozłowski odder.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 24 March 2013 02:19, Risker wrote:

  James, can you please explain why you have decided this is a
 Wikimedia-wide
  issue (and thus posted to this list), while not bothering to notify the
  Committee whose decision you are questioning that you are doing so?

 Since when does discussing the Arbitration Committee at a mailing list
 require their permission? I think I might have missed something…



It does not require permission.  However, the English Wikipedia community
has a longstanding process for appealing decisions of the Arbitration
Committee. It would also be common courtesy to do so.  As it is, James has
made a very good show of trying to insinuate that Will Beback was banned in
relation to conflict of interest.  He was not banned for that reason; he
was banned for persistent violations of the No Personal Attacks policy, the
outing and harassment policies and for exhibiting battleground behaviour.
[1]

I cannot speak to what comparable policies exist on other projects.

Risker



[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Findings_of_fact
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Will Beback, Arbcom and Community oversight

2013-03-23 Thread Risker
On 23 March 2013 22:54, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

 So why did I not notify the arbcom list? I am sure all the arbcoms are
 watching this one so I did not see it as necessary.


James, I did not say you should have emailed the Arbitration Committee.
There are multiple ways of notifying the Arbitration Committee onwiki. Very
few arbitrators watch this mailing list; it's intended to address more
global issues, and many of its subscribers get justifiably annoyed when the
list is used to bring more eyes to an extremely localized concern on
English Wikipedia, when there are so many other ways to communicate with
the Enwiki community. More arbitrators, and English Wikipedia editors,
follow Wiki-en-L, which is designed to discuss issues specific to the
English Wikipedia project.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation opened for Bylaws change

2013-04-22 Thread Risker
Just in case others had problems with the links (thanks gmail...)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/May_2013_-_Article_IV_Section_6_%28Vacancies%29


Risker


On 22 April 2013 16:54, Alice Wiegand awieg...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 as Ting has announced in his earlier mail, the WMF Board prepared an
 amendment for its Bylaws to clarify the wording and ensure its ability to
 act especially in situations where a resignation reduces the number of
 trustees to less than nine or an officer position is affected.

 Please take a look at

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/May_2013_-_Article_IV_Section_6_(Vacancies)and
 leave your comments on the talk page. Tell us what you think about it,
 your comments are welcome.

 Regards, Alice.

 --
 Board of Trustees
 Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement: Jan Eissfeldt joins Wikimedia Foundation as Community Advocate

2013-04-25 Thread Risker
Congratulations to both Jan and the Community Advocacy team. :-)

Risker


On 25 April 2013 16:40, Santi Navarro santiagonava...@wikimedia.org.eswrote:

 Welcome Jan!

  Dear all,
 
  I am delighted to announce the expansion of the Wikimedia Foundation's
  Community Advocacy team to include our newest hire, Jan Eissfeldt, whose
  work will be focused on the German and Spanish language sites.  Jan, who
  made his first contributions to the German language Wikipedia in early
  2004
  and works on modern philosophers on the Spanish language project, will
  help
  us with his specialized academic background. Jan holds a German BA in
  social science and philosophy with an intercultural profile.  His main
  theme - carried over into MA studies - is argumentation theory. This
  combination of being rooted in the editing community and providing
  analytical skills will help us to better understand the German and
 Spanish
  projects, and to serve our non-English language communities in general.
  English language folks might have come across his name during 2012 as he
  edited the Signpost's feature News  Notes.
 
  The community advocacy team, you may recall, is an attempt to shore up
 the
  Foundation's knowledge of non-English speaking projects, and facilitates
  strategic change by providing knowledge and skills about communities that
  the Foundation increasingly interacts with through the Engineering team's
  frequent technical improvements, through grant-making, our legal work,
 and
  the other activities of the Foundation.  In our attempts to learn more
  about these communities, get their input during the formation of
  initiatives, and figure out how best to deliver initiatives to them, Jan
  will be joined by one more hire (soon to be announced, I hope).
 
  Jan will work from his home in Germany, will report to me, and will also
  work closely with Maggie, who will serve as his mentor and will help to
  organize and lead our community advocates as they are hired.
 
  Please welcome Jan to the Foundation, though he's been a part of the
  movement for years!
 
  pb
  ___
  Philippe Beaudette
  Director, Community Advocacy
  Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
 
  415-839-6885, x 6643
 
  phili...@wikimedia.org
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 


 --
 Santiago Navarro
 Wikimedia España
 http://www.wikimedia.org.es/


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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?

2013-04-28 Thread Risker
I'd actually suggest the opposite:  That the only people eligible to vote
for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia
projects.  That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board
eligibility.  Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter
staffbut eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election
every year that involves the entire community.

Risker




On 28 April 2013 16:43, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
 been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
 surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify
 under the edit count requirement anyway.

 Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count
 requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required
 so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify.
 If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower
 the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
 most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?

 Thanks,
 Sue
 On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:

  On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
   also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
   better standardize and with it simplify volunteer community, for all
   elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
   donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
   essential to run the site are included.
 
  The first elections (in 2004) had a simple three months in the
  community rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The
  first election with any complicated rules - allowing people in
  without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff,
  ex-Board members, *and* Wikimedia server administrators with shell
  access were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who have
  commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010
  and 15 May 2011.
 
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
 
  So we've already got those in :-)
 
  I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
  (those who don't independently qualify as community members) voting
  or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
  *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
  should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
  Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
  in Berlin!
 
  (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
  course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
  elections)
 
  - Andrew.
 
 
   On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org
  wrote:
   Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not
 active
  on
   the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
 the
   chapter-selected board seats.
  
  A.
  
  
   On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
  nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
  
   Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
  
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
   for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
   community. Presumably that would include most members of most
   organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
   workers who also participate as volunteers.
  
  
   I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while
 complicating
   them for a few dozens voters is not.
  
   Nemo
  
  
   __**_
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe:
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
  
  
  
  
   --
   Asaf Bartov
   Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
  
   Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
  the
   sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
   https://donate.wikimedia.org
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
  
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 
 
  --
  - Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?

2013-04-29 Thread Risker
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote:

  I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
  right to everyone.
 
  Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
  processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the
  right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
  chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
 the
  first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
 want
  to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their bosses..
 

 That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff
 definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections.  I
 leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.




The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election started,
with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may
start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to
give the right people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many
people a vote).  There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility
this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates
for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because
the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).

I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election
post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't
lost to time.

Risker (Election Committee Member)



[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Elections 2013

2013-05-01 Thread Risker
I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are now being accepted for
the 2013 Wikimedia Foundation Elections.  This year, elections are being
held for the following roles:


   -

   Board of Trustees

The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately
responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value
wide input into its selection.  There are three positions being filled.
More information about this role can be found at 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Board_elections/2013.



   -

   Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)

The Funds Dissemination Committee
(FDC)http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDCmakes
recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia
movement http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia funds to eligible
entities.  There are two positions being filled. More information about
this role can be found at 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/FDC_elections/2013.



   -

   Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud

The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process,
investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees,  and
summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an
annual basis.  One position is being filled.  More information about this
role can be found at 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/FDC_Ombudsperson_elections/2013.


The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 24 to 23:59 UTC
May 17. More
information on this election can be found at  
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013.


Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village
pump, or to translate it and distribute it on other Wikimedia movement
mailing lists. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the
talk page
on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list,
board-elections AT wikimedia.org

On behalf of the Election Committee,

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffComs $40,000 Hong Kong junket

2013-05-13 Thread Risker
On 13 May 2013 17:15, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:


 On 13 May 2013, at 22:03, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

  On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net
 wrote:
 
  ...Paris and London are both more expensive cities that Hong Kong, so
 I'd
  expect the daily rate here to be closer to $130/night, and ideally less
  than that where bookings are made sufficiently in advance.
 
 
  Not to be a nit, but I wanted to point out that this biannual study shows
  otherwise.
 
  On this list of most expensive cities for hotel rooms, Hong Kong is #8,
  Paris is #9, and London is not in the top 10.
 
  http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/escape/costliest-hotels-list-637685
 
  I don't have a viewpoint either way on this issue, but just thought
  Wikipedians in favor of verification would like to know.

 I was basing my comment on the list at:
 http://www.citymayors.com/economics/expensive_cities2.html
 (found via google)

 Is there a Wikipedia article that covers this? I'd trust that rather more
 than any single study here…

 Thanks,
 Mike


I suspect the list you are pulling up ranks the cities in order of living
expense, not hotel accommodation.

And you meant Wikivoyage, didn't you?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Solving the China censorship problem

2013-06-08 Thread Risker
On 8 June 2013 23:16, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

snip


 Who approved the tighter restrictions on who can vote in Board elections
 this year?


The requirements for voting are almost identical in 2013 compared to 2011.
For editor voters, WMF staff and contractors, and Board/advisory board
members, they are exactly the same. A modification was made for developer
voters to reflect the change in the way that code is committed.



Risker (member of the Election Committee)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

2013-07-09 Thread Risker
Well, not wanting to wade into that pirates' little helpers snarkiness,
but it takes 30 seconds from anywhere on the web to find a copyright
violation. Maybe a bit longer if you have a slow connection.

Risker


On 9 July 2013 23:36, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:

  On 07/09/2013 08:37 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
  How is that not theft that we are facilitating?
 
  Because theft, is to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of
  it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the
  thing or of his property or interest in it.
 
  In some jurisdiction, linking to sites that play fast and loose with
  Copyright /may/, in certain circumstances, be facilitating copyright
  infringement.  It certainly isn't theft.
 
  (I am not saying the latter is okay -- but that calling copyright
  infringement theft is inflammatory rhetoric and intellectually
  dishonest, at best).
 
  -- Marc

 Interesting notion that plain talk is inflammatory and dishonest. How
 is deliberate copyright infringement is not theft? Why are we the
 pirates' little helpers?

 Fred


 ___
 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] [Advocacy Advisors] WMF response to PRISM?

2013-07-17 Thread Risker
On 17 July 2013 10:06, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
 wrote:

   That'd be easy to solve were it not for the fact that - on enwp at least
  - TOR has been (and is being) used almost exclusively for block evasion
  and vandalism.
 
  Interestingly enough(?), our desire for transparency and pseudonymity
  actually makes TOR directly harmful to our project, since our only means
  of protection left relies on being able to block according to the source
  of an edit.
 

 One possible solution could be to allow Tor users to register and to edit
 while registered, maybe the registry requirements could be higher to avoid
 extreme sockpuppetry, and the edits could be flagged as Tor edit in all
 change logs and user signature.


The biggest group expressing dismay about Tor being blocked are
non-administrator registered users who wish to use it.  Registration is not
really the key issue here.

Risker
___
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] On the gentrification of Wikipedia, by Superbass (was: Visual Editor)

2013-07-29 Thread Risker
Well, all I know is that we have a couple million instances of {{hat}} and
{{hab}} unbalanced templates, which are used daily on hundreds of pages,
and they serve a very important function.

Risker


On 29 July 2013 22:58, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:

 On 07/29/2013 10:02 PM, Rschen7754 wrote:
  If I'm reading this right, it *would* cause massive problems on the
 English Wikipedia

 Oh, it *would* if the syntax was just disabled outright!

 Now, if it were me that was in charge of fixing wiki markup, this is
 what I would do:

 (a) require that syntactic elements opened in a template be closed in
 that template during transclusion* (without a change in code now; i.e.:
 deprecate but not enforce yet).
 (b) provide a mechanism by which templates which do this are
 categorized/marked and otherwise findable.
 (c) wait suitably long
 (d) convert current invalid (according to (a) and identified by (b))
 syntax by substituting still transcluded templates inline (thus not
 breaking content)
 (e) delete/blank/comment out those templates
 (f) render the previous syntax invalid (by implicitly closing any
 syntactic construct at the end of transclusion)
 (g) provide a list of all the subst done in part (d) to the community so
 that automated tools can fixup/convert/cleanup with new markup/LUA where
 applicable.

 Hopefully, whatever the delay in (c) is would need to be long enough
 that the more egregious cases or complicated templates have time enough
 to be transitioned manually, leaving the following subst/cleanup to take
 care of edge cases and little used templates where the disruption is
 nowhere as bad.

 -- Marc

 * This would include, indirectly, the code fragment templates like
 Erik describe since they contain fragments meant to be interpreted in
 the context of an open syntactic element** -- those are trickier to
 /find/, but (f) would make them pointless.
 ** Making, potentially, a giant leap towards making wikimarkup
 context-free which would solve so many problems with parsoid it's not
 even funny.



 ___
 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] On the gentrification of Wikipedia, by Superbass (was: Visual Editor)

2013-07-29 Thread Risker
On 29 July 2013 23:18, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:

 On 07/29/2013 11:10 PM, Risker wrote:
  which are used daily on hundreds of pages,
  and they serve a very important function.

 Yeah, but they are duct tape over weaknesses/flaws in wikimarkup, not a
 valuable feature.  This revolves back to the difficulty in trying to
 pretend a talk page in wikimarkup is a discussion medium and doing
 forum kind of things with it.

 You can break nuts by hitting them with your glasses; I'd rather give
 you a nutcracker than keep trying to reinforce your glasses so that they
 don't break.  :-)


Okay, now you're just being silly. My point is that these things exist,
they're pervasive, and there has to be contingency for addressing
deprecated features such as these because many of those pages will remain
active.

In addition, these are features that require a parallel in any future
system.

Risker
___
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 have the courage to sit down and talk about VisualEditor

2013-07-30 Thread Risker
On 30 July 2013 14:13, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 30 July 2013 17:03, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 If the overwhelming community sentiment
  is that the cost of continuous improvement with a large scale user
  base is larger than the benefit (as it was on dewiki), we'll switch
  back (or to a compromise), and use a more rigid set of acceptance
  criteria and a less rigid deadline for getting back into large scale
  usage later in the year.


 de:wp convinced you. What would it take to convince you on en:wp? (I'm
 asking for a clear objective criterion here. If you can only offer a
 subjective one, please explain how de:wp convinced you when en:wp
 hasn't.)



Just noting in passing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default_State_RFC

Risker
___
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 have the courage to sit down and talk about VisualEditor

2013-07-31 Thread Risker
On 31 July 2013 13:32, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:

 Am 31.07.2013 15:07 schrieb Risker risker...@gmail.com:
 
  On 31 July 2013 08:36, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   On 31 July 2013 10:59, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  
de:wp convinced you. What would it take to convince you on en:wp?
 (I'm
asking for a clear objective criterion here. If you can only offer a
subjective one, please explain how de:wp convinced you when en:wp
hasn't.)
  
Hi David, i am editing on dewp and enwp. I consider myself an
 experienced
editor, but not an expert. I did not participate voting in dewp, but
 i
   like
to try ve from time to time. Beeing a software developper I fully
 support
eriks arguments before. Imo pragmatic and flexible decisions help
 such
development a lot, just like Erik explained.
  
  
   Certainly. However, it's the obvious question to ask, and a curious
   question to spend several paragraphs not answering.
  
   Erik, James - how did de:wp convinced you when en:wp hasn't?
  
  
  
  I would also like to see a direct answer to David's very specific
  question.
 
 From a software developers standpoint its nice to have the 2 biggest wikis
 following a different strategy. Enwp is enough to get a lot of testers. But
 some accommodation of the users comes with it. Switching over wpde later
 gets again not accommodated and more critical feedback.


Without rejecting your position, what we really want to hear is Erik
Moeller's reasoning, in his role as VP Engineering.  It was Erik's
decision, and we want him to explain his reasoning in his own words.

Risker
___
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] NSA

2013-07-31 Thread Risker
Apparently Wikipedia was or is one of the targeted websites.

Risker


On 31 July 2013 15:42, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:

 How is this related to the foundation?


 On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
 wrote:

  See attachment.
 
 
 
 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
 
  Fred
  ___
  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
 



 --
 Met vriendelijke groet,

 Huib Laurens
 ___
 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] NSA

2013-07-31 Thread Risker
I believe the concern derives from one of the subpages of the article:
https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/7/31/1375269604628/KS8-001.jpg

(Credit to David Gerard for digging that out; this same issue is under
discussion on the Wikitech-L list.)

Risker


On 31 July 2013 15:44, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hmmm, the word wiki isn't named anywhere.


 On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

  Apparently Wikipedia was or is one of the targeted websites.
 
  Risker
 
 
  On 31 July 2013 15:42, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   How is this related to the foundation?
  
  
   On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
   wrote:
  
See attachment.
   
   
   
  
 
 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
   
Fred
___
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
   
  
  
  
   --
   Met vriendelijke groet,
  
   Huib Laurens
   ___
   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
 



 --
 Met vriendelijke groet,

 Huib Laurens
 ___
 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] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

2013-09-16 Thread Risker
On 16 September 2013 21:45, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,

 I realize Resolution:Biographies of living people[1] implies this but I
 fail to see any resolution that establishes neutral point of view as one of
 our non-negotiable values. I think there is merit in having an over-arching
 resolution on a Neutral Point of View policy.

 I also feel Resolution:Biographies of living people suffers from the
 absence of such a definition of what exactly neutral point of view
 supposed to mean.

 [1]:

 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people



I am not certain that neutral point of view applies to all Wikimedia
projects.  Wikiversity programs may deliberately examine one aspect of a
subject while ignoring others, for example. It is difficult to apply the
concept of  neutrality to images and other media, some of which is
explicitly non-neutral (see the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed images).  I am not
sure that neutral point of view applies to Wiktionary at all.

Risker/Anne
___
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

2013-09-17 Thread Risker
In many jurisdictions, there are specific privacy laws that address the
rights of patients to control access to *any* information about them,
whether identifying or not, and requirements that any use of patient
information, whether anonymized or not, must be done with the consent of
the patient unless specifically legislated.  This has nothing at all to do
with copyright.  A surprisingly large number of studies, tissue samples,
and so on *are* actually pretty easily identifiable.  In many cases,
patient consent is required in order to use information for research or
educational purposes; those participating in research have to sign fairly
extensive consent agreements that often include a clause about how their
information will be shared.

I'd suggest practitioners themselves ought to be quite cautious before
uploading such images, and ensure that they have had a very specific
discussion with their institution, and received *in writing* authorization
for uploading.  It is spectacularly wonderful that the physicians amongst
us have such a strong desire to educate, and it would be horrible if
someone lost privileges at their institution (and possibly their
license) over such a benevolent gesture. Don't just call your professional
association - have the discussion with the institution, and get things in
writing and actively pursue an institutional policy on the educational use
of medical images.

Risker




On 17 September 2013 09:21, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 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

___
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

2013-09-17 Thread Risker
On 17 September 2013 23:56, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

 To address the issue of needing patient consent for release of X-rays in
 publications the General Medical Council in the UK says ethically it is NOT
 required.


1. 10. Consent to make the recordings listed below will be implicit in
the consent given to the investigation or treatment, and does not need
 to
be obtained separately.


- Images of internal organs or structures
- Images of pathology slides
- Laparoscopic and endoscopic images
- Recordings of organ functions
- Ultrasound images
- X-rays


1. 12. You may disclose or use any of the recordings listed in paragraph
10 for secondary purposes without seeking consent provided that, before
use, the recordings are anonymised for example, by the removal or
 coding of
any identifying marks such as writing in the margins of an X-ray
 (see paragraph
17 http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/7842.asp). Further
advice on anonymising information is available from the Information
Commissioner’s
 Office.7http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/7840.asp#7

 Per http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/7840.asp

 --
 James Heilman
 MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian


That works for the UK, probably.  However, it doesn't work in other
places.  There's good reason to believe that legislation  about patient
consent (and its interpretation by the courths) is every bit as varied
between jurisdictions as is legislation about copyright.  Case law is still
developing significantly in this area; it's only in the past 20-30 years
that patients have been acknowledged to have some rights about the use of
their personal health information, even in the Western world where
personal autonomy is a more entrenched philosophy.

And I'd not necessarily bet on individual institutions taking a different
position than the Medical Council, either.

Risker/Anne
___
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 to discuss VisualEditor

2013-09-28 Thread Risker
Will anyone else from the team (including upper management) be
participating, or will it be only James?

Risker


On 28 September 2013 14:48, Maggie Dennis mden...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi, Rupert.

 Oh, I see. Upcoming plans would include deployment plans and ongoing
 development. It's not a big reveal, but a general conversation. :)

 Maggie


 On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 2:14 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  hi maggie, _this_ page is well known i guess, i was hoping that you
  could publish some information about the upcoming plans to be
  discussed :)
 
  On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Maggie Dennis mden...@wikimedia.org
  wrote:
   Hi, Rupert.
  
   The VisualEditor portal on MediaWiki has good information in general on
   VisualEditor, although the deployment schedule needs to be updated.
   https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Portal :)
  
   (The September 24 deployment was postponed to September 30th.)
  
   Maggie
  
  
   On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM, rupert THURNER
   rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote:
  
   hi maggie, james, is there anything which one could read before to be
   not so unprepared?
  
   On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Maggie Dennis mden...@wikimedia.org
 
   wrote:
Hello.
   
I wanted to let you know that the engineering department is hosting
  two
office hours next week to discuss VisualEditor. The first of these
  will
   be
held on Monday, 30 September, at 1700 UTC.[1]  The second will be
  held on
Wednesday, 2 October, at  UTC.[2] Please join as Product Manager
   James
Forrester discusses VisualEditor and upcoming plans.
   
Thanks!
   
Maggie
   
[1]
   
  
 
 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=19min=00sec=0day=30month=09year=2013
   
[2]
   
  
 
 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=00min=00sec=0day=02month=10year=2013
   
--
Maggie Dennis
Senior Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
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
  
  
  
  
   --
   Maggie Dennis
   Senior Community Advocate
   Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
   ___
   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
 



 --
 Maggie Dennis
 Senior Community Advocate
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
 ___
 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] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

2013-10-14 Thread Risker
On 14 October 2013 16:39, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.netwrote:

 Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

  Just checking: considering that this is a rather limited set of users, I
 assume they've all been notified by the WMF via email or talk page about
 the discussion?


 You must be new here.


That made me smile. :)

In answer to Tomasz's question:  Not unless they suddenly forgot my email
address, and that of every other checkuser, oversighter, or steward that I
know.  I was well aware of the ongoing discussion of the revised draft
privacy policy, and I was aware that there was *going* to be a discussion
about access to non-public information; however, I was unaware that the
latter discussion had started.

Risker
___
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 Education] How to force to enable Visual Editor

2013-10-15 Thread Risker
You're correct Srikanth; I'd like to think that VisualEditor will be the
entry editing interface of the future, but it's still not stable enough
and is missing too many features to be ideal for new editors.  It is,
however, getting better every time I use it, so it is inching closer
incrementally.  Today I successfully completed an edit using VE that I know
for a fact would have broken the page back in July, so progress is being
made.  When I worked with a group of new editors back in August, they
universally reverted to using Wikitext because it had easy-to-use
referencing and editing tools, only some of which are now incorporated into
VE, but I have faith that these will be folded in as time goes on.

It should be noted, however, that almost every single bug reported in
relation to VE occurred with experienced editors who had the skill to
report it, or to at least figure out how to undo the edit.  Those that
occurred with new editors were not reported unless an experienced editor
reviewed it and then tried to replicate it and figure out what went wrong.
It was this situation that led to showdowns on the English Wikipedia, more
so than just about anything else.  Well, that, and making it the production
editing interface without even testing major features.

I cannot speak to the experience on projects outside of English Wikipedia,
but I dearly hope that things are going more smoothly on other projects
that have not decided to remove themselves from participation in the
testing.

Risker




On 16 October 2013 01:08, Srikanth Ramakrishnan srik.r...@wikimedia.inwrote:

 Chris, as Ziko put it. Would you like a novice driver with a Learner's
 permit to drive on a Crowded street or a High speed expressway or in a
 deserted ground?

 Visual Editor for newbies has caused a lot of pages to 'break' as I have
 noticed.



 On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Chris Keating
 chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote:

  On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan 
  srik.r...@wikimedia.in wrote:
 
   That would be a great idea; but nobody seems to bother. They just start
   editing articles right away.
  
  
  Oh no! People editing articles! What a disaster!
 
  /sarcasm
 
  Chris
  ___
  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
 



 --
 Srikanth Ramakrishnan
 Treasurer,
 Wikimedia Chapter [India]

 Donate to the Wikimedia India Chapter today
 http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Donations
 ___
 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] [Wikimedia Education] How to force to enable Visual Editor

2013-10-16 Thread Risker
On 16 October 2013 07:26, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 This would be a wonderful general feature, for setting a collection of
 preferences on signup.

 SJ


In theory, I agree. Realistically, most new editors don't know the
difference between A and B, or how it will affect their editing, so I don't
know that it is really all that helpful.

Risker
___
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 Education] How to force to enable Visual Editor

2013-10-16 Thread Risker
On 16 October 2013 07:31, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 16 October 2013 06:08, Srikanth Ramakrishnan srik.r...@wikimedia.in
 wrote:

  Chris, as Ziko put it. Would you like a novice driver with a Learner's
  permit to drive on a Crowded street or a High speed expressway or in a
  deserted ground?
  Visual Editor for newbies has caused a lot of pages to 'break' as I have
  noticed.


 YMMV. For simple stuff it's actually great and has been wonderful for
 casual editors I've asked to try it. The problems really come on
 complicated pages.

 If they're creating completely fresh articles, I don't anticipate huge
 problems.

 If problems do happen, the VisualEditor tag is monitored closely
 enough they'll be picked up as bugs.


I think the problem when VE is turned on as default production editor on a
busy project is that it is close to impossible for the small number of
users who routinely monitor recent changes (or those who are monitoring VE)
to catch all of the problems.  Instead of just reviewing an individual
edit, we have learned that edits often had effects further down in pages,
or those that didn't really show up properly in the diff window, which
meant having to look at the entire page before determining whether there
was a problem.  As I recall, certain common errors that happened in July
were still being identified and fixed as late as mid-September on enwiki,
and we have a pretty active Recent Changes patrol and a fair number of
people monitoring VE edits.  With the much reduced load now, it is much
easier to spot these problems.

Risker
___
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

2013-10-22 Thread Risker
Where does the Board Audit Committee fit into this?


Risker


On 22 October 2013 07:00, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:

 hello,

 below I'm copying the letter I've just sent to Sue on behalf of the Funds
 Dissemination Committee, related to the way we see WMF should participate
 in the FDC process.

 A little background:

 In the first year, the WMF submitted part of its annual plan 2012-2013
 budget as its proposal to the FDC. WMF also submitted the proposal for its
 current fiscal year, so when the proposal was funded, implementation of
 that plan had been ongoing for six months. Reviewing a partial plan and
 after implementation had started was ultimately not deemed viable neither
 by the FDC nor by WMF.

 In April 2013 the Board, WMF and FDC agreed that WMF budget for 2013-2014
 should not be handled by FDC in Round 1 2013-2014, in order not to repeat
 to discuss a plan under implementation. Instead it was agreed that FDC
 should discuss WMF budget in Round 2 2013-2014, in this case then the WMF
 budget for 2014-2015.

 After internal considerations within FDC and discussion with key
 stakeholders including Sue herself, FDC has now taken the below position
 regarding WMF participation in FDC process.


 best,


 Dariusz Jemielniak (pundit)


 -- Forwarded message --
 Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM
 Subject: WMF in FDC process
 To: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org


 Dear Sue,

 I am writing to you to present the FDC's view on WMF participation in the
 FDC process. We believe that it would be best if the FDC was commenting on
 the whole WMF budget, in its 1.4 or 1.5 version, and recommending
 cuts/increases basing on the overall evaluation of the plan (while pointing
 to specific areas, when appropriate).

 The advantages of the approach are numerous:

- It goes along the same lines as chapters are treated,
- It gives opportunity to comment on any part that the FDC is interested
in,
- It is not limited by a fixed amount or percentage - gives us more
decision power and influence,
- It better allows the whole community the opportunity to participate in
an organized review if the WMF budget.

 The proposed approach clearly shows that WMF does not get a
 special/preferential treatment. What is even better is that it takes a lot
 of burden from the finance department (much less preparations specifically
 for the FDC process).

 We understand that to make this project work, ideally the timeline for
 application should change. Thus, we would recommend that the timeline
 shifts by a month, from March submissions of proposals to April
 submissions. The initial checkup with several entities who might apply in
 Round 2 indicates that it should not pose a problem for them.

 best,


 on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee

 Dariusz Jemielniak (pundit)
 ___
 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] letter from the FDC to the WMF

2013-10-22 Thread Risker
Actually, I'd say that the opportunity for conflict of interest is
extremely high, and there's pretty much no way that the FDC can make
recommendations on the overall budget (and the very sizeable portion of
said budget that is largely dispensed based on their recommendation)
without crossing the line into at least perceived conflict of interest.

Risker

On 22 October 2013 09:03, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:

 Well, this change won't make things perfect - there is still something of a
 conflict of interest there and obviously the WMF board can choose to ignore
 the FDC's recommendation altogether and award itself an unreasonably
 generous budget.  However, from last year's experience, where the WMF plan
 was apparently discussed in depth and opposed by at least one FDC member,
 I'd say that it doesn't look at all like it's a rubber stamp so far.

 We should encourage each step forward rather than moan that there are many
 steps yet to take.  Perfection is the enemy of the good., and all that.

 Cheers,
 Craig Franklin


 On 22 October 2013 22:52, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

  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

___
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

2013-10-30 Thread Risker
Hi Maggie -

Just to clarify, since  UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is
that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the first
session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3?

I've seen it used both ways so I just want to be clear.

Risker

On 30 October 2013 10:45, Maggie Dennis mden...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi. :)

 I wanted to let you know that James Forrester is holding a second set of
 office hours to discuss VisualEditor. These are scheduled for 1700 UTC on 2
 November and  UTC on 3 November. For local time conversions, see
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_hours and click on the starting
 time
 As always, logs will be posted on Meta (same page) after each hour
 completes.

 Thanks!

 Maggie



 --
 Maggie Dennis
 Senior Community Advocate
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
 ___
 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] Office hours for VisualEditor

2013-10-30 Thread Risker
On 30 October 2013 11:47, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:

 On 10/30/2013 11:45 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
  It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of .

 It is, but if there /are/ in fact a large number of people being
 confused by it, then treating 00:00 as though it had special status by
 avoiding it will only *add* to that confusion rather than clarify the
 matter.


Well, I personally know 4 people who told me that they'd missed the last
session scheduled for  because they thought of it being more than 24
hours after the first session.  So I'm not the only one.

I work in an area where exact times are very important, and we don't ever
use  hours; we use 2359 or 23:59:59 or 00:01 or 00:00:01.

Risker
___
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

2013-10-30 Thread Risker
On 30 October 2013 12:14, Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
 wrote:

 
  Yes, time designation are human conventions, but there is no more
  ambiguity about where  lies there than there is about where 7 lies
  amongst the integers.  If there are people who are confused and think
  that it comes after 11, they are simply in error and saying starting at
  8 when you mean starting immediately after 6 to placate them doesn't
  help anyone.
 
 
 I guess we can keep discussing on semantics forever, or deciding that
 whatever we were talking about would start at 00:01 UTC

 NMarco
  ___


Thank you, NMarco - that's exactly what I needed to know.

Risker
___
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

2013-10-30 Thread Risker
On 30 October 2013 12:32, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:

 * Risker wrote:
 Just to clarify, since  UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is
 that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the
 first
 session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3?
 
 I've seen it used both ways so I just want to be clear.

 Could you elaborate on this confusion and where you think it is common?
 The 24 hour clock divides a day into 24 hours from 0 to 23 starting at
 midnight. 23:59 is 23 hours and 59 minutes after 00:00 on the same day.

   2013-11-03T00:00Z --+
   2013-11-03T00:01Z   |
   ... |
   2013-11-03T00:59Z   |-- November 3rd
   2013-11-03T01:00Z   |
   ... |
   2013-11-03T23:59Z --+
   2013-11-04T00:00Z
   ...

 The minute after 2013-11-03T23:59Z is on November 4th. I do understand
 that when setting a deadline you are better off giving the end of a day
 as deadline so the time is up when the day is over, otherwise people see
 a contradiction and get confused, but beyond that I've not encountered
 this particular confusion.
 --



Bjoern, it might just be that I am old and remember the ancient days when
the 24-hour clock was first coming into use outside of the military; it was
common back then to see a time like 00:01 written as 24:01.  The fact that
we have a date change creates the mental expectation that there will be a
day's end before the next meeting, but for people in North America, this is
early afternoon vs late afternoon/early evening.


But yeahI just asked a simple question, and I've got a nice answer.
I've also got a fair amount of slogging.  Let's end this thread now, okay?

Risker
___
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 2014 scholarship now accepting application

2014-01-08 Thread Risker
On 8 January 2014 12:50, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:

 On 08/01/2014 17:39, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

 On 01/08/2014 12:37 PM, Katie Chan wrote:

 Only a single type of scholarship will be available from the Wikimedia
 Foundation for Wikimania 2014.

 I rather liked the idea of partial scholarships in past years since it
 would allow more people to attend on the same budget when practical.

 Can I ask why this was decided against this year?


 Per the FAQ[1]:

 The low acceptance rate of partial scholarships and overhead in
 reimbursing for partial scholarships for Wikimania 2013 
 https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_page made it apparent that
 the funds would be better spent in offering more full scholarships.

 I hope that helps.

 KTC


 [1]: https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships/FAQ





I too am sorry to see that partial scholarships will not be entertained
this year by the Wikimania Committee.  They were a reasonable interim point
for people who wanted to attend but didn't have the budget to handle both
expensive flights and expensive rooms, but at the same time were unwilling
or unable to handle staying in shared dormitory accommodation that is the
expected standard for full scholarships.

There should be only a marginally higher overhead in managing partial
scholarships; both types required the same amount of effort to send
reimbursement for airfare.

Risker/Anne
___
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

2014-01-09 Thread Risker
I'd suggest that income is not a particularly significant factor in whether
or not people participate in the Wikimedia movement, particularly as
editors.  Infrastructure including internet access, education, and
availability of technology are far more significant.

These are all abundantly available in Europe, where we have probably the
highest concentration of editors per capita (with the possible exception of
the US).

In fact, I can't help wondering how a discussion of a European basic
minimum income really comes across to our colleagues who live in countries
where daily wages are the equivalent of the cost of a cup of coffee and
a pastry in most of Europe, North America, and other wealthy
countries.  It's bothering me, and I live in one of those well to do
countries.

Risker
___
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

2014-01-13 Thread Risker
I dunno, guys.  I certainly would take a talk page message over a
mechanical thank any day of the week.  More particularly, I notice a
significant trend in using thank notifications to express agreement with
people without having to actually say yeah, I agree somewhere.

That the loss of human contact, replacing it with another technological
whizbang, is considered a net positive...well, I guess that's what can be
expected from Wikimedia.

Risker


On 13 January 2014 17:36, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Indeed. I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit thank. I hit
 okay.

 I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit the talk link, I hit the
 new section button, I fill in my message, I save my message.

 Ultimately, though, this compares apples to oranges; nobody is
 technologizing this kind of user interaction because nobody is removing
 the ability to leave thankful talk page messages - indeed, I think they
 still serve a very useful purpose. I tend to thank people when they've made
 an edit I appreciate; I head over to their talkpage and give barnstars when
 this is indicative of wider good work on their part, or it's a /really/
 great edit. All we've done is added some granularity to the system,
 reducing the barrier for small amounts of thanks.


 On 13 January 2014 14:24, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to technologize such very
  basic
   user interactions.  It takes as much work to thank someone using
   notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message.
  
 
  That's empirically not true.
 
  If I am on a page history or list of user contributions, it's takes just
  two clicks and you don't leave the page. To leave someone a Talk page
  message takes several new page loads and steps.
  ___
  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
 



 --
 Oliver Keyes
 Product Analyst
 Wikimedia Foundation
 ___
 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] [Wikitech-l] Reasonator use in Wikipedias

2014-01-23 Thread Risker
On 23 January 2014 15:42, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:

 On 23 January 2014 15:12, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
 wrote:
 
  I thought about that as well. Besides the intro text, the info box would
 be
  the main attraction; but if infoboxes were to fall back on wikidata
  information, which they could technically already do, all we'd have to do
  is add a blank infobox, and it should automatically fill up with the
  wikidata information. In light of that, writing code to fill an infobox
  with values form wikidata to paste into the article seems ... low-tech
 ;-)

 Indeed - but we have to work with what we have.

 Perhaps we could concentrate on one very narrow subject, and its
 single corresponding infobox, as a pilot?




I suggest that this discussion should be on the various projects that might
be affected, particularly as different projects have very different ideas
about whether the use of Wikidata for anything more than language links is
acceptable. Many projects do not permit bulk bot creation of content, and
this proposal is a close parallel.

Further, content that isn't editable on the project on which it is hosted
is probably not a very effective way to persuade people to turn it into an
actual page.

Trialing the process on some small projects that actively volunteer to
participate would be a first step.

Risker/Anne
___
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] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to
express your displeasure about a specific individual's block on a
particular project, without ensuring that you had your facts straight.  It
is unfair not only to the project involved, but to the person who is
blocked: nobody needs to have a board trustee shining a bright light on
their removal from the project. In fact, your using a specific editor as
your poster boy for bot editing without knowing why his restrictions are in
place is rather inconsiderate to the editor, the project, and the other
people who think you're giving wise counsel.

Before you do that in the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to
understand why a project had to, after years of trying to work with a
valued editor and to mitigate the problems caused, finally remove him from
the project.

Risker


On 4 February 2014 07:05, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bot generated articles have been important throughout the history of the
 wiki Projects.  They are essential to our future.  They have also always
 been  controversial with some editors.

 Agreed that not showing them or remaining skeptical rather than learning to
 use them better will be a proviso and may lead to forks.  I am sad when I
 see  veryactive bot and script users blocked on larger wikis (Rich
 Farmborough comes to mind from enwp) and perhaps we can find ways to
 recognize the best bots just as we do articles.
 On Feb 4, 2014 3:31 AM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se
 wrote:

  Nemo has found this wiki which I find very interesting [1]. it contains
  1,68 million articles and seems to be a copy of articles from Lithunian
  Wikipedia + some 1,5 million botgenerated articles, with focus on species
  (i know from Lsjbot that there are at least some 1,3 M articles of
 species
  to be found from reliable databases)
 
  The effort seems to be done by just a few lithuanians wikipedians with
 the
  right technical skill and insight on wikipedia, they are probably active
  also on ltwp[2].
 
  For me it is a reminder what will happen if we continue to be sceptical
 of
  botgerneration of articles with correct info with verfied sources.
 Creative
  people will do it anyway and then outside Wikpedia, which could make
   Wikipedia redundant in the same way Wikipedia has made the old
 paperbased
  encyclopedias redundant. The online encyclopedia with most knowledge to
 the
  readers will survive, and botgenerated verified articles contains more
  knowledge then no article on the subject. Also note that the most active
  now are languages like Vietnamese and Lithunian, with small communities
 all
  aware it will take eons of time if to expected these will be created
  manually
 
  I do would like the movement and upcoming strategy to make a proactive
  stand re semiautomted articles
 
  On sv:wp we have had this focus, since last august with including upload
  on wikidata as part of the articlegeneration. We have found the inclusion
  of Wikidata much more complex then we anticipated. We thought half a year
  would be enough to get a set of items with proper 100% quality data into
  Wikidata, but we now think it will take something like two years for
 just
  a small set of 1 articles :( This have not changed our belief in this
  approach, but we would certainly appreciate it there were other entities
  doing the same and with whom we could exchange experience (or a central
  initiative)
 
  Anders
 
  [1]
  Start page http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
  Latest  changes http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Naujausi_puslapiai
  For random article press Atsitiktinis puslapis http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/
  Specialus:Atsitiktinis_puslapis/Straipsnis
  [2]
  ltwp https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
  ___
  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

___
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] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
On 4 February 2014 08:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Risker, 04/02/2014 13:40:

 Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to
 express your displeasure about a specific individual's block [...]


 You're putting words in his mouth. Saying, for instance, how sad it is
 that about 1 % of the USA population is in jail doesn't equal saying that
 all people in jail should be immediately liberated; similarly, I'm always
 sad when I block a user, because it's a failure, but that doesn't mean I
 won't do what's needed.

 Nemo, he named a specific user.  I don't think I'm putting words in his
mouth.

The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily
working away on English Wikipedia.

Risker
___
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] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
On 4 February 2014 10:30, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 ..
  The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily
  working away on English Wikipedia.

 As someone who has made around 3 million automated edits on Commons
 and uploaded over 200,000 valuable educational images there, I would
 love to do similar work to benefit the English Wikipedia. I do not
 feel in the least bit encouraged to even try to set up a content
 creation or even an uncontroversial en.wp house-keeping project in
 2014 considering how much of my volunteer time would be lost it debate
 any proposal there is likely to create, compared to the simplicity of
 other Wikimedia projects.

 Knowing what happens to anyone who becomes of interest and has a
 large number of edits, along with the associated endless repeated
 attempts to find any single problematic edit out of hundreds of
 thousands of perfectly good content creation, I find the word
 merrily a poor choice. The extraordinary case that Sam mentioned has
 been a widely discussed lesson to all bot-writers, many of us
 carefully do our work in a way that avoids ever attempting to put our
 heads above the parapet and risk becoming targets of depressing
 damaging witch-hunts, reputation ruining bad faith allegations and
 extreme effectively *years*-long sanctions from those with big
 hammers. So rather than merrily one might better chose from
 cautiously, covertly or even fearfully and not.

 Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful
 bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do
 some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a
 danger to Wikimedia?

 I'd defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group, Fae.  Bots have done
(and continue to do) extremely useful work on English Wikipedia. They've
also been involved with some difficult-to-fix harm (usually unintentional,
by poor programming or without understanding of underlying content issues),
and unfortunately there has been a pattern of a handful of bot owners not
cleaning up those sorts of problems.  This has resulted in the bar being
raised for everyone.

The issue of bot article creation is one that will vary widely from project
to project depending on the culture and philosophy of the community. If we
think a bit, we're all likely to come up with a project or two that
expanded rapidly with the use of bots, only to find that the content added
had to be removed because it didn't meet copyright requirements or was of
very poor quality.  On the other hand, we've also seen brilliant successes.
And yes, there was some fairly significant early expansion of English
Wikipedia through bot article creation.  Some of those articles have barely
been touched since - except by other bots.

Risker
___
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] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
On 4 February 2014 11:21, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful
  bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do
  some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a
  danger to Wikimedia?
 
  I'd defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group, Fae.  Bots have done
  (and continue to do) extremely useful work on English Wikipedia. They've
  also been involved with some difficult-to-fix harm (usually
 unintentional,
  by poor programming or without understanding of underlying content
 issues),
  and unfortunately there has been a pattern of a handful of bot owners not
  cleaning up those sorts of problems.  This has resulted in the bar being
  raised for everyone.
 
  The issue of bot article creation is one that will vary widely from
 project
  to project depending on the culture and philosophy of the community. If
 we
  think a bit, we're all likely to come up with a project or two that
  expanded rapidly with the use of bots, only to find that the content
 added
  had to be removed because it didn't meet copyright requirements or was of
  very poor quality.  On the other hand, we've also seen brilliant
 successes.
  And yes, there was some fairly significant early expansion of English
  Wikipedia through bot article creation.  Some of those articles have
 barely
  been touched since - except by other bots.
 
  Risker

 I take that as a no.




That's unfortunate, Fae. It's meant to say I don't have the knowledge to
analyse whether or not your bot works, so I would defer to those who do. I
don't think I'm qualified to figure out whether or not your bots, or anyone
else's bots, should be operating on Wikipedia.

I'd have the same answer to a developer who wanted me to review code, or an
engineer who wanted me to look at his designs for an internal combustion
engine.  It's just knowledge outside of my scope.

Risker
___
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] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
On 4 February 2014 11:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo hah...@gmail.com wrote:

  Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the
  Rich Farmbrough case by putting him against a slow death that would
  ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator.


 Risker has not noted her personal involvement in such. She's not
 defending the treatment of Rich Farmbrough as any sort of uninvolved
 commentator.


I'm not defending the treatment of any individual editor, David.  I'm
saying that it is wrong, just plain wrong, to try to leverage a situation
involving any individual editor by name when making what is an otherwise
valid point, particularly when unfamiliar with the entire background.  Rich
doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list, when there's
not a darn thing that's going to change as a result of it.  He is a decent
person and a dedicated Wikimedian, and people shouldn't be using his name
to make political points.

I do try to stand up to that principle; there've been numerous
opportunities for me over the years to point to the behaviour of specific
individuals and try to make hay out of them.  I may not always succeed, but
I really do try, especially on this global mailing list.

Risker
___
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] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59:

 doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list


 Then it would have been useful if you had refrained from issuing a motion
 of order against a simple, incidental 7-words mention, making this
 (otherwise quiet) thread into a television legal drama with the continuous
 scenes of objection! and the judge telling the court to ignore the
 rampant attorney's harangue.



I'm not sure I entirely understand your point here, Nemo, but nonetheless
since it seems to be the opinion of several people in this thread that I
was personally responsible for this whole mess, I'll simplly suggest that
people read the actual case[1] where the Arbitration Committee upheld not
one but two *community* restrictions on the user in question, and took
steps to ensure that the community's decision was enforced.

Of course, if the Arbitration Committee had overturned the community
restrictions, then it would be pilloried for blatantly ignoring a decision
that the community had every right to make without Arbcom's involvement.

So meanwhile, I look at my watchlist and note that about 15% of the edits
on it were made by bots - and as far as I can see, none of them are
problematic.  Some of the bots on English Wikipedia have been editing
longer than I have, and more are created all the time.  There are a lot of
really excellent bots around, and a lot of bots that might cause problems
are weeded out or improved when they get to the Bot Approvals Group.  Bots
aren't the problem.

Risker


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Final_decision
___
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

2014-02-11 Thread Risker
Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that be, Cynthia?  The
board's consensus is reflected in the decision. There's almost no public
discussion of this outside of this specific thread on a mailing list (a
grand total of two comments on the talk page of the FAQ, as I write), so
I'm not sure which consensus you're speaking of.

Risker/Anne


On 11 February 2014 12:59, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.comwrote:

 Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
 hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
 statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of
 these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In
 the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented?
 If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were
 disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about
 progress and benefit the movement on a global basis?

 Best regards,

 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson


 On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede 
 jdevre...@wikimedia.org
  wrote:

  Dear Frederic,
 
 
  On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote:
 
   On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
  
   Hi Phoebe,
  
   thanks for your answer !
  
   It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
   achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic
 organization.
   However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the
 group
   actually got there should have no influence on the result.
  
  
   Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to
  do
   stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they
  will
   stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove
  that
   they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's
 the
   crux of the matter, not the user group label, as far as I'm
  concerned).
  
   What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the
   actual decision. Your decision is not you should have a good track
   record, it is you should have a good track record AND NOT have
 bylaws.
  
   What I understand the board is saying is: if you have a fantastic
 track
   record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated
   two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external
   funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind
   of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic
   organization.
  
   How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?
 
  I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this
  impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track
 record
  is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having
  bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good
  indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation.
 
  
   I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not
  endorsed
   by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the
   community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?
  
   I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I
   don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the
   discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever
   amount of discussion we have) and not before.
 
  Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it
  should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself
  (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the
  recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there
 is
  now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic
 organisation,
  which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice
  brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will
  help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters
  and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance
 responsibility.
 
  For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC
  into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were
 really
  the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both
  committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which
  was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which
  were provided by the Affcom and FDC).
 
  SNIP
 
  
   thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us
  know.
   We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us
  all
   on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.
  
   The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this
   proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

2014-02-11 Thread Risker
Consensus is not the same as unanimity, and anyone who's crossed a few
different Wikimedia projects will know that what is defined as consensus
varies pretty widely, from majority +1 to 80% or higher support.  For the
purposes of board votes, it's majority +1.

I'm actually quite pleased that the board has moved away from twisting
itself in knots trying to ensure unanimous support of proposals: it led to
watered-down, poorly structured decisions that have often left the
community confused and uncertain as to their intent.  I'm also pleased to
see that they are identifying who has supported or opposed motions.

Risker/Anne


On 11 February 2014 16:49, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.comwrote:

 2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com:
  Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear.

 IMHO, I wouldn't say that for two decisions taken with 7-3 and 6-4[1],
 when you can see that most of the times[2] the vote was unanimous.

 Cristian

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
 [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

 ___
 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] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

2014-02-12 Thread Risker
I think perhaps this financial benefit discussion has taken us a bit
off track.  This thread has a wealth of well-informed commentary, the
majority of it coming from volunteers; for most, any financial
benefit is the result of expenses being (partially) covered to carry
out these volunteer activities.

Perhaps the point that Nathan might be trying to make is that it is
useful for everyone involved in these wide-ranging discussions to
understand each other's relative experience.  For example, it would be
helpful to interpret Cynthia's and Lodewijk's comments knowing that
they are members of the Affiliations Committee. That is not to suggest
that their opinions should be discounted; in fact, quite the opposite.
They are opinions that have been informed by the fact of their
committee membership, although of course they are speaking for
themselves and not the committee as a whole. I will note as an aside
that I was aware they were both on some relevant committee, but it
took some digging to figure out which one.

Similarly, those who hold executive roles with chapters, or are
members of the FDC or other global or local groups that would be
affected by these decisions, are able to share their knowledge from
those experiences.

Risker/Anne

___
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?

2014-03-03 Thread Risker
Heh.  So the Wikimedia representative was in Finland?

Still a bit of correction coming, I think.

Risker/Anne


On 3 March 2014 14:05, 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*

 Hi Phillippe,

 I noticed that the press release[1] had been made and says despite a press
 report in Finland that suggested we did not meet the deadline. That press
 report has since been retracted and corrected

 However, when I browse to the report, it still appears uncorrected..

 Alex

 [1]
 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Statement_on_WMF%27s_Finnish_fundraising

 On 1 March 2014 17:46, Philippe Beaudette philippe at wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l wrote:

 * Hi Alex,
 ** I have checked with Legal.  Our deadline for the response was Friday,
 and
 ** our response was indeed filed yesterday.  We received an email
 confirmation
 ** from the authorities that the document had been received and we called
 them
 ** as well to confirm safe receipt.  It might of course have been that the
 ** writer of the article contacted the authorities before we filed the
 ** document.  We are taking steps to correct this inaccurate report.
 ** Best,
 ** pb
 ** *Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
 ** Foundation, Inc.
 **  T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  philippe at wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l  |  :
 ** @Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
 https://twitter.com/Philippewiki
 ** On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Alex Monk krenair at gmail.com
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l wrote:
 **  Apparently they got no response:
 ** 
 ** 
 **
 http://www.finlandtimes.fi/national/2014/03/01/5137/Wikipediafailstomeetdeadlineonpolicerequest
 
 http://www.finlandtimes.fi/national/2014/03/01/5137/Wikipediafailstomeetdeadlineonpolicerequest
 
 ** 
 ** 
 **  On 10 February 2014 15:41, Jane Darnell jane023 at gmail.com
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l wrote:
 ** 
 **   Yes, he would definitely have enjoyed this one
 **  
 **   2014-02-10 9:51 GMT+01:00, Leinonen Teemu teemu.leinonen at
 aalto.fi https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l:
 **On 8.2.2014, at 13.51, Jane Darnell jane023 at gmail.com
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l wrote:
 **I love this thread - it make me think of Matti Wuori in the
 movie
 ** The
 **man without a past
 **   
 **   
 **Heh :-) These days, I also miss Matti Wuori. :-'(
 **   
 **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_Wuori
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_Wuori
 **   
 **- Teemu
 **   
 **--
 **Teemu Leinonen
 **http://teemuleinonen.fi http://teemuleinonen.fi
 **+358 50 351 6796 %2B358%2050%20351%206796
 **Media Lab
 **http://mlab.uiah.fi http://mlab.uiah.fi
 **Aalto University
 **School of Arts, Design and Architecture
 **--
 **   
 **___
 **Wikimedia-l mailing list
 **Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 **Unsubscribe:
 ** https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 **mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ?subject=unsubscribe
 **  
 **   ___
 **   Wikimedia-l mailing list
 **   Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 **   Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 **   mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ?subject=unsubscribe
 **  
 **  ___
 **  Wikimedia-l mailing list
 **  Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 **  Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 **  mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ?subject=unsubscribe
 ** 
 ** ___
 ** Wikimedia-l mailing list
 ** Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ** Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 ** mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

2014-03-13 Thread Risker
On 13 March 2014 05:13, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

  Is there ... an explanation which explains what it all means?

 It's an attempted improvement on the policy survey at
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Survey

 A survey about the importance of various policy issues ... given the
 highest priority by our community.

 If you are having trouble working the preference ballot at
 http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=wmfcsdraft
 then please try the demonstration, instructions, and background
 material at http://demochoice.org/

 The ranked-preference ballot makes respondents consider choices
 pairwise, which has an accuracy advantage over approval (yes or no to
 each) or Likert scale (e.g. 1 strongly agree to 5 strongly
 disagree) responses when respondents are not familiar with all the
 options. Approval on an issues survey can have problems with
 relatively disproportionate numbers of responses with only a few
 options or all or almost all options selected, and the Likert scale
 gets fewer responses on issues less familiar to respondents than
 ranking.

 Best regards,
 James

 ___



I don't think this would be a very useful survey, and I would not
participate in it.  The shopping list of causes - many of which have little
or no correlation with anything even vaguely related to the operation of
the WMF, its core philosophies, or its purpose - is very americo-centric.
Just as importantly, it says that 12 topics will be elected.  Elected for
what?  Why 12 of them?  What about if lots of people think one of these
topics is really important, but for different reasons?

Mostly, thoughthis just really feels like it is trying to take the
Wikimedia community down a path that has nothing to do with our core
objectives, and to turn us into just another advocacy group.  I'm not
interested in that.

Risker/Anne
___
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] draft revised volunteer community survey

2014-03-13 Thread Risker
On 13 March 2014 22:38, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 snip

 If the Trustees have decided that we should pay advocates,


snip

Link to the board of decision to pay advocates please.

Risker
___
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] draft revised volunteer community survey

2014-03-13 Thread Risker
On 13 March 2014 23:56, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

  Link to the board of decision to pay advocates please.

 The most recent seems to be the approval f the Annual Plan as per

 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2013-2014_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#What_is_included_in_the_.E2.80.9CLegal.2C_Community_Advocacy.2C_Communications.2C_Human_Resources.2C_Finance_and_Administration.E2.80.9D_spending_in_the_Annual_Plan.3F


It's the name of a department Legal and Community Advocacy or LCA for
short.  That's not really the same thing.

Risker/Anne
___
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

2014-04-02 Thread Risker
I'm still a bit confused as to why you reported this to Arbcom (Wikipedia
in residence programs, paid editing, and general review of accounts are all
outside of their purview), or what  they're supposedly looking at.  This is
a community and WMF issue, and I do not see anything at all for Arbcom to
do here.  In fact, I'd be concerned if they're poking around on this when
there are several matters well within their mandate that are not apparently
being addressed.

Risker/Anne


On 2 April 2014 03:07, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Although much of my original email to Arbcom about this situation is
 outdated, I can report that Arbcom is having a look at this situation. I
 don't think there is any action needed on their part at the moment. I am
 only relaying my personal views and not speaking on their behalf.

 While we wait for further answers and documentation about this issue, I
 hope those who have some spare time will look at the proposed Annual Plan
 for the next fiscal year. I am glad WMF is providing good opportunities for
 community and public input.

 Pine

 ___
 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] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

2014-04-02 Thread Risker
I think the biggest challenge here is that there are dozens of movement
members who would be interested in attending this conference, but it is
intended to be a very limited one.  Several of the topics (Conflict of
Interest, Meet the Trustees, Lessons learnt on huge projects, How to
measure blood, sweat and tears, and particularly Reimagining movement
structures) are of interest to a much, much larger community than simply
the chapters/Thorgs. I'm still a bit baffled at having a session devoted to
Wikimania, since almost all of the attendees of the conference will be
attending Wikimania.

Indeed, if others besides the 2+1 representatives from chapters/thorgs are
permitted to attend, I would strongly urge that any additional
seats/participants be focused on movement members who work *outside* of the
formal structures.  It's pretty hard to come up with community-based
reimaginations of movement structures if you exclude those who aren't
already involved in existing movement structures. :-)

The WMF umbrella of projects, chapters, thorgs etc has not done a lot in
terms of leadership development.  I'll note, however, that the place where
leadership is most sorely lacking is on projects, while the majority of
those participating in leadership activities at the chapter/thorg level are
not doing a lot of work on WMF projects.  (That's a generalization, and
there are exceptions.)  It may be that either this conference needs to be
refocused, or it needs to be split into two separate conferences.  There is
definitely an audience out there for many of these same topics which is
being ignored completely.

Risker/Anne


On 2 April 2014 08:32, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote:

 But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good
 arguments can't come to the conference because of the 2+1 rule the whole
 thing becomes a bit difficult. Not everybody is keen on discussing such
 things on mailinglists, especially when the decisions aren't made on such
 lists, but on the conference itself.

 I for my case really would have liked to come, mainly for listening live to
 the discussions and get to know some people from other chapters. And as I
 this year live in the city where the conference takes place, it would have
 been possible with very few costs, too.

 I really would like to see this aspect of the rules to be discussed on this
 year's event because I also think that more people will represent the
 bigger variety of the movement and still don't boost the event to a
 happening where no serious discussion and fair international
 decision-finding can be made because of overcrowding or overrepresentation
 of some chapters.

 Have a nice time in Berlin, maybe I will drop by on some of the evening
 events at least. :)


 Best regards

 Jens


 2014-04-02 13:37 GMT+02:00 Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il:

  I less think this is question of budget (also, and I'm one of the big
  criticizers of the movement travels expenses), and rather the question of
  the concept of the conference.
 
  Yes, people can achieve a lot from attending  in conferences - and we
 don't
  limit the number of people who can come to Wikimania, but ChapConf is not
  Wikimania. It's another concept of conference, that happens every year
 with
  the same formula of representatives. If people think we need to change
 it,
  due the changes the movement passed over the past years, it's totally OK
  and we are welcome to do so - but we should speak about it - together, no
  by one side decision that haven't been notified to no one, at least no
  publicly.
 
 
 
 
  On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Steve Zhang cro0...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   Hi Gerard,
  
   My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than
 the
   majority of chapters, but to  make my view (as I was asked off list my
   view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list)
 that
   regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's
   disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same
 thought
   process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each
  $1,000
   like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be
  spent
   on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending
  it
   on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the
   original proposed spending is worth it.
  
   I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to
  replace
   their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of
 board
   members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt
 that
   now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in
   general, and I have now done so.
  
   Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
  
   Steve
  
  
   On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
  wrote:
  
Hoi,
There is a big difference between being frugal and being

  1   2   3   4   >