Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: 14 years is a fine place to start.  Are there any existing campaigns pushing for it?  S. Now that I'm looking, I can't find any campaigns as such! I thought

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

, or Muhammad on that article, to the content disclaimer, tell them that yes, they will actually get an article on what they specifically look for one for, that yes, we use multimedia illustrations when we have appropriately licensed and relevant media, and move on. Todd Allen

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

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton: I don't think that we need this argument since the filter can't replace parents

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

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: My middle one can very briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I check up on her a lot. Is Wikipedia one of those few sites

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

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would randomly

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

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun

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

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine consent.  So surely that isn't the issue. Many are transferred to Commons from

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

Long as it's getting top-posted anyway... First, copying is not and cannot be theft. That's not to say it's always legally or ethically acceptable, mind you, but it's not theft. In legal terms, there was a court case over that particular matter, that ruled someone could not be charged on a

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

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 August 2012 22:56, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: So this is a balancing act - but I'm not currently sure which side outweighs the other, or whether the two sides are currently balancing each other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upperarm.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arm.agr.jpg would probably be a better example.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Aaron Swartz is dead

This is terrible to hear. We've lost a brilliant mind far too soon. On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:04 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Killed himself. http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N61/swartz.html - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

told We disapprove of this action. Do we talk around it and leave more resentment to linger? Or do you listen and reverse it? Thanks if you took the time to read all this. I see a precipice, too. Let's all step back. Regards, Todd Allen On May 12, 2013 7:04 PM, Philippe Beaudette phili

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback for the Wikimedia Foundation

editor would need is madness. Todd Allen ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

*Answer the Second* * * This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In the German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually say Coca Cola Germany in the edit history.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Progress...

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Hoi, Sorry Fred, I do not like your post. The quote has it wrong because research shows that it is factually wrong. Wikipedia has a better coverage at a superior quality to the encyclopaedia that went before.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] NSA

Also keep in mind that WMF has explicitly stated that they received no such demand. If they had, they still could say If we had received such a demand, we couldn't legally discuss it, still comply with the order, and let us read between the lines. While I don't always agree with WMF, I have more

[Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out

opt-out for editors who would like to use it, not only during beta. Regards, Todd Allen ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Todd Allen wrote: [comments about VisualEditor] Hi Todd. Thank you for writing this e-mail. Unfortunately I don't have a particularly unified reply to write here, but I can offer five thoughts. Regarding the specific

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

life. Why should I? I'm not subject to them. Todd Allen -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Readers love you

Thanks indeed. It's awfully nice to know all that time I've put in over the years has gone somewhere. This thing that millions of people have made is truly amazing and has brought knowledge to probably billions, and it's good to keep that in sight every so often. On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:08 PM,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

They are, however, avoiding scrutiny, as evidenced by widespread disapproval of their actions. That is not a permissible use of socks. The community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less. On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't follow to me

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

I was responding to Andreas' comment on Wiki-PR's socks, specifically. I do not know the full story on Sarah yet, and agree I'd like to hear her side. On Jan 6, 2014 7:24 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 January 2014 13:43, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: ... The community expects

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

There aren't two principles in conflict here. Rather, there is a proposed very major shift in mission and method. Right now, when we say Wikimedia content is free, we mean free to fork, reuse, use however the viewer sees fit. We support that objective with freely licensed content stored in free

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Jan 16, 2014 8:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 January 2014 15:36, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will be free to view

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Well, after reading that, I am a bit uneasy. Has WMF agreed not to move forward if that discussion does not reach a consensus to do so? At this point, it looks unlikely that it will. On Jan 16, 2014 11:37 AM, Chad Horohoe choro...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM, David

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

On Jan 16, 2014 11:05 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 17/01/14 01:14, Todd Allen wrote: This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license, it may not even be possible

Re: [Wikimedia-l] My choice for ED

will be responsive and direct with our volunteer community. They are the underpinnings of every project WMF undertakes. Todd Allen On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Tony Souter to...@iinet.net.au wrote: Folks: are we still playing with this toy? I've sat here and watched this discourse - variously

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area

Exactly this. If the government of any given country wants to redirect certain articles, or all of Wikipedia, to a page saying This content blocked by the Ministry of Knowledge, people will know they're being censored. If instead they reach a sanitized version of the article reflecting the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] About Wikipedia medical entries

Actually, Don't diagnose yourself is just generally good advice. Even if the medical information you have is accurate, there might be other possible causes or factors that need to be considered. Internet information, Wikipedia or otherwise, might be a good place to get things to ask your doctor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

Would WMF, being in the US, need to worry about this to any greater degree than it worries about, say, Chinese publishing restrictions, or UK superinjunctions? On Jun 2, 2014 2:15 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Chris writes: If as a private citizen in the EU you construct a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

On Jul 10, 2014 10:36 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/07/14 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote: Perhaps it's time to stop calling self-selected surveys of a tiny subset of our user base community consensus. The vast majority of our user base never logs in, never edits, and never

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

On Jul 10, 2014 12:42 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 July 2014 19:23, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/07/14 18:01, David Gerard wrote: OTOH, typical mind fallacy is rampant everywhere and the results of an actual decent user survey would probably surprise

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

This was clarified as an office action under threat of desysop here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteforsythdiff=616427707oldid=615757838 On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:31 PM, John Lewis johnflewi...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see any office action at all here. All I see is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

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 toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: If you don't want to do small opt-in trials, release software in a fully production-ready and usable state. What's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

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 toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, I'm actually not going to disagree with you in principle. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFD survey

English hasn't used voting for a long time either. AfD discussions are closed based on strength of argument and compliance with policy. On Jul 16, 2014 2:24 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: In Polish Wikipedia there is no voting for deletion for around 3-4 years. There is discussion

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Underwater photos and videos / WMRS Microgrants 2014

We need a straight answer, which I notice you've still yet to give. On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: James, you're not the only one that was confused by that. Please, Milos, stay

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikipedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

On Aug 11, 2014 7:11 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: Ha, you'd think so! ;-) In reality so far, the only known application was to lock the common.js at de.wikipedia, to prevent some crazy admin(s) from breaking the wiki. Which incidentally shows that will not break the wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Options for the German Wikipedia

On Aug 11, 2014 1:57 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:12 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hi. I'm interested to read others' views about options and ways forward here. I think the most helpful thing would be to not attempt to start

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Options for the German Wikipedia

Brandon, Are you stating that Erik is not calling the shots here? If that's the case, could someone please clarify who is in charge and asked for the new right to be enabled? On Aug 11, 2014 10:13 AM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Your responses here are coming across as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

And what happens when said admin is overwhelmingly reelected by the community? This is not the way forward. WMF can't continue to treat its volunteers in this manner. On Aug 11, 2014 12:01 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Brian Wolff

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

Tim, I don't believe the issue was a failure to be clear. The problem is the content of the change and its heavy handed enforcement. Super protection either should not exist, or like suppression, it should be used only by stewards and community approved functionaries. On Aug 11, 2014 5:49 PM, Tim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: like suppression, it should be used only by stewards and community approved functionaries. I'm confused. Are you suggesting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is it possible to accept bitcoins without receiving stolen property?

You do, of course, realize that any currency anyone accepts could at some point have been stolen? On Aug 12, 2014 3:49 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Given this news about BGP hijacking used to mine hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars worth of bitcoins per year, as a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

If the WF wasn't so willing to use force (i.e. pushing unwanted changes) against the other party instead of talking properly then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it? desire to act out of the blue instead of collaborating they didn't

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

they are floated. Todd Allen ___ 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you

Gerard, I don't think anyone is insisting on the status quo. But we do expect that improvements be, well, better than what they improve. Breaking attribution for our media files, or hiding it by requiring a click, is not an improvement. The people who created and uploaded that media deserve their

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

to a conclusion. Todd On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote: That sounds like a bug to me. Have you filed a bug in Bugzilla to be sure that the Mobile Web team is aware? Dan On 24 August 2014 21:13, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: I've found one very recently

Re: [Wikimedia-l] personally communicating with new editors (was: Re: editor retention initiatives)

I think, especially given that the Foundation has indicated some willingness to review their stance regarding such community initiatives, it's time to revisit the idea of a time-limited trial of restricting mainspace new page creation to autoconfirmed (and manually confirmed) editors. The concern

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion. On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote: fter the catastrophic aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that should have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

Erik, I think a lot of reasons for the document mode commenting system got missed. But there are very good reasons we must retain that. One huge thing is that article talk pages are not only for discussions, but also for metadata (article assessments, history, Wikiproject data, as examples from

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote: a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can build new features and flows on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to beta-test HHVM

This was testing done right. The feature was offered as opt in and clearly marked as beta. A bug was found and quickly fixed. When you're testing beta software, you have to expect bugs. We've been quick enough to knock rollouts done poorly or made default with inadequate testing, and should be.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] First Wikipedia Article has been Formally Peer Reviewed and Published

This is indeed an accomplishment. Well due congratulations to all involved. On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:47 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: I agree all Wikipedia articles are sort of peer reviewed. When I speak about GA/FA I refer to it as Wikipedia's semi-formal peer review process.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not favoring -any- service over any

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's cool?

Well, let's not forget the big picture. For all the bickering and squabbling it might have entailed, for all the stumbles that might have happened in the process, the lot of us have created the largest and probably most significant educational work in the history of the world. And we've done it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in Engineering leadership

Lila, Will any consideration be given toward selecting a new leader for the engineering team who has been an active volunteer with a Wikimedia project for some period of time? Thanks, Todd On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear all, I wanted to let

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in Engineering leadership

... Tone deafness of the WMF, and thank my phone for silly spelling. On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: You're talking to one now, and I know several others. Now speaking for me, I would never want to be VP of anything, and so I'm certainly not asking

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next step in the development

If you've had some users requesting such a feature, could it perhaps be added as an opt-in preference setting? I'd be very annoyed by such a feature if it couldn't be disabled, and many might just be confused by it. On Oct 29, 2015 2:08 PM, "Romaine Wiki" wrote: > That is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect is gone

Yes indeed, thank you. On Nov 5, 2015 10:36 AM, "Quim Gil" wrote: > Superprotect [1] was introduced by the Wikimedia Foundation to resolve a > product development disagreement. We have not used it for resolving a > dispute since. Consequently, today we are removing

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

Buying a photo, when we have ready access to massive amounts of freely usable content, would be quite unacceptable and a misuse of funds, no matter the amount of the funds. I hope someone can actually clarify what happened here. Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page.

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

uot;Andreas Kolbe" <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's > > really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow accept

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Patricio, Jimmy Wales stated that the Board would work with James to provide a statement. Could you please make clear if the final statement issued is something he agreed to? On Jan 1, 2016 1:15 AM, "geni" wrote: > On 31 December 2015 at 13:02, Patricio Lorente

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I don't think it's a "silly idea" to immediately notify 1800+ voters that they've been overruled by 8 people. I think it's something the Board should've been prepared to do at once, with a full and complete rationale. Instead, we keep hearing patronizing "Oh, we'll give you more information

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

There is still a significant problem the Board does have, though. "Chapter/thorg selected seats" are not community seats. And we've recently found out that none of the seats at all are actually considered to be community-selected, and that a community elected board member can be removed without

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

I think Fae's frustration (and everyone else's) is quite understandable. I understand your concern with keeping the discussion civil, but there does come a time to move from "Please provide more information about this" to "Stop stonewalling and giving nonanswers, and tell us what in the hell is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees

Dariusz, Are either of these trustees occupying the seat formerly occupied by James Heilman? On Jan 5, 2016 6:01 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" wrote: > Dear all, > > As Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee, I am happy > to introduce the two newest members

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Now this is something that's worthy of being dismissed (involuntarily, if necessary) from the WMF board. This individual clearly does not meet our community values of transparency and honesty, or at least such is in serious question. Is the Board considering doing so, or reading this at all? It's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Even if there are legal reasons that disclosure is not possible, a simple statement to that effect ("For legal reasons, we cannot provide additional information") should be at the very least forthcoming. If the removal was "not for cause", which apparently is allowed, that should be explicitly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board of Trustees

I join everyone else here in hoping we'll be hearing a very good reason for this. I understand it may not be possible (or wise) for Doc James to provide that, but it certainly shouldn't be done for simple differences of opinion. On Dec 28, 2015 4:17 PM, "SarahSV" wrote: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I think the expectation is that, unless this truly was an emergency that required immediate and unforeseen action, planning would have been done in advance for the possible outcomes. That wouldn't be making it a foregone conclusion, as Jimmy said. There should have been plans for how to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

If he were in favor, it would've been a simple resignation. I'm not sure why it's surprising he would oppose it. On Dec 28, 2015 6:39 PM, "Ilario Valdelli" wrote: > On 29.12.2015 02:17, MZMcBride wrote: > >> --- >> ; Approved: Patricio Lorente, Alice Wiegand, Frieda Brioschi,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would presume by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

I think making available and funding conflict resolution training is a good idea (provided it's available online of course, it would not be reasonable to expect a worldwide group of people to physically attend it). Making it mandatory via a grant is a nonstarter, though, adminship standards are a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

Folks (WMF board, and those closely related), do we really have to hold a vote of no confidence to get your attention? Do you have any doubt that it'd pass? Absent that, please start listening to the volunteers. Listening, as in doing what they'd like you to do. Otherwise, I'll be putting forth

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, let's start with "no". (My actual thoughts on this idea would probably get me put on moderation, so I'll refrain.) I helped build this project to be freely available to all reusers for all purposes. The WMF's job should be to provide as many

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

So, why not make the best of both worlds? If you need another Trustee immediately, well...I don't really think that, you have a quorum without it. And an appointed trustee who lost a community election is not a community elected trustee. It is insulting to say that they are. James Heilman was the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised either. Can't discuss details for obvious reasons, but some of the stuff I saw while on the ArbCom would really make your hair curl. Trolls can get pretty vicious. Todd On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Tobias wrote: > Right.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

Dariusz, It's very good to know that those changes are being considered at all. I do tend to agree with Andreas about two chapter seats being a slight overrepresentation, but I think there should be one. If I were to make my ideal board (and I realize you may have something else in mind, but

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

Fae, Your second citation didn't at all match what I recall Jimmy saying on the subject, so I went and read it. Even the specific email you cite is not, in any way, "...arguing the case against introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services...". Some quotes from the email you cited:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

It may be that at this point, reinstating James would not be a terribly feasible idea, even if it is a nice thought. And, well, it's a volunteer position. I wouldn't blame him at all if he's no longer even willing to serve in that role. I think, however, that the suggestions that have been put

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A page about new editors in different projects

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would feel uncomfortable with that. So if something like that were to be done, people should certainly be asked first, and that only be done if they explicitly agree. Still, I think a lot of others would feel like their efforts are being noticed and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

Once the VisualEditor was fit for purpose and a good deployment strategy had been developed, the English Wikipedia community overwhelmingly supported rolling it out. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_125#Gradually_enabling_VisualEditor_for_new_accounts )

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

Hello Arnnon, I'm glad you've decided to join the discussion. (And do appreciate it; I'm sure by now you know exactly what you're walking into.) I don't, however, see that your statement says much. The heart of the issue is that you assisted in implementing and enforcing a "no poaching"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

We are not "seeing movement" by a vague statement of "we're working on it". In the case of James Heilman, they said essentially the same thing. What resulted was a vague statement that used a lot of words to say nothing at all. There needs to be full disclosure and specifics, not a lot of waffle.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Risker wrote: > On 29 February 2016 at 19:10, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > > > > > No. You are either transparent and honest, or you are not. > > > > Andreas > > ___ > > > > Or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disabe Media Viewer for non-logged-in users and logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons

I won't take a position on this particular issue, since I rarely visit Commons, but "Ignore all rules" should categorically not be taken as "Ignore consensus" or "Ignore other editors". That way lies madness. On Mar 14, 2016 2:11 PM, "Philippe Beaudette" wrote: > Consensus

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] Wikimedia Foundation executive transition update

Katherine, Welcome, and best of luck in your new role. I'm very pleased indeed to hear that it will be you to fill it. Todd On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Katherine Maher wrote: > Thank you, Patricio. > > I want to thank the Board for this opportunity, and for their

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

Denny, I appreciate that you've put forth this account. That's in no way facetious or just a pretext, I am actually very glad to see someone speak to this. I'd like, however, to suggest what would actually begin the process of healing, since that's your intent. Most of us knew at least more or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

Before starting down the path of wording banners, let's decide if we want them at all. Almost every political issue can be tangentially related to Wikimedia projects. The question needs to be if it's a major existential issue. SOPA was such a thing, it was a direct threat to the core mission of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] guidance from Foundation leadership as to where to draw the line on policy requests?

So now I'm put into the awkward position of having to agree with essentially everything the post said, and still have to disagree with it having been made. The WMF should not be taking political stances without input and consensus from the community. Period. If it thought it needed to in this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

I don't think anyone is disputing the facts. I'm certainly not. And I am gravely concerned by what's being done, and I entirely oppose it. However, that doesn't mean I want to see WMF used as a political mouthpiece, even when what's being said happens to be things I fully agree with. Todd

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Publicpolicy] news events impacting the Foundation's ability to hire and its employees' ability to travel

The issue is not just in the current post, but that this is, I believe, the third or so time that the same person has brought up the subject in as many days. Bringing a subject up once is one thing. Bringing it up repeatedly is inherently discourteous because it clogs the mailing list.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Publicpolicy] news events impacting the Foundation's ability to hire and its employees' ability to travel

I think that's an interesting thought in general, but what used to be true still is today. Europe in general, and the UK in particular, has significantly weaker free speech guarantees than the US does. This manifests in quite a few ways, from "hate speech" to "right to be forgotten" to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

And a partridge in a pear tree? But seriously. This is exactly what I was afraid of with opening the door to political advocacy. Todd On Feb 6, 2017 2:24 PM, "James Salsman" wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi > wrote: > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

These are all very nice sentiments. But they're phrased in very vague ways. Is there anywhere we can see the actual concrete plan for the use of these funds? Todd On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Samantha Lien wrote: > This press release is also available online here: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should the Foundation take a position on a general strike?

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:01 AM, James Salsman wrote: > Should the Foundation take a position on a general strike? > > https://twitter.com/trevortimm/status/825395993789157376 > > https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/825403294667436033 > > I know this is an unusual

  1   2   3   >