+1 to this question, and whether we can make the list of voting
affiliates public in the same way that we publicize the voting rolls for
individuals participating in Community [S]elections. The results page
 shows that 112 affiliate organizations each cast one vote.
Let's take the main argument here seriously for a moment: the Wikimedia
movement needs a better platform for inclusive, public, multi-language,
long-term discussion. We'll especially need this if we expect the Global
Council to succeed and live up to our hopes for participation and
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > Public archives at
> > To unsubscribe send an ema
This is a good opportunity for us to take a look at the new conflict of
interest policies , in light of preventing this sort of email in the
future. In my opinion, the WMF Board had the right idea—this is a personal
project, and broadcasting to a movement list gives a strong sense of
ny differences like "strongly" vs
"support"—is this true?
Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern in mind? Are there reasons
to believe that the "alignment" scores are meaningful in our scenario?
Writing in my volunt
It's remarkable that we elected 2/4 women and 3/4 people whose mother
tongue is not English, given the dominance of male and English-speaking
wiki contributors in surveys. It's even more surprising that we
accomplished this given that only 4 of the 20 nominated candidates are
women, the odds of
Just passing along a link shared @Waltercolor during another discussion
about paid editing,
I completely agree that we need more ways to identify and reverse
undisclosed paid editing. For a moment, the WMF's Scoring Platform team
Since candidates are supposed to begin answering on July 7th, I would like
to nudge the conversation towards a poll of candidates and interested
community members, on an actionable proposal to use the longer list of
As a candidate, I would be happy to work with the full list of questions,
and to choose which ones I want to answer. Whether we each prioritize the
harder or easier questions could be useful information for the electors.
Potential drawbacks are that our responses might be harder to compare if
+1 to Paulo's point, personally I would like to see us ease up on María and
this seemingly temporary paid role. It's not a sinecure, not an arbitrary
nepotistic position—rather, it looks like WMF would benefit.
If the people in this thread truly have the good of the organization and
her normal, democratic controls.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:45 PM Maggie Dennis
> Hello, all. :)
> I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
> I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Resilience &
In case there really is a question about whether we should be working
towards greater equity, please see the Wikimedia Foundation's vision
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment
and in more
>> I knew they are theoretically self-appointed, but was under the
>> that at least until now an appearance of democracy and legitimacy
>> the community has been respected, which no longer seems to be the
Greetings, this is a semiautomated response pointing out that the
Wikimedia Foundation Board is not elected, it's self-appointing. The
so-called "elections" are in fact nominations to be considered by the
Board. Therefore, the Bylaws have not been broken.
This is an unfortunate arrangement,
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
expressions, and how they are determined?
There were been several explanations already. It's possible to use mild
words in a cruel way, for example a father telling their child "You've
always had beans for brains."
The Wikimedia-pedia  is a treasure, thank you Philippe for linking!
I'd love to see this content migrated to a public wiki, where maybe it
can come to life again.
Nearly every time I'm involved in onboarding, I find a chance to mention
the Visual Editor rollout, Wikimedia's origins and
On 8/25/20 10:51 PM, Strainu wrote:
It seems the WMF is going through another crisis of institutional
I think I see where you're coming from, and I appreciate the generous
turn away from individuals and towards potential structural problems.
Whatever the latest incident was, we can
This is just a courtesy notice that I'm no longer employed by the Wikimedia
Foundation as of the end of the month, but will continue to stay engaged as
a volunteer. I see this as an opportunity, since I'll be free of the
conflict of interest caused by my financial and legal
which can detect and disable the malware banner?
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:11 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> I seem to recall some OTRS tickets recently sent
Hi, you might be interested in "Getting to the Source":
I checked on my own face on the staff page and would like to request two
Please change my name to "Adam Wight", the longer name was silly.
Also, please change the image to
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adam_Roses_Wight.jpg , I donno why
it was reset to t
Thank you for this provocation, I share your concern. As a reader, it's
disappointing to find material that looks like a press release, and
intimidating to flag or edit without doing research into the editing
history and editors involved. A quick, "back of the envelope" calculation
Punk rock! These consultants seem to actually understand what we’re about, and
the report is a great collaboration all around. The heavy use of actual
Wikimedians’ quotes lets us tell our own story. The recommendations on page 31
look right to me personally, and are “actionable”.
As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us
care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world,
I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our
movement-wide political processes are. To my understanding,
People concerned with the lack of content in Indic languages might enjoy,
"Digital Divisions of Labor and Informational Magnetism: Mapping
Participation in Wikipedia", recent research co-authored by Mark Graham of
the Oxford Internet Institute. The problem is not specific to India.
What Michel said... This is a very interesting story, but I'm left to
imagine some crucial, looming details.
I have no first-hand knowledge of what really happened, but your
description of staff contacting a small number of Board members, and asking
for confidentiality, strongly indicates that
stewardship of our shared resources? Anyway, please
do keep a critical eye on cookies and their brethren, and if you find
anything out of joint I'm sure there will be plenty of allies left within
the Foundation to help set it right.
 Sorry, there was an all
; On 31 March 2016 at 20:39, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Adam Wight <awi...@wikimedia.org>
> > > To second what others have said, I personally love the idea that a
> > reading
To second what others have said, I personally love the idea that a reading
interface should include less editor clutter, until it is requested.
There's a task for this, if anyone would like to help push that
There's also some
MF staff and Board members past and
present would probably be invited to this table, but as equals and
individuals, not as the holders of the purse strings.
This letter represents my personal views and not necessarily those of my
employer, the Wikimedia Foundation.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM Adam Wight <adam.m.wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Florence,
> Thanks for jumping into this conversation and sharing your illumina
Thanks for the note! Fwiw, I can't read that without a login. Feel free
to urge the owners to make the thread public, if base crook even supports
such a thing.
On Feb 16, 2016 4:47 PM, "Asaf Bartov" wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> These are difficult and confusing times.
Thank you for beginning this important discussion! I have the same
others, especially around how this consultation fits into the decision
process. This sentence from the introduction makes it sound very serious
maybe this was a misunderstanding? 
> The outcomes of
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM Tomasz W. Kozlowski
> Considering the results of the 2015 May Board elections, I think it fair
> to say that María’s appointment to the Board lacks any community legitimacy
I have to disagree with this statement.
I found that the "support percentage" formula S/(S+O) fails some important
criteria for voting systems, for example it gives more weight to a vote for
minor candidates, which violates the one person, one vote principle among
others. "Net support" (S-O) is equally obscure and problematic. My
Thanks for jumping into this conversation and sharing your illuminating
perspective as an "old timer" :-) I wanted to take a moment to also thank
you for your initiatives at the time, it's thrilling to imagine what might
have happened if more people had taken an interest in your
say about this history is most
likely protected speech under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, since we're asking
whether state and federal laws were violated.
Speculation on why GEE was recently deprecated, lessons we might learn:
On Jan 16, 2016 6:12 PM, "Denny Vrandecic" <d
of their vision and the goals they intend to pursue during their time on
Fundraising Tech "the sheepdog" Lead
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
> Dear all,
> As Chair of the W
much easier to
> understand and make sense of the huge amount of information coming from
> various channels.
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Adam Wight <awi...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > There is a lot of room for improving the W
There is a lot of room for improving the WMF's transparency and
accountability to the broader community. Please help identify our
shortcomings by contributing to this page:
conversations about the relative impact of campaigns. 
Wikimedia Fundraising Tech
Mail list logo