Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On 15 May 2014 22:22, Russavia wrote: > Pete, > > I am sure that I speak on behalf of all of the Commons community when > I say that it is disheartening to continually hear the mantra "commons > is broken", when that could not be further from the truth. Your blog > post, helps to present some of that reality, so I thank you, both on > my behalf and on behalf of the Commons community. I will have some > comments later on a couple of issues. > > Risker, > > Of course the image still shows up on search for electric toothbrush. > If you read the closure on that DR, which I wrote in conjunction with > 3 other admins, the issue is very clear. It's not a Commons problem, > but a WMF problem. > > Cheers > > The solution to the problem is entirely within the control of Commons - recategorize the image to "improvised vibrators" instead of "electric toothbrush" and you're done. I wouldn't dare do it myself, it would be the kind of "provocative" activity from "someone who doesn't really understand Commons" that could result in my being blocked. I do understand that much about Commons and its culture. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On 19 May 2014 18:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Russavia >wrote: > > > Once new search is working, the first enhancement to the search should > > be a clustering feature.[3] Wouldn't such a feature pretty much solve > > the problem that we currently have with search, and which won't be > > solved by the "out-of-the-box" search that is being worked on now. > > > > John provided a link to Bugzilla[4] at which Chad has stated it would > > be a great feature, and it would be even more awesome to have the > > "Assigned to" change from "Nobody - You can work on this!" to "WMF > > Platform Team". The WMF has the coin, it has the tech talent, now we > > as a community need that solution. > > > > Apart from everyone going to the Bugzilla report and adding their > > support for this feature (which they should do), how can we go about > > ensuring that such a feature is treated as a priority by the WMF? > > > > Cheers > > > > Russavia > > http://i.imgur.com/VdIqCkQ.png > > > > [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/multimedia/2014-May/000517.html > > [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Nsfw > > [3] > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons > > [4] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35701 > > > > > I second this. > > Niabot's clustering idea was the most sensible proposal to come out of all > the brainstorming effort that went on at the time. No tagging, no > censorship concerns, yet elegantly solves the problem of isolated NSFW > results appearing out of the blue. > > This would be a good thing to work on. > ___ > While all of these proposals for improving search are really good ideas, it still does not address the root cause of the "masturbating with electric toothbrush" image - which is improper categorization in the first place. This is entirely within the human realm, and no software is going to filter that image out of any search for "electric toothbrush" as long as it's categorized as an "electric toothbrush" image. Russavia's post directed to me earlier in this thread managed in one stroke to confirm just about everything that I said: that comments from those who aren't regular participants on Commons are to be belittled and ignored, that even a benign suggestion such as improving the categorization of an image will be met with cries of censorship, and that Commons does not have any desire or intention to change without the heavy hand of the WMF forcing it to do so. It's very sad. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On 19 May 2014 19:08, David Gerard wrote: > On 20 May 2014 00:05, Risker wrote: > > > > Russavia's post directed to me earlier in this thread managed in one > stroke > > to confirm just about everything that I said: that comments from those > who > > aren't regular participants on Commons are to be belittled and ignored, > > that even a benign suggestion such as improving the categorization of an > > image will be met with cries of censorship, and that Commons does not > have > > any desire or intention to change without the heavy hand of the WMF > forcing > > it to do so. > > It's very sad. > > > What is your plan of action as an aspiring steward? > > > Oh David, how sweet of you to remember! No intention to run again on my part, though. Been there, done that. I did give serious consideration to going and properly categorizing the image, but given the underlying threat from Russavia, and my disinclination to be blocked, I'll leave it to someone who finds the Commons experience less threatening. You perhaps, David? One would think you would see that "improvised vibrators" would be a much, much more likely search term for that image than "electric toothbrush". Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?
I do not understand why anyone would assume that the woman has agreed to this, without her actually, personally, saying that she has agreed to this. Risker On 20 May 2014 15:22, Pierre-Selim wrote: > Hi all, > > As an oversight, I'd like to give an advice first. When encountering a > privacy matter that you believe falls under the oversight policy < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight_policy#Use> you should probably > contact directly oversight-comm...@lists.wikimedia.org rather than linking > the information on a public forum (or even on a talk page), i.e. if there > is a real breach of privacy more people will see it :(. > > That said, I fail to see what falls under the oversight policy as explained > by Odder on his talk page. The only use case that come to mind is the first > one *Removal of non-public personal information*, however by publishing the > information the couple seems to agree, for now, to have this information > published (as far as we know, they are not lying about their identity). I'd > gladly suppress the personnal information if it is requested by the person > concerned or if it was an obvious mistake. > > As an administrator, it remains, [[COM:IDENT]] which is a guildeline on how > to proceed with photography of identifiable person, however I don't see any > photo in this discussion. > > In the end I just think we are having this thread because of the topic > being related to nudity (which is clearly a not consensual topic in our > communities, probably because it is cultural) and not really because of any > real breach of privacy. If I'm getting it wrong, I'm open to discussion. > > > 2014-05-20 20:04 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown : > > > (...) > > Now, I'm not really at ease with Odder's decision, and I think we (as a > > community) need to discuss that, in a civilized manner. This could have > > (and will, I hope ) happened on the pages meant for that, on Commons, > > without any unnecessary drama. > > > > @ Pipo Le Clown > Feel free to send an email to the oversight mailing list > or start a discussion on Wikimedia Commons in order to explain your > opinion. I believe the oversight team is open to community input. > > > > Pleclown > > > > > Sincerely Pierre-Selim, > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Thyge wrote: > > > > > What a kind communication! It gives me the impression that you are > afraid > > > to discuss matters outside of Commons. > > > > > > The special role of Commons as a joint resource should occationally > allow > > > concerns to be raised outside the community of commonites. If concerns > > are > > > not of a general nature, please at least deal with them in a friendly > > > manner. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Thyge > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-05-20 17:51 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown : > > > > > > > You didn't get the answer you wanted, so you're forum shopping to get > > the > > > > "right one" ? How nice of you. > > > > Le 20 mai 2014 17:37, "Jeevan Jose" a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odder&oldid=124445321#Commons_talk:Nudity > > > > > > > > > > Is this the way Commons:Photographs of identifiable people works? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Jee > > > > > ___ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > ___ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > ___ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidel
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?
On 20 May 2014 15:43, Pierre-Selim wrote: > 2014-05-20 21:35 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown : > > > @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's > > decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only > > assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the implication > of > > said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused. > > > > +1, I guess Odder (like me) also did his homework and did use this > information to take his decision. Sorry, I've tried to give a complete > answer, but it's never easy in a foreign language. > > I repeat my initial statement, why are you assuming that the woman has given authorization for publication of images on Wikimedia Commons? Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COM:IDENT?
Who said that there were images uploaded to Commons? There is a link to images offered as a "free sample". What I am disputing is one person's ability to claim authority to release photos of another person when the photos are taken in a non-public place. Given how common it is for women to find that their partners have been freely sharing nude images taken with the understanding that it was for the partner only, personal consent is important. There's also a big leap between "you can put it on your website" and "you can make it freely available on Wikimedia Commons". Risker On 20 May 2014 16:04, Pierre-Selim wrote: > 2014-05-20 22:03 GMT+02:00 Risker : > > > On 20 May 2014 15:43, Pierre-Selim wrote: > > > > > 2014-05-20 21:35 GMT+02:00 Pipo Le Clown : > > > > > > > @Risker: I was thinking the same, hence my disagreement with Odder's > > > > decision. But I've visited the linked website (NSFW) and one can only > > > > assume that the person on the pictures is fully aware of the > > implication > > > of > > > > said photos on the internet and willing to see them diffused. > > > > > > > > > > +1, I guess Odder (like me) also did his homework and did use this > > > information to take his decision. Sorry, I've tried to give a complete > > > answer, but it's never easy in a foreign language. > > > > > > > > I repeat my initial statement, why are you assuming that the woman has > > given authorization for publication of images on Wikimedia Commons? > > > Please link to the images you are talking about, because to my own > knowledge none have been published on Wikimedia Commons. > > > > > > Risker > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > -- > Pierre-Selim > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection > Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community > and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all > of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection > > Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining > to child protection that I might have missed? > > I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP > community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has > comments beyond links to current policy statements. > > Thanks! > ,Wil > English Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form more or less documented existing practice at the time. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy
On 23 May 2014 13:09, Risker wrote: > > > On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair wrote: > >> Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection >> Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community >> and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all >> of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor? >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection >> >> Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining >> to child protection that I might have missed? >> >> I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP >> community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has >> comments beyond links to current policy statements. >> >> Thanks! >> ,Wil >> > > > English Wikipedia policy: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection > > The existence of a 'formalized' policy has been a topic of heated debate > since its creation, although there is some truth that its original form > more or less documented existing practice at the time. > > Risker/Anne > Just noting in addition that on the left side of the page there are "language" links to four similar policies on other Wikipedias: Catalan, Indonesian, Persian and Ukrainian. Since few other Wikipedias have active Arbitration Committees and each existing arbcom has a different scope, it's pretty clear that processes and policies would vary from project to project. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy
Well, Wil, I caught your early posts there and was of the impression you joined to protect the privacy of a member of your family. And out of respect for that I declined to ask the question you seemed to be begging to be asked. You wouldn't be the first Wikimedian who felt that was a necessary action. Risker On 23 May 2014 21:36, Wil Sinclair wrote: > > Doesn't it strike you as odd that the question came from an active > > wikipediocracy memeber? > > Honestly, I hadn't thought about it. I'm much more interested in the > question that who asked it. > > > You know where 4chan is I assume. > > No, actually. Can you tell me? What is it? > > > Again you cite free speech. In effect you're saying that the most > > compelling thing you can say for your activity is that it's not literally > > illegal (XKCD 1357 alt text) > > I agree this is a bit confusing. I don't mean it in a legal sense- > which one might well argue that's the only sense it has- but in a more > social sense. I ask that if you don't like what I'm doing or saying, > that you take it out on me by excising your own right to free speech > by criticizing me, my actions, and my words- not on Lila through WP > politics. > > > Thats your opinion. Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point. > We > > are where we are as the result of over a decade of refinement by > thousands > > of people with each of those refinements destruction tested against > > whatever the internet can throw at them. > > Yeap. It's my opinion. And I also think that Wikipedia is an amazing > achievement. Congrats and thanks to all of you! > > > Given the size of the project and your fairly breath interaction with it > > what makes you think that you are in a position to make that judgement? > > Sorry, what do you mean by "breath interaction"? > > > Not really. The issue had already been brought up on a thread on > > wikipediocracy that you were posting on. Makes your claim that "I'm just > > asking what the current policies are." lack a certain credibility. > > Ah. Sorry. I was referring to the questions I asked on this list. > After discussing it there, I wanted to figure out what the current > policies were from the source. It was pretty hard to track down > everything on WP and WM, so thanks everyone for all the links! Do you > have the link to that thread? Maybe we should post it so that people > can see what you're talking about. > > > The relevant talk page has over 100 entries in its archives. > > Are you saying that I should discuss it there instead? > > > I'm not aware of anyone planning to have you arrested. The US right to > free > > speech involves governments something wikipedia is not. Sure wikipedia is > > pretty extreme on the spectrum on the degree of speech is will allow but > > that doesn't change the fact your right to free speech is between you and > > your government. > > Sure. I may not have used the right word. My apologies. I meant, > please don't hold my words and actions against Lila in any way. Feel > free to hold me to them, tho. :) > > > This is a mailing list for dealing with cross project issues. It isn't > for > > getting to know people. > > Ah. I guess I'll look for other places to get to know people. I'm > really sorry to have bothered you here. > > > Eh as long as you stick to the relevant venue which is not really this > > mailing list. This is for people who already have the knowledge base and > > are trying to move into genuinely new areas or have hit an issue that > can't > > be dealt with through the usual project level channels. > > Yeah. It sounds like I really just barged in to the wrong place. Doh! > > > So not an editor? > > Actually, I'm editing some. I'm about to publish an article about the > modular sofa in the WMF office. It happens to be among my favorite > furniture designs, and now I've got a great pic to use in the article. > In addition, I plan to add some audio loops that I have made over the > years doing electronic music to Commons. It would be really cool for > people to have completely free loops to use in applications like > Garage Band and FL Studio. Stay tuned! > > I guess I'll see y'all around somewhere else. > ,Wil > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.
Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible. There are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This is information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of others. Risker On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I > think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees > going forward: > http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150. > > To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately > emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask > a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite > clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the > WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. > So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't > have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this > employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety > concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he > or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the > benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own > independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in > question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when > I tried clicking on the link. > > In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to > disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to > Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected > my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community > and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging > with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the > hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public, > logged forums from now on. > > ,Wil > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ wrote: > > On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov wrote: > > ... > >> independent individual > >> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not > >> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the > WMF > >> employees. > > > > Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time > > and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the > > Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself > > and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual > > curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested > > itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the > > Foundation board. > > > > I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging" > > with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should > > and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not > > appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making > > public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations > > (emails?) with some WMF employees. > > > > Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start > > to your engagement. > > > > Fae > > -- > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.
Wil, if you want to use email lists for your discussions, you may find a better reception if you use one of the project- or task-specific lists. There is a page on English Wikipedia with links to mailing lists that most closely relate to that project[1] and a more extensive list at Meta that describes lists for many other projects and specific areas of interest.[2] One is more likely to get a positive response when the audience is more accurately targeted. You will probably find that a lot of practical questions you have asked could easily be answered at the English Wikipedia Teahouse page, where you have been invited. That would include questions about how to tell if something has been deleted from a page, how to read page histories, or even how to tell whether or not someone is WMF staff. Risker [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview On 28 May 2014 13:07, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be > obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the > following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago: > > " > I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the > person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been > revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer > public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the > confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a > misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented > things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out. > > Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't > logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who > aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't > supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK, > but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be > disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l > or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one > can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis > themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an > opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but > I am asserting that it is possible to do so. > " > > There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be > followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the > discussion that includes the comment above: > http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600 > > ,Wil > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker wrote: > > Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible. There > > are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This > is > > information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of > > others. > > > > Risker > > > > > > On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair wrote: > > > >> Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I > >> think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees > >> going forward: > >> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150. > >> > >> To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately > >> emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask > >> a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite > >> clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the > >> WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels. > >> So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't > >> have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this > >> employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety > >> concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he > >> or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the > >> benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own > >> independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in > >> question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when > >> I tried clicking on the link. > >> > >> In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to > >> disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to > >> Wikipediocracy directly. So far
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The first three weeks.
It is great to hear how you are working to learn about the vast Wikimedia community, its projects, its priorities and its challenges, Lila. I'm thinking there's something else that all of us should help you celebrate as well: after only a few weeks on the job, being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women: http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/ That's a great start. Risker On 28 May 2014 08:58, Anna Torres wrote: > +1 > > Great to hearing your experience. As being a new ED too (3 months now) I > can indentify myself with your experience: the first month is about > listening and getting to know :) > > All the best for what is to come! Hope to meeting you asap! > > Hugs from Argentina. > > > 2014-05-28 2:48 GMT-03:00 Nurunnaby Chowdhury : > > > +1 > > Thank you for this write-up. Happy to read..:) > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:24 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > > > > > Lila Tretikov wrote: > > > >I wanted to give you an update on my first three weeks of Wikimedia > > > >immersion -- this will also go on the blog. As you probably noticed, > my > > > >leadership approach is rooted in observation and focused discussions > -- > > > >this means I watch and listen more than I talk. But I expect that you > > are > > > >probably curious about what I have observed and learned so far, and to > > > >know a little more about who I am. > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Thank you for this write-up. It was nice to read. :-) > > > > > > >Your recommendations on areas you see as priorities for development > > > >(while keeping in mind that not everything can be a priority at > > > >once!); [...] > > > > > > I think this continues to be a huge pain point. Developer resources are > > > scarce and expensive and there's often a feeling that the latest > > Wikimedia > > > Foundation initiatives trump all other worthwhile projects. I think we > > > need to find a better way to more fairly allocate resources. > > > > > > As a concrete example, there continue to be dozens of Wikimedia > > Foundation > > > developers and other staff specifically focused on the English > Wikipedia > > > and sometimes Wikimedia Commons, while the other sister projects such > as > > > Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource continue to receive almost no > > direct > > > attention. (Over the past few years, even the term "sister projects" > has > > > become mildly insulting. These projects are more accurately the > > red-headed > > > stepchild projects.) This won't happen quickly, but we must make it a > > goal > > > to do better in this area. > > > > > > MZMcBride > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* > > Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia< > > http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive> > > Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia > > Foundation<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/People> > > Social Media Interaction Expert | The Daily > > Prothom-Alo<http://www.prothom-alo.com> > > Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Foundation Network > > <http://www.okfn.org> > > Treasurer | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN) <http://www.bdosn.org > > > > Task Force Member | Mozilla Bangladesh <http://www.mozillabd.org> > > fb.com/nhasive | @nhasive <http://www.twitter.com/nhasive> | Skype: > > nhasive > > | www.nhasive.com > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > -- > Anna Torres Adell > Directora Ejecutiva > *A.C Wikimedia Argentina* > > *Imprime este correo solo si es realmente necesario* > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy
On 28 May 2014 21:37, Molly White wrote: > > Harassment: Has harassment been addressed in a comprehensive way on > > all sites, including all of the WP site? As an example, Wikipedia has > > had a problem with low and declining female participation for years, > > and the WMF has often stated that it would like to address it. Are > > women actively encouraged to participate on Wikipedia by the WMF or > > other organizations? If we're not doing everything to protect women > > and all other Wikipedians, is it morally or ethically correct to > > perform outreach to potentially vulnerable groups? I'd especially like > > to hear about this from a female perspective. > > A great start would be to hold this conversation in a safe space where > people can discuss without fear of reprisal. I do not mean to say that > wikimedia-l, nor any other public Wikimedia mailing list or page, is an > inherently unsafe place to hold this discussion—that's not the case at all. > But trying to hold this discussion after all the drama that you have been > passing through this list in the past few days makes this a scary place for > myself and others to post. > > You have ensured that this list has Wikipediocracy's rapt attention. > Although I don't doubt the folks over there pay some attention to the > regular goings-on of this list, the threads that you have been motivating > and interacting with mean that every comment to this list is being > scrutinized, and anyone they dislike is being torn apart. You have also > shown that you have been interacting with and, at least to some degree, > sympathizing with at least one person who, I feel, is dangerous. > > You have created a space where comments are being picked apart by a group > of > people eager to find or fabricate any flaw. My revision-deletion of an > extremely violent and threatening edit was construed not as a standard > admin > action but as some sort of "clean-up" after someone whom they feel I am > desperate to protect or cover up. You have drawn the attention of a > dangerous user, who had not had contact with me for quite some time until > now. You have the attention of at least one, likely more, of the people who > created the racist, sexist, and threatening attack/doxxing pages mentioning > me at EncyclopediaDramatica. > > So you'll have to excuse me when I'm somewhat unwilling to give my more > in-depth "female perspective" here and now. > > Yours, > Molly (GorillaWarfare) > > I'm going to second what Molly says here, Wil. I'm a woman who has held positions that have attracted abuse and harassment (directed both at me and my family) throughout the movement for years, and the first time I have ever felt unsafe on this mailing list was today. You knew that the subject you were raising here had already caused a Wikimedia staffer to take the (very unusual) step of advising his ED that s/he felt unsafe because of your actions, not to mention the post that was left on a talk page. Let me tell you, Wil, 85-90% of women would never edit Wikipedia again if that post had been left on their talk page. And yet, you could not leave it alone. It was all about you, and how you were done wrong by, and how you didn't like how someone who has a long history of making violently and sexually graphic abusive posts on English Wikipedia (and other places) was treated. (I'm pretty sure he didn't get around to telling you why he was banned, but you knew by the time you were drawn away from IRC.) So..you perpetuated the feeling of unsafeness for your own purposes rather than respect that your actions (whether intentionally or not) had created that unsafe setting. Several community members tried to draw you away from continuing in this vein, myself included, but you were not to be deterred. Your determination to continue to perpetuate this unsafeness, by actively participating in the ridiculing of Wikimedians, is precisely the kind of behaviour that makes Wikimedia projects so unpleasant for women. I've been trying very hard to keep an open mind about you, despite your unwillingness to modify your behaviour or even try to work with the Wikimedia community. But today, you went too far. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy
No, Wil. I mean the repeated linking to a Wikipediocracy thread that actively denigrates many of the other correspondents on this list; that advocates that you use your personal influence to persuade the new ED to fire WMF staff; that implies that every WMF-related IRC channel (there are dozens, several of which are logged all the time) is littered with gratuitous insults and poor behaviour. Your own comments tar every Wikimedian and WMF staff member with the same brush. You appear to have accepted wholesale the information provided by people who have had a negative experience while discounting the comments of anyone who encourages you to try things out for yourself, no pressure. And you've worked very hard to try to force this community to discuss issues that are amongst the most highly contentious on any internet community at your convenience and with you framing the discussion, discounting any discussions that were had before, many of which you could have found for yourself with a rather basic google search. You knew all along that there was a security concern about the events relating to that IRC discussion, and yet you persisted. You would have earned some respect if you had walked away from that, but you chose not to. Now, I realise that you don't value the respect of Wikimedians very much. But on a day when Lila should be celebrating, she is instead trying to deal with the fallout of her life partner creating havoc amongst her staff and the volunteers who contribute to the projects for which she will be imminently responsible for. That's sad beyond words. Risker On 28 May 2014 23:54, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and > I've never actually seen. > > Got it. > > ,Wil > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White > wrote: > > Wil Sinclair writes: > > > >> > >> What??? > >> > >> What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an > >> unsafe environment? > > > > I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted. > > > >> Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned. > >> > >> *No wonder people are afraid to post here!* > > > > I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list, > > probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if > you > > wish. > > > > Yours, > > Molly (GorillaWarfare) > > > > > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy
Wil, the links? They're harassment. If you don't understand that, you're in no position to initiate a discussion about the subject. Risker On 29 May 2014 01:46, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Thanks, Risker. I think there are a few inaccuracies in there. > > * I link to threads on Wikipediocracy to demonstrate what I've > actually said. In some cases, it has been characterized here without > context. I'd prefer everyone just look at the original so that there > are no misconceptions. What other people post there is their own > business. I don't read the personal stuff, in any case, and I very > actively discourage it there. > > * I believe I only talked about that one experience on the > #wikipedia-en IRC channel and haven't said anything about any other > channels. > > * I have told the people on Wikipediocracy countless times that I have > no influence on Lila's profession decisions and that I refuse to get > involved with the WMF at all for the time being. I've told everyone > here, too, for that matter. I specifically said that I don't read the > personal stuff on Wikipediocracy, and that I don't discuss WMF > matters- staff or otherwise- with Lila. > > * Every experience that I've discussed here has been my own. > > * I don't know what security concerns you are talking about. Could you > elaborate with links? > > * It's true. I value my self-respect far more than anyone else's, and > I maintain it by being true to myself and to everyone I deal with. But > I do value the respect of Wikimedians. In the end, I will either earn > it or not by continuing to be true to myself and acting in good faith > in all my dealings. > > * Again, Lila's career is her own. If others choose to bring my > actions to her doorstep, it is their call. I've been very clear about > my role with respect to the WMF; basically, there isn't one. And I > would greatly appreciate it if everyone would stop bringing our > private relationship in to this discussion. I've decided that I won't > have anything to do with the WMF in any way. So our private lives are > no longer the community's business. > > * I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in > protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly > interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as > the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain > outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies, > but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute > a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed. > > I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've > basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were > directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive > reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me > ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are > coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally > upsetting? > > Thanks again! > ,Wil > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Risker wrote: > > No, Wil. I mean the repeated linking to a Wikipediocracy thread that > > actively denigrates many of the other correspondents on this list; that > > advocates that you use your personal influence to persuade the new ED to > > fire WMF staff; that implies that every WMF-related IRC channel (there > are > > dozens, several of which are logged all the time) is littered with > > gratuitous insults and poor behaviour. Your own comments tar every > > Wikimedian and WMF staff member with the same brush. You appear to have > > accepted wholesale the information provided by people who have had a > > negative experience while discounting the comments of anyone who > encourages > > you to try things out for yourself, no pressure. And you've worked very > > hard to try to force this community to discuss issues that are amongst > the > > most highly contentious on any internet community at your convenience and > > with you framing the discussion, discounting any discussions that were > had > > before, many of which you could have found for yourself with a rather > basic > > google search. > > > > You knew all along that there was a security concern about the events > > relating to that IRC discussion, and yet you persisted. You would have > > earned some respect if you had walked away from that, but you chose not > to. > > Now, I realise that you don't value the respect of Wikimedians very much. > > But on a
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia movement affiliates liaisons
I'm still stuck on "bylaws". Why is AffCom asking for bylaws? Risker > > > > > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]
On 1 June 2014 01:39, Fæ wrote: > On 1 June 2014 04:26, James Salsman wrote: > ... > >>... selects strongly against women. > > > > Where is the evidence that women have more difficulty understanding > > wikitext than men? > > (Probably drifting to "Increase participation by women") > > As someone who has run editathons on women focused topics, I found > this an odd comment that does not match anecdotal experience. New > women users seem little different to men in the issues that arise, and > though I have found myself apologising for the slightly odd syntax, > given the standard crib-sheet most users get on with basic article > creation quite happily. > > There are far more commonly raised issues such as the complex issues > associated with image upload (copyright!), or the conceptual > difficulty of "namespaces" which mean that some webpages behave > differently to others. None is something that appears to "select > strongly against women", though the encyclopedia's way of defining > notability can make it harder to create articles about pre-1970s > professional women, purely because sources from earlier periods tend > to be biased towards men. > > If there are surveys that wiki-syntax is more of a barrier for women > than men (after discounting out other factors), perhaps someone could > provide a link? > > Fae, I don't know if wiki-syntax in and of itself is more of a barrier for women than men. What I do know is that wiki-syntax is a lot harder today than it was when I started editing 8 years ago, and that today I would consider it more akin to computer programming than content creation. That is where the barrier comes in. The statistics for percentage of women employed in computer-related technology is abysmal; we all know that. Even organizations that actively seek out qualified women (including Wikimedia, I'll point out) can't come close to filling all the slots they'd willingly open, because there simply aren't that many qualified women. They're not filling the seats in college and university programs, either. Eight years ago, only about a quarter of English Wikipedia articles had an infobox - that huge pile of wiki-syntax that is at the top of the overwhelming majority of articles today. There were not a lot of templates; certainly the monstrous templates at the bottom of most articles today didn't exist then. The syntax for creating references was essentially insert url ; today there is a plethora of complex referencing templates, some of which are so complex and non-intuitive that only a small minority of *wikipedians* can use them effectively. I know wiki-syntax, and I have found it increasingly more difficult to edit as time has gone on. I don't think it's because I'm a woman, I think it's because I'm not a programmer - and women who *are* programmers are only a small minority of all programmers, so it follows that women are less likely to have the skills that will help them sort through what they see when they click "Edit". It's exactly why I've been following and keeping up with the development of VisualEditor - because I believe it will make it easier for those who aren't particularly technically inclined to contribute to the project. I believe it's the route to attracting a more diverse editing population, including but not limited to women. And I think that it's pretty close to being ready for hands-on use by those who are new to our projects, now that it can handle pretty well most of the essential editing tasks. It's not perfect, but it's getting there. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]
On 1 June 2014 05:53, Ting Chen wrote: > Hello Risker, > > you have my sympathy, and let me tell you this: I am man and programmer, > and when I edit articles nowaday I tend to ignore the info boxes and the > templates at the end of each article. If I create a new article and I > happen don't have a similar article with the templates and infobox already > at hand, I simply create an article without both. > > And I think it is essential to tell the beginner to do the same: Don't > bother with things that are too complicated, it is the content that counts. > > What I also do is help newcomers to wikify articles. I think it is an > utterly bad habitate just to put a wikify template in a not nicely > structured article instead of to do something by one self. It is usually > just a few edits, two '''s, a few [[ and ]]s, and maybe a [[cateogry:...]] > that can make the difference. > > See now, here's the problem. What you've described as "simple" above is actually complicated, and requires rather advanced knowledge of wikitext. Categorizing of articles is a minefield that even a lot of experienced Wikipedians avoid. Knowing that there are maintenance templates is not something that a new user will know, so adding them is far beyond their abilities. And none of your suggestions deal with the fact that the information in the editing window just doesn't look like the article; a new user will likely have difficulty finding the typo that they were trying to fix. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] VisualEditor on English Wikipedia
On 3 June 2014 03:02, ENWP Pine wrote: > Because VE has repeatedly been mentioned in this list as something that is > improving and may help us with acquisition of editors and their knowledge, > I have started to draft an RfC about re-enabling VE on English Wikipedia. > > I am not proposing any specific outcome in the RfC. My goal is to set up a > framework which the community can use to decide which of several paths we > would like to take. > > This is not my personal RfC, I just happen to think that with recent > discussions trending positively about VE's improvement over the past > several months and with the comments in this list about its possible value > to acquiring new editors, I'm willing to put in some time to draft a > framework for a discussion on-wiki. I am providing this note to let the > community know that someone (me) is drafting a framework for on-wiki > discussion. If someone else wants to start an RfC before I get around to > starting one, that's completely ok. > > Cheers, > > Pine > Without denigrating your considerable contributions to the project, Pine, I'd suggest that anyone setting up an RFC on this issue should have more recent experience with the product than you have, and I'd also suggest that an RFC is premature until there is an indication from the WMF that *they* feel the product might be ready for broader access. I don't think that a fair discussion can be had when it is happening without, for example, a clear understanding of what issues existed before and whether or not they have been resolved. I hope you will reconsider - or perhaps actually test the product for a couple of weeks before proceeding, so that the RFC can be based on factual information rather than "well, some people think it should be enabled". There have always been some people who thought it should be enabled. There have always been some people who think it is a waste of engineering time and energy. But factual information about the current status of the tool, complete with intelligent assessment of its features, is what is really needed for the community to make a considered decision. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] VisualEditor on English Wikipedia
On 3 June 2014 09:05, Risker wrote:
>
>
> On 3 June 2014 03:02, ENWP Pine wrote:
>
>> Because VE has repeatedly been mentioned in this list as something that
>> is improving and may help us with acquisition of editors and their
>> knowledge, I have started to draft an RfC about re-enabling VE on English
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> I am not proposing any specific outcome in the RfC. My goal is to set up
>> a framework which the community can use to decide which of several paths we
>> would like to take.
>>
>> This is not my personal RfC, I just happen to think that with recent
>> discussions trending positively about VE's improvement over the past
>> several months and with the comments in this list about its possible value
>> to acquiring new editors, I'm willing to put in some time to draft a
>> framework for a discussion on-wiki. I am providing this note to let the
>> community know that someone (me) is drafting a framework for on-wiki
>> discussion. If someone else wants to start an RfC before I get around to
>> starting one, that's completely ok.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pine
>>
>
>
> Without denigrating your considerable contributions to the project, Pine,
> I'd suggest that anyone setting up an RFC on this issue should have more
> recent experience with the product than you have, and I'd also suggest that
> an RFC is premature until there is an indication from the WMF that *they*
> feel the product might be ready for broader access. I don't think that a
> fair discussion can be had when it is happening without, for example, a
> clear understanding of what issues existed before and whether or not they
> have been resolved. I hope you will reconsider - or perhaps actually test
> the product for a couple of weeks before proceeding, so that the RFC can be
> based on factual information rather than "well, some people think it should
> be enabled". There have always been some people who thought it should be
> enabled. There have always been some people who think it is a waste of
> engineering time and energy. But factual information about the current
> status of the tool, complete with intelligent assessment of its features,
> is what is really needed for the community to make a considered decision.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
Okay, further to what I've said aboveI think that before having an RFC,
we should seek community assistance to carry out a small-scale study so
that there is some evidence on which people can base their decisions. This
is what I would suggest.
- Create a "sample article" that includes an infobox, an image or two,
some references, a template or two, and at least three editable sections.
Editors will be asked to copy/paste this page into a personal sandbox to
carry out the experiment, so that their individual results can be observed
through the page history, and problems can be more easily identified.
- Identify about 15-20 *basic* editing tasks that an inexperienced
editor would be likely to try. Some that come to mind:
- Remove a word
- Add a word
- change spelling of a word
- add a link to another article
- remove a link to another article
- move a sentence within a section
- move a sentence across sections
- add a [new] reference (multiple tests for website, newspaper, book
references)
- edit an existing reference
- re-use an existing reference
- edit existing information in the infobox
- add a reference to the infobox
- add a new parameter to the infobox
- add an image
- remove an image
- add an image description
- modify an image description
- add a commonly used template (such as {{fact}})
- remove a template
- add several symbols and accented characters that are not available
on their standard keyboard (e.g., Euro and GBP symbols for US keyboards,
accented characters commonly used in German or French)
- Ask the "testers" to complete a chart outlining their results for each
of the editing tasks being tested, and any comments they have about each of
these editing features.
If we can persuade even 25 people to work through these basic tasks, and
the results are aggregated well, the community will have some useful data
on which to base next-steps decisions. It will also provide the
VisualEditor team with comparatively unbiased information about their
progress. The key emphasis in the experiment is that it should focus on
straightforward, elementary editing activities rather than complex tasks,
and the purpose is to see whether or not these features work in an expected
way or not.
Thoughts?
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] VisualEditor on English Wikipedia
On 3 June 2014 12:25, David Gerard wrote: > On 3 June 2014 16:37, Risker wrote: > > > Okay, further to what I've said aboveI think that before having an > RFC, > > we should seek community assistance to carry out a small-scale study so > > that there is some evidence on which people can base their decisions. > This > > is what I would suggest. > > [snip a possible user test scenario] > > > +1. Some sort of user testing like this would be fantastic. > > We might even be able to set it up so the Internet will do it for us, > which will save WMF paying testers ... could do some serious A/B work > too. There must be frameworks for this sort of thing ... > > VE team (cc James): so. How do you think this thing is now, getting to > a year later? Performance? Robustness? Stability of code? > > > - David, one of the most important features of this proposed test is that people who *know* what the results ought to look like are carrying out the testing. It is probably a good idea to have parallel testing with new or inexperienced users, but at the end of the day, it's experienced Wikipedians who are going to make the decision whether or not to open up availability of VisualEditor to an expanded user group, and they are the ones who have to believe that it is fit for purpose, at least for basic editing skills required by new users. I suspect that most Wikipedians will give much more regard to the documented experiences of editors whose reputations they know as compared to those who are brand new - and I include myself in that group. I've seen ringers sent in too often in different kinds of user tests (not necessarily Wikimedia-specific) to fully assume good faith. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] VisualEditor on English Wikipedia
Thanks Ed. The point I am trying to make is that the community can't make
a good decision on this unless they understand the VisualEditor product as
it exists today. I think pretty much everyone agrees it wasn't ready for
default editing on 1 July 2013, but absent recent data most people would
naturally base their opinions on their personal experiences from that very
early period.
Risker/Anne
On 3 June 2014 12:15, Edward Saperia wrote:
> Sounds like your suggestion would be a perfect contribution to some kind of
> community discussion to try and decide a framework to decide if or when we
> might want to re-deploy visual editor, much like Pine was suggesting in the
> first place :-)
>
> *Edward Saperia*
> Chief Coordinator Wikimania London <http://www.wikimanialondon.org>
>
> On 3 June 2014 16:37, Risker wrote:
>
> > On 3 June 2014 09:05, Risker wrote:
> > > On 3 June 2014 03:02, ENWP Pine wrote:
> >
> > >> Because VE has repeatedly been mentioned in this list as something
> that
> > >> is improving and may help us with acquisition of editors and their
> > >> knowledge, I have started to draft an RfC about re-enabling VE on
> > English
> > >> Wikipedia.
> > >>
> > >> I am not proposing any specific outcome in the RfC. My goal is to set
> up
> > >> a framework which the community can use to decide which of several
> > paths we
> > >> would like to take.
> >
> > Okay, further to what I've said aboveI think that before having an
> RFC,
> > we should seek community assistance to carry out a small-scale study so
> > that there is some evidence on which people can base their decisions.
> This
> > is what I would suggest.
> >
> >- Create a "sample article" that includes an infobox, an image or two,
> >some references, a template or two, and at least three editable
> > sections.
> >Editors will be asked to copy/paste this page into a personal sandbox
> to
> >carry out the experiment, so that their individual results can be
> > observed
> >through the page history, and problems can be more easily identified.
> >- Identify about 15-20 *basic* editing tasks that an inexperienced
> >editor would be likely to try. Some that come to mind:
> > - Remove a word
> > - Add a word
> > - change spelling of a word
> > - add a link to another article
> > - remove a link to another article
> > - move a sentence within a section
> > - move a sentence across sections
> > - add a [new] reference (multiple tests for website, newspaper,
> book
> > references)
> > - edit an existing reference
> > - re-use an existing reference
> > - edit existing information in the infobox
> > - add a reference to the infobox
> > - add a new parameter to the infobox
> > - add an image
> > - remove an image
> > - add an image description
> > - modify an image description
> > - add a commonly used template (such as {{fact}})
> > - remove a template
> > - add several symbols and accented characters that are not
> available
> > on their standard keyboard (e.g., Euro and GBP symbols for US
> > keyboards,
> > accented characters commonly used in German or French)
> >- Ask the "testers" to complete a chart outlining their results for
> each
> >of the editing tasks being tested, and any comments they have about
> > each of
> >these editing features.
> >
> > If we can persuade even 25 people to work through these basic tasks, and
> > the results are aggregated well, the community will have some useful data
> > on which to base next-steps decisions. It will also provide the
> > VisualEditor team with comparatively unbiased information about their
> > progress. The key emphasis in the experiment is that it should focus on
> > straightforward, elementary editing activities rather than complex tasks,
> > and the purpose is to see whether or not these features work in an
> expected
> > way or not.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote. But you know what? It was a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story they want to tell, and this is what happened here. She came in looking for the geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that? One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women. And yet the reporter herself refuses to allow them their voice. I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people who did, and I also looked at the photos. What struck me was how many women were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the women were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution. Russavia, give everyone a break here. I feel badly for the young woman, because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation. I feel badly for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia and the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet. We all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable sources in our articles. Risker On 7 June 2014 00:39, Russavia wrote: > MZMcBride, et al > > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 9:17 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > > > I know for certain that there quite a few people who feel that you, > > Russavia, are actively damaging and degrading the wiki culture with your > > actions... perhaps the same would be said of me and others, though I hope > > not. > > I would appreciate it that if you are going to have a pot shot at me, > that you expand on it, and explain exactly what actions you are > talking about. However, this isn't about me, so feel free to start a > new thread on that if you so wish. > > The article in question is obviously an issue, because gendergappers > are already saying that the unnamed female is owed an apology for the > comments which were directed towards her.[1][2] > > The comments from Kevin Rutherford were entirely inappropriate, and > whilst others may not want to publicly say anything because they know > the editor in question,[3] I am willing to go on the record and say > that comments that come across as totally clueless have no place in a > chapter-organised and WMF sponsored event. > > If Kevin Rutherford thinks that his comments were acceptable, then he > is sorely mistaken and he has shown clear misjudgment through his > comments at this public event, because they are not supported by the > wider community (if they are, then shame on the community). > > I'm seriously not doubting that Frank Schulenberg is reported to have > shaken his head at the comments, because I know others who have read > the article have *facepalmed* and lolwut. > > Having this in the media is just another cost that communities have to > face (it's not always about money), and unfortunately it seems to have > overshadowed anything actually useful that might have come of the > conference. > > Cheers, > > Russavia > > > [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004310.html > [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004311.html > [3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004312.html > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
On 7 June 2014 13:27, Fæ wrote: > On 07/06/2014, Pharos wrote: > ... > > This was an entirely volunteer-run conference. > > Thanks Pharos. My question was about proportions of attendees being > women or employees, rather than who organized it. I should have > avoided the subsequent comment, as that appears to have taken us on a > tangent (by the way, I think paying someone to help project manage > conferences is an excellent use of donated funds, it is the sort of > thing that is likely to cause volunteer stress and burn-out). > > Aude's email (Sat Jun 7 16:12:35 UTC 2014) has confirmed that at least > one attendee was an employee, so the answer to that question cannot be > zero. > > Hold onso now you are saying that someone employed by a WMF chapter or the WMF itself will never be allowed to be considered anything other than an employee? Fae, if they're paying their own way, they are there as volunteers, not employees. If they have not been directed to attend by their employer, they are volunteers. Not everyone does everything for work-related purposes, and a very significant proportion of Wikimedians who work for a chapter or the WMF also make volunteer contributions in many ways to WMF projects. This is a good thing, and shouldn't result in them being slammed for attending Wikimedia-related events on their own time spending their own money, as the nature of the question implies. If they didn't register as "employee of Chapter xx" or "employee of WMF", and their employer hasn't paid for their registration, there is absolutely no reason for them to be considered "employees" during their attendance. I do not believe that gender is a mandatory question on any registrations for any WMF projects, and I question whether or not it's an appropriate one unless there is some specific reason to ask (e.g., accommodation arrangements). Therefore, there is no accurate method to assess the number of women who attended. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why Wil's actions in multiple forums are a matter of significant concern
I'm sorry to say that my reading of your postings to this list in the past 24 hours is that you are making numerous personal attacks and insinuating yourself into the personal lives of individuals. I ask you to stop this line of discussion entirely; if you do not do so, I ask the moderators of this forum to start moderating your posts. Just stop, Pete. And everyone else, please stop responding and let these threads die. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Disclosure amendment to the Terms of Use
Not quite sure what you're shouting about, Gerard. The amendment clearly gives individual projects the right to have an alternative to this particular section of the terms of use, and that alternative can be either more strict or less strict. Seems Commons is considering an alternative that is very much less strict. If your point is that terms of use that are specifically intended for one or a small number of projects, and that are extremely unlikely to be enforced on most projects, should be addressed on a project-by-project basis, I tend to agree with you; however, it seems that since the primary target project couldn't come to consensus on a policy, everyone else gets stuck with one designed for enwiki. Risker On 16 June 2014 13:58, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > WOW, > CAN SOMEONE WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO CLARIFY IF THIS WILL GET A > HEARING? > > Either it is something that should apply to all projects and consequently > it is a board issue or it is en.wp only. When it is en.wp only, the policy > is either not carefully thought through or it should not be a board issue > in the first place.\ > > The time to reconsider the application from a project level did come and > has gone REALLY > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 16 June 2014 19:32, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote: > > > Stephen LaPorte writes: > > > > > We would like to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of > Trustees > > > has approved an amendment to Section 4 of the Terms of Use to require > > > disclosure of paid editing. > > > > There is a proposal on Wikimedia Commons that aims to opt-out that > project > > from the amendment, given the huge differences between Commons and the > > English Wikipedia, at which the amendment was targeted. > > > > Feedback and comments are welcome at > > < > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Alternative_ > > paid_contribution_disclosure_policy> > > > > Tomasz > > > > > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Disclosure amendment to the Terms of Use
On 16 June 2014 20:48, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Risker wrote: > > > Not quite sure what you're shouting about, Gerard. The amendment clearly > > gives individual projects the right to have an alternative to this > > particular section of the terms of use, and that alternative can be > either > > more strict or less strict. > > > > That's correct. Members of various projects asked for this kind of > flexibility in the comment period, and the board agreed that we should add > the ability for projects to craft alternatives on a per-project basis to > this amendment. > > In the absence of a local policy, however, the ToU amendment applies to > every project. While this issue is a concern of many on the English > Wikipedia, the amendment was not crafted specifically for en:wp; this has > been an issue across many language communities. The terms of use > (amendments and all) apply to all of our projects. > > best, > -- phoebe > > I'm so very disappointed in the Board and the WMF for this TOU amendment, which was obviously written to quell concerns about English Wikipedia, with extremely little consideration of any other project. Now projects *must* formally exempt practices that are perfectly acceptable to them: Commons in particular, where professionals (who link to their personal for-profit websites in their file descriptions) contribute a great deal of the highest quality work; MediaWiki and all its developer-related sites, where a large number of our best non-staff developers are financially supported by other organizations; Wikidata, which is pure data and no benefit can be derived; Wikisource, where no benefit can be derived; and a multitude of Wikipedias that have openly welcomed editors who receive financial support or are paid by various organizations without any issue whatsoever. It is extremely unlikely that it will ever be enforced in the vast majority of WMF projects. And the end result is an amendment that can't effectively be enforced without violating the internal rules of the amendment. [1] It's virtually impossible to make a supportable allegation of undeclared paid editing without violating outing or harassment policies. Of course, we all know there will be plenty of unsupported allegations. It would have been far more beneficial if the WMF and the Board had had the courage to work directly with the English Wikipedia community to develop a policy there instead of imposing it on hundreds of projects that not only don't care, they will now have to create policies to counteract the effects of this TOU amendment. Simply put, Terms of Use should never include clauses whose enforcement is undesirable in a significant portion of the overall site. I'll be off now to help Mediawiki create their RFC to essentially void this decision. Risker/Anne [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure#How_does_community_enforcement_of_this_provision_work_with_existing_rules_about_privacy_and_behavior.3F ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Disclosure amendment to the Terms of Use
On 17 June 2014 12:56, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Risker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm so very disappointed in the Board and the WMF for this TOU amendment, > > which was obviously written to quell concerns about English Wikipedia, > with > > extremely little consideration of any other project. Now projects *must* > > formally exempt practices that are perfectly acceptable to them: Commons > in > > particular, where professionals (who link to their personal for-profit > > websites in their file descriptions) contribute a great deal of the > highest > > quality work; MediaWiki and all its developer-related sites, where a > large > > number of our best non-staff developers are financially supported by > other > > organizations; Wikidata, which is pure data and no benefit can be > derived; > > Wikisource, where no benefit can be derived; and a multitude of > Wikipedias > > that have openly welcomed editors who receive financial support or are > paid > > by various organizations without any issue whatsoever. It is extremely > > unlikely that it will ever be enforced in the vast majority of WMF > > projects. > > > > I'm sorry you're disappointed. But I don't really follow your reasoning. I > don't know of many people who get paid *specifically* to upload photos or > contribute to Wikidata. Perhaps a few cultural professionals who are > already, in general, following this best practice. And if someone is > specifically getting paid to upload photos to Commons (or contribute to > another wiki) it seems, in general, like a good idea to know about it. (If > a professional photographer that's not doing work for hire chooses to > donate some of their professional-quality photos to the project -- in their > spare time, as it were -- I don't think the amendment applies, though I > leave discussion of that nuance to the legal team and the commons > community). > The amendment has effect if someone decides to kick up a fuss about it; it may not result in a determination of "paid contributions" but will create a chill directed toward anyone contributing in a like manner. Substitute the word "photos" in the above with "words"; if someone linking to their personal site and contributing words from their published sources (available at a fee, click "shop"!) is not essentially a self-employed paid editor, then there is little point in this amendment. > > Anyway, I'm not sure why you are assuming that the amendment will > automatically be abhorrent to every community that's not English Wikipedia. > Of course projects do vary based on size and cultural norms and other > factors; that's why we put in the local exemption clause however. > > Editors from several non-English Wikipedia projects stated that their projects are quite happy to have paid editors. Now in order for those editors not to violate the TOU, those projects have to go to the work of developing and approving an alternate policy, or they can just ignore it, and refuse to enforce the TOU; either way, it's not cost-neutral, and reduces the respect that the broad community has for the terms of use. I cannot think of another site anywhere that creates opt-out terms of use. Can you? Why does this need to be in the terms of use at all? > > > > It would have been far more beneficial if the WMF and the Board had had > the > > courage to work directly with the English Wikipedia community to develop > a > > policy there instead of imposing it on hundreds of projects that not only > > don't care, they will now have to create policies to counteract the > effects > > of this TOU amendment. Simply put, Terms of Use should never include > > clauses whose enforcement is undesirable in a significant portion of the > > overall site. > > > > I'll be off now to help Mediawiki create their RFC to essentially void > this > > decision. > > > Of course you should feel free, though I'm not entirely sure how a > provision that a person should disclose if they are getting paid > specifically to edit that wiki (in mediawiki's case, it would likely be > something along the lines of "I work for the Foundation" or "I work for > someone else who has an interest in developing mediawiki and also > developing documentation on the wiki") is especially undesirable. I'm > pretty sure most paid developers do this anyway. (If someone is editing in > their spare time -- on any project -- and not specifically getting paid for > that work, the amendment doesn't apply). At any rate, I leave that spec
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy
Okay, that's enough, Trilliium. You've now made a personal attack against an identifiable individual based on gossip and rumour. Stop. Risker On 29 June 2014 10:18, Trillium Corsage wrote: > Pine, > > An analogous argument to the one you're making is: someone who intends to > rob your home will be able to get in one way or other, so why bother > locking the doors when you go out. This is not a good argument. > > You're calling into question the reliability of every identification > document copy ever presented to the WMF by an advanced-rights-seeking > administrator because a really sophisticated wrongdoer (I dunno, Chinese > military intelligence, with whom arbitrator Timotheus Canens is said by > some to be associated?) could make a masterful forgery that beats the > system. The fact is that 95% of them, I'd suppose, are going to be okay and > the identification requirement is going to be an effective deterrent to at > least the casual among the bad apples. And of course, once they've truly > identified, the personal accountability aspects of it are going to keep in > line once well-intentioned administrators that might be tempted to go bad > for some reason. > > "Forging identification documents is not impossible" is another variation > of the "perfection is not attainable" and "no policy can be a magical > solution" arguments put forth previously on this mailing list by the WMF's > deputy general counsel Luis Villa. I've attempted to answer those by > explaining that you can have a pretty good and effective policy without > having an infallible one. > > Trillium Corsage > > 29.06.2014, 07:32, "Pine W" : > > Trillium, > > > > I am having difficulty understanding how retaining copies of possibly > > forged identification documents helps anyone with holding accountable any > > rogue functionary or OTRS user. Can you explain that please? Surely > someone > > who intends to misuse the tools will be smart enough to forge an > > identification document. Even in the United States, forging > identification > > documents is not impossible, and the police occasionally catch people > > creating such documents. > > > > Pine > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Trillium Corsage < > trillium2...@yandex.com> > > wrote: > >> @Nathan > >> > >> You said "so if you want to argue that such users should be positively > >> identified, then please make some practical suggestions (which you have > >> conspicuously avoided doing so far). How should identities be > confirmed? In > >> what circumstances should the ID information be disclosed, and to whom? > >> What, fundamentally, is the usefulness in collecting this information > to > >> begin with? What are the use cases in which it is necessary?" > >> > >> It would be a good faith evaluation of the copy of the identification > >> document provided. There's no need to be quarrelsome about the > practical > >> suggestions I've "conspicuously avoided." I did at least suggest a > secure > >> filing cabinet and making use of a removable hard-drive. As to the > precise > >> criteria by which an identification document is deemed "good enough," > I'd > >> suppose those would be developed on a good faith basis by the action > >> officer. Nobody is depending on perfection by that individual. The > >> principle would be that the document appears genuine, has the minimum > >> elements settled on by the policy (name, age, address, possibly other > >> elements). If the document is in a foreign language, say Swahili, and > the > >> WMF person can't read that, I would think it would be a "do the best > you > >> can" and file it by respective Wikipedia and username. None of these > are > >> insurmountable obstacles. The answer to "this is hard" is not "well, > let's > >> just stop doing it." The answer is "this is important, let's just do > the > >> best we can." > >> > >> I have called for a basic examination of the document, not any > >> verification process. I'd suppose if the document looked suspect in > some > >> way, then a telephone call or follow-up could be done, and that would > be a > >> "verification," but I would expect that to be the exception, not the > rule. > >> Again, these details would be settled by the hands-on person, not by me > >> attempting to
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interference in workshop for professors
What project(s) are you working on? Risker On 3 July 2014 18:12, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote: > I am, at this moment, trying to give a workshop on Wikipedia to professors > and they are having their own user pages being speedily deleted by > Tarawa1943 and Taichi We have sent polite messages to them and > bibliotecarios (admins) but the deletions continue. Suggestions > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, Todd, there were 14,681 users on English Wikipedia alone who had enabled MediaViewer using the Beta Features preference before it became the default. That's a huge number of people who were all using it every time they clicked on an image in the weeks and months beforehand, and every one of them had to make a conscious decision to turn it on. The 64 users who want it disabled as default pale in comparison to the number of people who were actively using it beforehand. I've asked for some better statistical information because I don't think the Limn graphs that have been referred to in the discussion of the RFC are really accurate; it's my understanding that about 1600 registered accounts have opted out of MV in total (this should be a linear graph of the cumulative total, not a "daily number of people who opted out" graph which is what we seem to see now). As well, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500 "logged out" users a day are disabling it - this needs to be a daily number, not a cumulative one, because logged-out disabling is linked to the individual browser session; those who aren't logged in don't have the chance to set preferences. There are between 4 and 5 *million* clicks on image thumbnails every day on enwiki, with only around 500 of those viewing the images disabling the MediaViewer (excluding logged-in users who have turned it off in their preferences). I suspect that at the end of the day, MediaViewer is going to be more like the switch to Vector skin: there will be plenty of people who choose to disable for reasons that work for them, but the overwhelming majority of users will be entirely fine with the default. It's having nowhere near the impact that VisualEditor had when first enabled as default; in the first 48 hours there were hundreds of "how do you turn this off" queries and complaints about functionality, not to mention pretty much automatic reverting of edits done by IPs because there were so many VE-related problems associated with them. We're not at that level at all here. I agree with John Vandenberg's comments that a clear roadmap and prioritized list of next steps is probably required for MediaViewer. Risker/Anne On 11 July 2014 00:56, Todd Allen wrote: > If you don't want to do small opt-in trials, release software in a fully > production-ready and usable state. What's getting released here is barely > ready for beta. It's buggy, it's full of unexpected UX issues, it's not > ready to go live on one of the top 10 websites in the world. It's got to be > in really good shape to get there. > > Until software is actually ready for widescale use, small and very limited > beta tests are exactly the way to go, followed by maybe slightly larger UAT > pools. Yeah, that takes longer and requires actual work to find willing > testers. Quit taking shortcuts through your volunteers. > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Sue Gardner > wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > > > I use MediaViewer, I like it, and I am happy to trust the WMF product > team > > to build stuff. I didn't know about the RFC, but even if I had I would've > > been unlikely to have participated, because I don't think small opt-in > > discussions are the best way to do product development -- certainly not > at > > the scale of Wikipedia. > > > > I think we should aim on this list to be modest rather than overreaching > in > > terms of what we claim to know, and who we imply we're representing. It's > > probably best to be clear --both in the mails we write and in our own > heads > > privately-- that what's happening here is a handful of people talking on > a > > mailing list. We can represent our own opinions, and like David Gerard we > > can talk anecdotally about what our friends tell us. But I don't like it > > when people here seem to claim to speak on behalf of editors, or users, > or > > readers, or the community. It strikes me as hubristic. > > > > Thanks, > > Sue > > On 10 Jul 2014 16:13, "MZMcBride" wrote: > > > > > Erik Moeller wrote: > > > >In this case, we will keep the feature enabled by default (it's easy > > > >to turn off, both for readers and editors), but we'll continue to > > > >improve it based on community feedback (as has already happened in the > > > >last few weeks). > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. :-) > > > > > > If your feature development model seemingly requires forcing features > on > > > users, it's probably safe to say that it's broken. If you're building >
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
There's a easy, clearly accessible, one-click option for disabling MediaViewer, Todd. Scroll to the bottom of the screen. Click "disable". Done - it automatically changes your preference. Risker/Anne On 11 July 2014 02:44, Todd Allen wrote: > Risker, > > I'm actually not going to disagree with you in principle. I ultimately see > Media Viewer being used by a good number of users, and said as much from > the start. But I also warned that a bulldozer approach was going to cause > massive blowback, especially after the previous debacles (VE and ACTRIAL > come to mind for me). And well, here we are, with another repeat of the VE > situation. That greatly eroded trust in WMF, especially its dev teams and > PMs, and that's nowhere even close to rebuilt yet. Now that lack of trust > is being confirmed and entrenched. > > WMF needs to step very lightly with deployments that will affect editors, > and treat the volunteer community as an ally rather than adversary. If that > doesn't happen, these showdowns will keep happening. > > Part of that is pure arrogance. A significant part of the reason the Vector > switch worked is because there was an easy, clearly accessible, one-click > option that said "Do not want, disable this!". If that'd been the case > here, I would have clicked that and forgotten about it. Instead, I had to > dig for an hour to find how to disable the thing, after being surprised by > a totally unexpected change. But now we hear things like "We made Vector > opt-out too easy!" > > Media Viewer probably does have its place, once it is fully functional and > free of major bugs. I might even turn it on at that point. But shoving it > down people's throats will only serve to further place the WMF's flagship > project and the WMF at odds. That is not, I can't imagine, a desirable > situation by anyone's estimation. WMF needs a far better deployment > strategy than "YOU ARE GETTING IT, LIKE IT OR NOT, AND THAT IS > FINAL!" If the WMF's strategy for when the core community and > dev team disagree is "We're right, you're wrong, pipe down", these > situations will increase in frequency and intensity. I want to stop that > before it reaches a real boiling point, and it could've this time if > someone had actually gotten desysopped. > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Risker wrote: > > > While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, Todd, there were 14,681 > > users on English Wikipedia alone who had enabled MediaViewer using the > Beta > > Features preference before it became the default. That's a huge number > of > > people who were all using it every time they clicked on an image in the > > weeks and months beforehand, and every one of them had to make a > conscious > > decision to turn it on. The 64 users who want it disabled as default > pale > > in comparison to the number of people who were actively using it > > beforehand. > > > > I've asked for some better statistical information because I don't think > > the Limn graphs that have been referred to in the discussion of the RFC > are > > really accurate; it's my understanding that about 1600 registered > accounts > > have opted out of MV in total (this should be a linear graph of the > > cumulative total, not a "daily number of people who opted out" graph > which > > is what we seem to see now). As well, somewhere in the neighbourhood of > > 500 "logged out" users a day are disabling it - this needs to be a daily > > number, not a cumulative one, because logged-out disabling is linked to > the > > individual browser session; those who aren't logged in don't have the > > chance to set preferences. There are between 4 and 5 *million* clicks on > > image thumbnails every day on enwiki, with only around 500 of those > viewing > > the images disabling the MediaViewer (excluding logged-in users who have > > turned it off in their preferences). > > > > I suspect that at the end of the day, MediaViewer is going to be more > like > > the switch to Vector skin: there will be plenty of people who choose to > > disable for reasons that work for them, but the overwhelming majority of > > users will be entirely fine with the default. It's having nowhere near > > the impact that VisualEditor had when first enabled as default; in the > > first 48 hours there were hundreds of "how do you turn this off" queries > > and complaints about functionality, not to mention pretty much automatic > > reverting of edits done by IPs because t
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
Actually, Trillium Corsage, I'd say that's a reason for banning you again. It's a very serious allegation you're implying about a longstanding member of our community. Risker On 11 July 2014 14:24, Trillium Corsage wrote: > Hi Fae, > > I was banned from the list by Austin Hair. I had contributed in my view a > lot of good and polite stuff that was reasonably reasoned, but he banned me > on the basis of a 17-word parenthetical phrase regarding arbitrator > Timotheus Canens. I said that I had read it claimed that he was connected > to Chinese military intelligence. Is that a reason to ban me? I emailed > him, and then repeat emailed him to talk to me about it. I was met by > silence. > > I wasn't going to get upset about it, and didn't. I figure Austin just > another type who got moderator privilege on a mailing list. It's not even > worth it to criticize him, but I guess I'll notice he banned me within > minutes, and he hasn't posted to the list anything since, and I don't > recall him ever contributing a email of substantive opinion since I joined > the list. > > I logged on here today with the aim of unsubscribing to the list, but I'll > keep reading long enough to see if your below email asking for transparency > on the list goes anywhere. Good luck. > > Trillium Corsage > > 11.07.2014, 11:28, "Fæ" : > > Hi, > > > > I would like to propose that this list have a published process for > > post moderation, banning and appeals. Perhaps a page on meta would be > > a good way to propose and discuss a policy? I would be happy to kick > > off a draft. > > > > This list has a defined scope at > > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> which > > explains who the 3 list admins are, but no more than that. There is no > > system of appeals, no expected time limits on bans or moderation, nor > > an explanation of the 30 posts per month "behavioural norm" that > > sometimes applies to this list. Neither is there any explanation of > > what is expected of list admins, such as whether there is an > > obligation to explain to someone who finds themselves subject to > > moderation or a ban, as to why this has happened and what they ought > > to do in order to become un-banned or un-moderated. > > > > I believe this would help list users better understand what is > > expected of them when they post here and it may give an opportunity to > > review the transparency of list administration, such as the option of > > publishing a list of active moderated accounts and possibly a list of > > indefinitely banned accounts where these were for behaviour on the > > list (as opposed to content-free spamming etc.) > > > > I see no down side to explaining policy as openly as possible. Thoughts? > > > > Fae > > -- > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > (P.S. I am active on the English Wikipedia where I have a GA on the > > go, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fae. Sorry to disappoint, > > but reports of my retirement are premature.) > > > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
It's time to face reality here: The WMF didn't screw up this RFC, we the English Wikipedia community did. When we have RFCs that are of interest to a broad portion of the community and will have an impact on the entire community, we do certain things. We advertise it on the watchlist. We arrange for a panel of administrators with experience in assessing consensus to close the discussion - sometimes we line them up before the discussion even happens. We maintain discipline on the RFC page so that there aren't acres of discussion there, and move it to the talk page. We encourage the most fervent supporters and opposers to remain calm and to move on once they've expressed their position. That's what we do when we think something is important - like all the pending changes RFCs and the current conflict of interest discusssions, and the recent discussions about whether certain edit counters should be opt-in or opt-out or automatic. None of those things happened with this RFC. No watchlist notice. No advance planning for closure. A completely undisciplined RFC. An inexperienced closer who obviously got it wrong, since his initial close didn't match the discussion in the RFC. Instead of people questioning the wrong close, someone writes a script to enact the erroneous close and then encourages an administrator to apply it to the Mediawiki.common.js without explaining exactly what it would do. An administrator who doesn't have the knowledge base to understand the code he was adding adds it - on a page where every other entry for the past several years has been made by experienced and knowledgeable developers. It was entirely correct that his code was reverted - it didn't do what was intended, and it adversely affected every user of English Wikipedia, whether or not they cared about Media Viewer. It was entirely correct that the administrator was warned not to repeat the action - you don't mess around with site-wide impacts - and that he was told the potential consequences if he repeated the action. Warnings are routine and expected if people act outside of our accepted standards or cause harm, whether intended or not. He needed to know that his actions were a big deal with serious consequences. And now we have the nerve to act as though this is all the WMF's fault. It's not. Every step that led to this breakdown in communication, this disruption in the relationship between the community and the WMF, was taken by members of the English Wikipedia community, with the exception of the reversion of site-breaking code. We did this all by ourselves. I'll even put my hand up and say "geez, maybe I should have pushed harder for a watchlist notice when I saw the RFC" - but the obvious indifference to the issue blinkered me too. We should be disappointed - but we should be looking at ourselves and fixing the problems we're responsible for. The WMF isn't perfect, and it's made some incredibly bone-headed decisions in the past. It's also made some really good decisions, and none of them were entirely perfect right out of the box and needed tweaking. Instead of rejecting those decisions outright because they failed to be perfect, we all worked together - WMF, developers, and community members from all sorts of projects - to get them right. We need to go back to that perspective. Everyone does. Not just the WMF - our community does too. Risker/Anne On 14 July 2014 01:40, Pine W wrote: > Hi Gryllida, > > As I said on the Arbcom case page, RfCs result in changes to Wikipedia on a > regular basis despite having a small numbers of participants in each RfC, > and current English Wikipedia policy does not require a minimum number of > participants beyond what is necessary to establish consensus. Furthermore, > any assertion that the MV RfC was invalid because of its advertising or > because it had too few participants would open up countless RfCs to being > challenged for the same reason. I believe that the form of the MediaViewer > RfC and participation in it were sufficient to establish a legitimate > consensus. > > I am still thinking through the effects that this situation has on the > WMF-community relationship. I'm pretty discouraged, and I know others are > too. > > Pine > > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Gryllida wrote: > > > Pine and all, > > > > Please read here: > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC#Proposal_to_reach_consistency.2Fagreement_first.2C_before_actioning_this_RfC > > > > Gryllida. > > > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, at 15:03, Pine W wrote: > > > This discussion has closed on English Wikipedia: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC > > > > > >
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer
On 14 July 2014 09:55, Michael Snow wrote: > On 7/14/2014 4:43 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: > >> I've been doing some thinking about this over the past year or so, >> bubbling away in the back of my mind, after a talk at last Wikimania - >> would there be any interest/usefulness if I sat down and tried to dump >> it into a "how to run a large project RFC, and what doesn't work" page >> somewhere? >> > There certainly would be usefulness, so I hope there would be equivalent > interest. I'd be interested in seeing it, at any rate. > > Me too, Andrew. I think we actually do need some sort of checklist or guidance document on how to deal with these sorts of issues. In this particular case, it had the added element of affecting readers possibly even more so than editors, so some thoughts on how to involve readers in discussions that affect their usage of the site would be good. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
I'm not sure you're correct about what is being "disappeared", Fae. I believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. Risker/Anne On 2 August 2014 23:27, Fæ wrote: > Re: > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten > > If Google "disappearing" a Wikipedia article is a notable news event, > wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an > article about it? > > The information being disappeared is the 2009 Muslim conversion of > Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne. > > Fae > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
Well, Fae, since the only place that Adam Osborne is mentioned in Wikipedia is as the son of his father, and it does not mention anything more than his name, I am pretty certain that you're mistaken. The exact quote from the Guardian is: "Google has already begun to implement the ruling, with tens of thousands > of links removed from its European search results to sites ranging from the > BBC to the *Daily Express*. Among the data now "hidden" from Google is an > article about the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the > chancellor, George Osborne." Nothing in that quote says that it is a Wikipedia article that is "hidden". Risker/Anne On 3 August 2014 00:12, Fæ wrote: > On 2 August 2014 23:49, Risker wrote: > > I'm not sure you're correct about what is being "disappeared", Fae. I > > believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is > now > > not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes > it > > pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. > > > > Risker/Anne > > The Guardian states in the first paragraph that: > "Google is set to restrict search terms to a link to a Wikipedia > article, in the first request under Europe's controversial new "right > to be forgotten" legislation to affect the 110m-page encyclopaedia." > > "Wikipedia" cannot be misread as the "Guardian newspaper". > > Fae > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] "let's elect people to serve on the wikimedia engineering "community" team!" (brainstorming)
On 5 August 2014 12:05, Gryllida wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, at 20:48, Fæ wrote: > > On 5 August 2014 11:33, Gryllida wrote: > > > Hi all. > > > > > > WMF Engineering is currently composed of individual teams as > documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering . > These teams look after the software that faces us everyday, and often work > together. > > > > > > Could we please have some more people (potentially a dedicated > ‘community’ team) who could do these things: > > > - encourage feedback by absolutely /anyone/ about the next features > they'd like, > > > - run programming and documentation activities requested (or started) > by community [there would be a lot of small projects, unlike the big ones > the current Teams are working on], > > > - encourage localising documentation for, and centralising the > location of, all community-developed programming work, > > > - raise awareness of community development efforts across all > Wikimedia projects, > > > - actively encourage members of community become MediaWiki and Gadgets > hackers in the Free Software philosophy? > > > > > > This would be, in my view, a relatively small, collaboration-type team > (with just half a handful of people for timezone coverage for IRC support). > > > > > > Open to brainstorming and suggestions. I would compile thoughts into a > wiki page afterwards to continue thinking on the idea. > > > > The roles you describe seem to have a lot of overlap with what we > > might expect WMF volunteer coordinators / WMF community liaison > > employees to be busy with. Compare with: > > * > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Volunteer_Development_Coordinator > > * http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Community_Liaison > > > > Do you intend this to be an unpaid team of volunteers doing these > > tasks, or a end user group (in the Agile sense) that would be > > supported by employees and may themselves be paid for some activities? > > > > Fae > > "Both please"? [This is a question! This is a brainstorming thread.] > > Some part of such group of people could be paid (like the job openings you > linked), and a very vast part could be volunteer and supported by the said > employees (and documentation). > > You mean like the tech ambassadors? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/Ambassadors One thing to keep in mind is that English Wikipedia is only one of hundreds of projects. The technology and engineering groups generally work at a global level because they affect all projects; it's rare that they're doing something for one project only. There are lots of opportunities for community members to interact and to test software in advance (the "beta" preferences are but one of them) - but when discussing a global project or process or software, the best place to discuss is rarely going to be a single page on a single non-global project. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you
Well, hold on here. On 17 August 2014 19:55, Pete Forsyth wrote: > I think it is also a problem to look at this in terms of "bugs." I don't > think you can retrofit good design into something that has a variety of > substantial problems, by merely "squashing bugs." You might say that is the > wiki way, but it is widely known that some tasks are better suited than > others to ad hoc collaborative processes. > Given the current use of bugzilla, which doesn't limit itself to bugs but also feature requests and enhancements over the base functionality, calling everything reported using bugzilla a "bug" is incorrect and inappropriate. > > In this case, we have a broad range of issues: > * does it let the reader know they can help improve the page or upload > another photo > The Commons/File pages don't do that, why would you expect this software to do it? > * does it reflect copyright holders' licenses accurately and effectively > Agree this is important. Do you have any evidence that it is any less accurate than the Commons/File pages? > * does it adequately respect the privacy of the subjects of photos > The mere fact of the image being used on an article anywhere on a Wikimedia project suggests that this problem is in the actual usage, not in the software being used to display more information and detail in the image. If you believe that this is a serious issue, then it should be addressed where 100% of readers can see it, not in a subpage viewed only by the limited number of readers who click on the image. It's not a Media Viewer problem, it's an image usage problem. > * does it reflect a "look and feel" that we feel OK about and is consistent > with the rest of the software > etc. etc. > What problems are you seeing here? Spell it out, rather than making vague suggestions that there is an issue. > > Fixing one "bug" may well lead to other bugs, or negatively impact those > already reported. What is needed, I believe, is a well-facilitated process > to identify the problems and the best solutions. This is not easy to do and > takes time. But I think the WMF has (not for lack of trying) managed to do > a very bad job of that with this software product, and with many software > products in the last few years. That does not mean it is impossible to do > it that way, only that those specific efforts were insufficient. > Why is this a Media Viewer issue? This is a problem for all types of software on all types of platforms, and is a challenge even for IT departments hundreds of times the size of the WMF. I cannot think of any software I have used in the last 20 years that has not had "bugs" or unsatisfactory UI elements or seems to miss a functionality I'd like to have. It is unreasonable to hold a comparatively very small organization to a standard that can't even be met by IT giants. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you
On 17 August 2014 20:25, Pete Forsyth wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Risker wrote: > > > Well, hold on here. > > > > > > On 17 August 2014 19:55, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > > > > I think it is also a problem to look at this in terms of "bugs." I > don't > > > think you can retrofit good design into something that has a variety of > > > substantial problems, by merely "squashing bugs." You might say that is > > the > > > wiki way, but it is widely known that some tasks are better suited than > > > others to ad hoc collaborative processes. > > > > > > > > > Given the current use of bugzilla, which doesn't limit itself to bugs but > > also feature requests and enhancements over the base functionality, > calling > > everything reported using bugzilla a "bug" is incorrect and > inappropriate. > > > > While this is true, I have yet to see bugzilla used as a platform for a > design process for Media Viewer, and I don't think I would recommend it. > It's *possible* to use it as a platform for more than mere bugs, and it has > been done before; but I don't think tha'ts what's going on here, or should > go on here. > > Perhaps you should get to know a bit more about bugzilla and its current usage; of the 104 current reports on Multimedia Viewer, 16 are enhancements and several others that are currently listed as "bugs" of varying importance/urgency are "features" that don't appear to exist in the "standard" format for viewing images or are so badly designed in the File pages that they're almost impossible to call acceptable in that format, either. Someone who is better able to describe the developer functions could better describe the planned changes from the use of Bugzilla to Phabricator, which is a more flexible platform that (I understand) is intended to consolidate several different design/development/improvement/bug reporting platforms currently in use. But right now, bugzilla is at least in some cases used as a platform for the design process of just about everything to do with MediaWiki, its extensions, and all the other platforms that are in use/developed by WMF. Every single type of software used on Wikimedia project sites, as well as software for other features provided by the WMF, has bugzilla reports. There are thousands for MediaWiki, the core software of the project. We haven't thrown in the towel on it just because it's got lots of bugzilla reports. > > > > In this case, we have a broad range of issues: > > > * does it let the reader know they can help improve the page or upload > > > another photo > > > > > > > The Commons/File pages don't do that, why would you expect this software > to > > do it? > > > > The Commons/File page DOES do that, to the extent that readers have some > familiarity with MediaWiki software and how to find the "Edit" button. You > may not believe that is significant, but I encounter people on an almost > daily basis who are mystified by Wikipedia, but at least have a basic > understanding what the "edit" button does, or could allow them to do. It > may not be all readers or even a majority, but it is my very strong belief > -- rooted, perhaps not in rigorous scientific analysis, but in my very > active engagement with non-Wikipedias since 2006 -- that it's the pool of > people who tend to replenish our declining editor pool. A great many of the > 100+ students who signed up for the 4 rounds of my online course on editing > Wikipedia, for instance, had accounts that were several years old, but only > had a dozen or so edits. > I'm sorry. How, exactly, do you envision a new editor or reader improving file pages? There's not very much that can be edited there that isn't going to cause more problems than it solves. Should they modify the author? Change the license? Add (potentially non-existent) categories? When the chances of reversion are nearly 100%, it's not necessarily a net positive to make a big deal about the existence of an "edit" button. Media pages are not really comparable to (written) content pages. I'd rank file pages as possibly the worst place to suggest that new editors just jump in, with the possible exception of templates. > * does it adequately respect the privacy of the subjects of photos > > > > The mere fact of the image being used on an article anywhere on a Wikimedia > project suggests that this problem is in the actual usage, not in the > software being used to display more information and detail in the image. > If you believe that this is a serious
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you
On 18 August 2014 03:53, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Risker, some replies below: > > As I stated in my response, although the WMF failed to predict that this would be a hot issue, I predicted it clearly in February, and so did another longtime community member. (If anybody wants to see that other piece, let me know -- I now have permission to share it, actually an IRC log, not an email.) https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: LilaTretikov&diff=9512960&oldid=9512915 (and the reference link: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?diff=907392 ) Wow, Pete. You predict something will be rejected by the community, and identify a list of concerns. Several months later, you apply the code that applies a community "rejection". This brings the term "self-fulfilling prophecy" to a whole new level. Just wow. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reader, who doesn't exist
On 21 August 2014 05:31, Strainu wrote: > 2014-08-21 9:30 GMT+03:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) : > It would *seem* that every user > > converted to the mobile site is a step towards extinction of the wiki. > > > That is an excellent point Frederico. In addition to the inherent > difficulties of editing on small screen, especially large articles and > the "we know better approach" discussed in detail in the last weeks, > there is also the problem of navigating between articles - the mobile > website arbitrarily skips some elements visible on desktop, such as > navboxes and significantly alter some infoboxes because "it doesn't > look good". This makes it difficult to just browse the Wikipedia (thus > finding mistakes that you might want to correct) and encourages > searching for the information, which means going right on target > > Hopefully the future announced at Wikimania, "no more mobile team, but > mobile in every team" will solve some of these problems. It's just a > matter of when will this future be. > > Well, now. Here's a classic example of what is sometimes called a "first world problem". I know that, even on desktops, the more infoboxes and navboxes and succession boxes on an article (regardless of article length), the longer it takes to load. On a slower desktop collection, some really large, complex articles sometimes time out. I went to look at some of those same articles using my smartphone with the "desktop" option turned on. Many of them timed out without fully loading; others took several minutes. There was a very, very noticeable difference in load time between the mobile view and the desktop view. And that was in North America with fast, very good connection on an up-to-date phone. Many of our editors and readers don't have this kind of infrastructure available to them. So - we know there is a definite cost to having all these "navigation aids" in articles. We need to justify their use, instead of simply adding them by reflex. So here is where analytics teams can really be useful: tell us whether or not these navboxes are actually being used to go to other articles. If they're widely used to leap to the next article, then we need to find ways to make them more efficient so that they're suitable for mobile devices. If they're hardly ever being used, we need to reconsider their existence. Perhaps this becomes some sort of "meta data" tab from articles. The current format isn't sustainable, though. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reader, who doesn't exist
On 21 August 2014 09:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > On 21.08.2014 14:26, Risker wrote: > >> On 21 August 2014 05:31, Strainu wrote: >> >> ... > >> >> I went to look at some of those same articles using my smartphone with the >> "desktop" option turned on. Many of them timed out without fully loading; >> others took several minutes. There was a very, very noticeable difference >> in load time between the mobile view and the desktop view. And that was >> in >> North America with fast, very good connection on an up-to-date phone. Many >> of our editors and readers don't have this kind of infrastructure >> available >> to them. >> >> So - we know there is a definite cost to having all these "navigation >> aids" >> in articles. We need to justify their use, instead of simply adding them >> by reflex. So here is where analytics teams can really be useful: tell >> us >> whether or not these navboxes are actually being used to go to other >> articles. If they're widely used to leap to the next article, then we >> need >> to find ways to make them more efficient so that they're suitable for >> mobile devices. If they're hardly ever being used, we need to reconsider >> their existence. Perhaps this becomes some sort of "meta data" tab from >> articles. The current format isn't sustainable, though. >> >> Risker/Anne >> ___ >> > > For me the conclusion would be not that we should drop them altogether in > the mobile version (most of them are useful navigation means after all) but > that the mobile version should be improved to parse them and to present > them as a piece of plain text, not as a template. > > Many of these templates have over 100 links in them; a surprisingly large number have "subtemplates" built into them. I'm having a hard time seeing how adding all those links at the bottom of an article is actually going to help that much. Unless we have some evidence to confirm this information is actually useful to readers -seriously, this is a community-designed feature targeted at readers as opposed to editors - it's probably time to rethink what indirectly related information on our article pages is made routinely available. We want people to use our information, not give up because it takes too long to load. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] New movement org?
On 21 August 2014 12:21, James Forrester wrote: > On 21 August 2014 09:13, Nathan wrote: > > > Hi Richard, any links to where you found this information? > > > > > The ever-excellent OpenCorporates has its entry: > > https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_mi/71656Y > > … leading to the official US state of Michigan's entry: > > http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/dt_corp.asp?id_nbr=71656Y > > No information about the officers, sadly, just a filing office. > > Incorporation documents here: http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/image.asp?FILE_TYPE=ELF&FILE_NAME=D201408\2014224\E0091608.TIF President: Scott Perry Vice President: Ann Perry Secretary: Danielle Lewis Someone else can figure out how to copy/paste. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Specifying office action in edit summary?
I think the problem is that your question does not really relate to the subject line, Svetlana. Office actions are specifically directed at content (e.g., removal of specific content for copyvio reasons or court orders). Office actions are almost never undertaken by Engineering staff; it's usually Legal & Community Advocacy staff, or rarely another administrative staff member. What you are talking about is something that has only been done very occasionally over the years by Engineering/Operations staff/sysadmins. There has been no designated manner in which those actions should be flagged. One must remember that until the last few years, the majority of individuals who could have taken (and in some cases, did take) such serious action were volunteer sysadmins, so labeling it a "WMF action" would not have been correct. We also have to remember that many of the systems that developers and engineers work with on a daily basis do not permit edit summaries, so adding what for many of us is an automatic and routine comment is for some of them a rare and unusual event. (Perhaps they should set their work account preferences to be "reminded" to include an edit summary?) Risker/Anne On 22 August 2014 11:50, svetlana wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm sorry to repeat, but I would like to hear some thoughts on this > question. Also added a clarification for one of the lines. > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, at 22:26, svetlana wrote: > > > > Hi all. > > > > I understand the Engineering folks used superprotect instead of > /undoing/ the edit and adding 'This is a WMF action.' in edit summary. > Could I please be enlightened on the reasoning behind that? > > > > I suppose people could go and try editing other JS pages and cause > havoc, but that's still possible where superprotect only affects a single > page and not a namespace. Or can entire namespaces be protected and this > new user right was intended to be able to prevent that easily? > > This is worded poorly, I mean - "or can entire namespaces be protected and > the new user right was intended as a means to easily revoke mediawiki:* > access? > > > > > Svetlana. > > svetlana > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reader, who doesn't exist
Given the mission is sharing information, I'd suggest that if we have a 95% drop in readership, we're failing the mission. Donations are only a means to an end. Risker/Anne On 24 August 2014 22:57, MZMcBride wrote: > Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > >First, let's make one thing clear: the reader doesn't exist; it's just a > >rhetorical trick, and a very dangerous one. For more: > >https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stupidity_of_the_reader > > This essay looks fascinating. I hope to read it soon. > > >Page views, however brute a concept, exist; and I think they're telling > >us we do have a readership problem. For it.wiki, in the last year I see > >a suspiciously similar decrease in desktop pageviews and editing > >activity (possibly around –20 %). It would *seem* that every user > >converted to the mobile site is a step towards extinction of the wiki. > >Long story: > ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/9380388> > > The page above is just a collection of pointers that I probably > won't > >be able to pursue in the coming months, to study an unprecedented > >collapse of editing activity and active editors on it.wiki. However, > >there /are/ several things worth looking into and we do have a huge > >problem (or several). > > I don't know enough about the Italian Wikipedia to comment on it > specifically. But generally I think it's important to re-emphasize that > correlation and causation are distinct, as are readership and editorship > rates. The two items of each set can be interrelated or connected > sometimes, of course, but we need to make sure we're drawing accurate and > appropriate conclusions. > > At <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62811#c10> Jared > Zimmerman writes, "We have a reader decline, its backed by hard numbers, > any creative solution for bringing more readers and contributors into the > project should be seriously discussed without being dismissed out of > hand." There's substantial discussion in the subsequent comments. > > Let's temporarily accept the premise that pageviews suddenly drop from 20 > billion per month to 1 billion per month. The easy argument is that we'd > save a lot of money on hosting. But unlike most of the Internet, Wikipedia > doesn't rely on advertising. Why does it matter how popular we are? Does it > affect donation rates? Does it affect editorship rates? I'm not sure how > much of this we know. It's increasingly clear that much of the rest of the > Internet _is_ different: it doesn't require much thought of participants, > it's user-focused, and it's built on the idea of selling (to) people. This > difference in how we want to treat users, as collaborators and colleagues, > rather than as clients or customers, will permeate the site design and > user experience and that's okay. > > If the number of pageviews suddenly drops, for whatever reason, what > happens next? The most likely "worst case" scenario seems to be a > reduction in annual donations, which results in a smaller staff size > (sometimes referred to as "trimming the fat" or "optimizing"). There's a > lot of talk lately about the imperiled future, but we could end up with a > smaller, more decentralized Wikimedia Foundation staff in what some would > consider one of the least desirable outcomes. Eh. > > MZMcBride > > > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments
Wasn't the creation of the DRAFT namespace at least in part a response to concerns raised at ACTRIAL, in particular new, poorly developed articles showing up in mainspace? Risker/Anne On 1 September 2014 19:08, Joe Decker wrote: > This, to the best of my knowledge, represents the entirety of the WMF's > response to ACTRIAL. To the extent that there was additional feedback > given, it was not given at WP:ACTRIAL, nor any other venue I am aware of. > > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208 > > --Joe > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > > > That's the issue I cited above. You haven't heard more complaints, > because > > the complaint was pointless the first time and took a massive effort to > > produce. > > > > The underlying issue isn't fixed. We're still drowning in crap and spam > > from people who never have the slightest intent of editing helpfully, and > > those who are newbies who genuinely want to help but need guidance get > > caught in the crossfire aimed at the vandals and spammers. It is > relatively > > rare that when a genuinely new editor's first edit is a creation, it is > the > > creation of an appropriate article on a workable subject, and that's > > normally more by dumb luck than them having actual knowledge that they > > should do it. > > > > So, consider that a complaint. The proposed fix didn't work, and most > > people at the time didn't figure it would work, but it was clearly the > best > > we were going to get. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette < > > pbeaude...@wikimedia.org > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen wrote: > > > > > > > > That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned > above. > > > The > > > > en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the > > WMF > > > > shrugged and said "Nah, rather not." > > > > > > That's... Not exactly what I remember happening there. What I remember > > was > > > that a pretty good number (~500) of enwiki community members came > > together > > > and agreed on a problem, and one plan for how to fix it and asked the > > WMF > > > to implement it. The WMF evaluated it, and saw a threat to a basic > > project > > > value. WMF then asked "what's the problem you're actually trying to > > > solve?", and proposed and built a set of tools to directly address that > > > problem without compromising the core value of openness. And it seems > to > > > have worked out pretty well because I haven't heard a ton of complaints > > > about that problem since. > > > > > > __ > > > Philippe Beaudette > > > Director, Community Advocacy > > > ___ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > -- > Joe Decker > www.joedecker.net > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation opened for Bylaws change
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 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
Congratulations to both Jan and the Community Advocacy team. :-) Risker On 25 April 2013 16:40, Santi Navarro wrote: > 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?
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 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" wrote: > > > On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER 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 > > 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.com>wrote: > > >> > > >>> 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 > > >>> Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**m
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri 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
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_FDC>makes 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, 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
On 13 May 2013 17:15, Michael Peel wrote: > > On 13 May 2013, at 22:03, Andrew Lih wrote: > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Michael Peel > 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
On 8 June 2013 23:16, James Salsman wrote: > 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
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 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?
On 17 July 2013 10:06, David Cuenca wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Marc A. Pelletier > 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)
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 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)
On 29 July 2013 23:18, Marc A. Pelletier 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
On 30 July 2013 14:13, David Gerard wrote: > On 30 July 2013 17:03, Erik Moeller 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
On 31 July 2013 08:36, David Gerard wrote: > On 31 July 2013 10:59, rupert THURNER 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. 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
On 31 July 2013 13:32, rupert THURNER wrote: > Am 31.07.2013 15:07 schrieb "Risker" : > > > > On 31 July 2013 08:36, David Gerard wrote: > > > > > On 31 July 2013 10:59, rupert THURNER > 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
Apparently Wikipedia was or is one of the targeted websites. Risker On 31 July 2013 15:42, Huib Laurens wrote: > How is this related to the foundation? > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder > 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
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 wrote: > Hmmm, the word "wiki" isn't named anywhere. > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Risker wrote: > > > Apparently Wikipedia was or is one of the targeted websites. > > > > Risker > > > > > > On 31 July 2013 15:42, Huib Laurens wrote: > > > > > How is this related to the foundation? > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder > > > 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
On 16 September 2013 21:45, とある白い猫 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
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 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 > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman 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
On 17 September 2013 23:56, James Heilman 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.7<http://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
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 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 >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 > > 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 > > > wrote: > > > > > >> 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 > > > >> 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=19&min=00&sec=0&day=30&month=09&year=2013 > > >> > > > >> > [2] > > >> > > > >> > > > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=00&min=00&sec=0&day=02&month=10&year=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
On 14 October 2013 16:39, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote: > 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
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 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. > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Chris Keating > wrote: > > > 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! > > > > > > > > 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
On 16 October 2013 07:26, Samuel Klein 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
On 16 October 2013 07:31, David Gerard wrote: > On 16 October 2013 06:08, Srikanth Ramakrishnan > 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
Where does the Board Audit Committee fit into this?
Risker
On 22 October 2013 07:00, Dariusz Jemielniak 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
>
>
> 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
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 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 wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Craig Franklin > > 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] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention
On 24 October 2013 08:10, Fæ wrote: > ... > > Apparently, legals say that the current policy is too flexible for the > board > > to have really meant approving it, so of course the board will like to > > change his mind and make it much stricter, while if one wanted to keep > it as > > flexible as it is now one would need the board to change his mind. > Hmm. > > > > Nemo > > Without an explanation of why this was an issue or a priority legal > matter, it seems perfectly reasonable to fill in the gaps with wild > fantasy and speculation. I rather like the idea that someone in the > WMF legal team read something about privacy on their top of the range > internet tablet, while drinking freshly ground top of the range > coffee, and as it was an otherwise dull day on the subpoena front, > decided to give this policy a poke to see the ants scurry about. It > certainly seems to have kept many volunteers busy this week. > > Wow, Fae. Justwow. Now, how about we look at this from the perspective of the editor whose non-public personal information is available to checkusers, or who has to rely on an oversighter to address an accidental logged-out edit. If I am that editor, I really want the WMF, who has granted those individuals access to this personal (and in some cases private) information, to know exactly who has that access. I want them to know who those people are, I want them to know how to contact them directly, and I want them to make sure that those individuals have personally undertaken to keep any information confidential with very limited exceptions. This is actually a Privacy 101 situation: an organization that grants access to non-public personal information needs to know exactly who it is granting that access to, and the person who has access to that information needs to agree to keep it confidential. The majority of the discussion in the last period has been about the mechanics of collecting and retaining the identifying information of those who have access. There are some good points being raised by several people, and they do need to be addressed; however, the underlying principle is absolutely sound. I'm actually kind of shocked that there would be much debate about the core principle, and I find it concerning that there is the suggestion some individuals who have access to huge amounts of non-public personal information about others should be exempted from having their own identity known to the organization responsible for keeping this non-public information secure. 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
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 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
On 30 October 2013 11:47, Marc A. Pelletier 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
On 30 October 2013 12:14, Marco Chiesa wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Marc A. Pelletier > 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
On 30 October 2013 12:32, Bjoern Hoehrmann 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
On 8 January 2014 12:50, Katie Chan 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
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
Of course there already exists a way to thank IP editors. It is to go to their talk page and leave them a message that says "Thanks for your edit here [link to diff]." It is far more personal, far more likely to encourage the user to edit further (and maybe create an account?) based on research on the effects of template versus personalized talk page messages to new editors, and doesn't require anyone to write any code whatsoever. 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. 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] Thanking anonymous users
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 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 wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker 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] Update on IPv6
On 1 June 2012 17:12, Erik Moeller 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
On 1 June 2012 17:12, Erik Moeller 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, what time is this scheduled to go live? And on which projects? Please be specific here. I am gravely concerned about the privacy issues that are attached to IPv6 IP addresses, as they are in many cases almost personally identifying information, something that is not permitted to be released under our privacy policy. Have arrangements been made to hash these IP addresses to prevent them from being publicly available? 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
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 wrote: > On 2 June 2012 00:08, Risker 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
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 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 > > > wrote: > > > > > On 2 June 2012 00:08, Risker > > 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 > > > ___ > 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] speedydeletion.wika.com lauched
How are you attributing the work and ensuring that the license conditions are met? Risker On 11 June 2012 01:24, Mike Dupont wrote: > good question, > The raw data is not lost : the archive.org will get a snapshot every 30 > minutes of the items that are categorized. > > the wikia right now will not be updated: There is not any code for the > updating of the article, once it is in the wikia. > > I would be interesting to get the full history of each article, if it is > replaced after deletion, i suppose that a new page or subpage would be > needed if it is deleted again, maybe a fine history would be good enough. > > > In any case if articles last more than 30 minutes in the speedy deletion > category they will be archived. > > mike > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Nathan wrote: > > > What happens to your system if an article is deleted from Wikipedia, a > new > > article is posted again under the same name, and then that one is also > > deleted? > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Mike Dupont < > > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Kirill Lokshin < > > kirill.loks...@gmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > This is where I think things become slightly problematic. There are, > > in > > > > broad terms, two categories of hoaxes: those which are fundamentally > > > > harmless (these typically being of the "did you know that 'gullible' > > > isn't > > > > in the dictionary" variety), and those which have the potential to be > > > > harmful (including, but not limited to, false statements about drugs, > > > > crimes, politically explosive issues, etc.). The speedy deletion > > system > > > > makes no real attempt to distinguish between these (with the > exception > > of > > > > blatant attacks on living people, which have their own deletion tag), > > but > > > > retaining the second category in a publicly-viewable (and > > > > publicly-searcheable?) form is probably not desirable. > > > > > > > > > > > I am willing to delete articles from the wikia, they are also archived > on > > > archive.org. > > > it would be nice to work out a detailed tagging system to work out what > > may > > > be archived and what not. > > > We can remove categories and add them. > > > > > > But lets look at some of these, > > > http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Ipod_5.5_generation this looks > like > > > someone who is providing infomation in the wrong way, but could be > valid. > > > http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Trantlers this is funny and would > > > like > > > to keep it and add a picture of it, maybe to a humor section. this one > > too > > > http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Trantlas > > > > > > http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Willyfor this is strange , but > > might > > > be some meme or urban legend. I guess unencylopedia. > > > http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Like_Dis_Like_Dat same here, this > > is > > > also unencylopedia material. > > > > > > now this looks like a hoax , and could be deleted, but also > unencylopedia > > > stuff. > > > http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Aman_hadid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > personally I am interested in non notable articles, my experience with > > > dealing with encouraging editors and collection creative commons > licensed > > > information > > > on places that are not very notable like villages in kosovo could be > > helped > > > with these articles. > > > if we can find authors who are willing to write about non notable > topics, > > > maybe we can collect them and categorize them. > > > this could be a recruiting mechanism and also provide good basic data > and > > > maybe new contributors for wikitravel and openstreetmap. > > > with a staging system like this speedydeletion wikia you will have a > way > > to > > > demote articles to the speedy deletion purgatory where they might > redeem > > > themselves. > > > ___ > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > James Michael DuPont > Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org > Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org > Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 > ___ > 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
On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan wrote: > > > 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
On 13 June 2012 14:29, Nathan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Risker wrote: > > > On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan 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
On 13 June 2012 15:06, Nathan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Risker wrote: > > > > > 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 I understood what you meant by nefarious, but regardless of the > definition, the point remains: unless you restrict any IP-related data to > administrators and/or CUs, the type of masking FT2 described is ineffective > at improving privacy. > > 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 > > > > > 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. > Without belaboring the point too much, search engines and passive viewing > sites don't publish user information at all in any format, and commercial > social networks have a wholly different set of interests than do Wikimedia > projects. Second, more complete anonymity is and has always been available > to any editor; while the primary and original purpose of an IP address in > edit history is attribution, it has long been put to many other beneficial > uses. Given that we've had a stable approach to IP addresses for 10 years, > and no rush of demand to change the paradigm, it makes sense to balance the > public benefit nature of the projects against the reasonable privacy needs > (on which we all generally agree). We should discuss that balance rather > than just assume that more perfect privacy is worth significantly less > transparency. > The original Wikipedia platform (lo those long years ago) published only partial IP addresses. Today, "significantly less transparency" seems to mean "create an acccount" to many people. However, that is antithetical to the "anyone can edit" principle on which our projects are based. "Anyone can edit, as long as they don't mind that everyone in the world will know where they're from, what ISP they use, and possibly even the physical location from which they are editing and what equipment they're using to do so, unless they create an account" is what it has become. We want the edits. We don't need to know the rest, and never have. If we needed to know that information, we would have decided not to permit account-based editing in the first place. There's no template at the bottom of the talk pages of editors with accounts that allows identification and geolocation of their IP. If it's useful for logged-out editors, it is just as useful for logged-in ones, according to the "transparency" logic. One of the reasons that many of us were taken by surprise with the sudden appearance of the IPv6 change was that this very discussion could have taken place beforehand, and would have guided the Engineering team in their progress. I for one have long been concerned about the use of IP addresses to attribute edits, but that may be because I'm one of the few people who winds up suppressing those that happen accidentally to account holders. It's a discussion we need to have, though. 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
On 13 June 2012 15:06, Nathan wrote: > 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. > 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
On 13 June 2012 15:39, Nathan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Risker 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
On 13 June 2012 19:18, John 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
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 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 wrote: > > > On 13 June 2012 19:18, John 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
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 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" wrote: > > > On 13 June 2012 19:18, John 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?
On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard wrote:
> On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray 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
On 14 June 2012 16:36, Nathan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John 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
On 24 June 2012 18:22, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF) wrote: > 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
On 25 June 2012 13:56, Steven Walling wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker 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
On 26 June 2012 07:47, Denny Vrandečić wrote: > 2012/6/26 Risker : > > On 25 June 2012 13:56, Steven Walling wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker 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
