+1 to the point by I dream of horses—Amir, have you engaged with the
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diversity_Observatory project
and looked at their "cultural context content coverage" measurements? I
would be concerned that your measurement of the overlap between Wikidata
and each
Chris Keating schrieb am Do. 27. Juni 2024 um
12:21:
> When the WMF was set up, those involved chose not to make it a membership
> organisation.
>
Greetings! I will emerge from the shadows to point out that WMF *was*
originally incorporated as a membership organization, with criteria for
member
+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
[1] shows that 112 affiliate organizations each cast one vote.
Regards,
[[meta:User:Ada
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
transparency.
lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VMQIF6TJ46VLN6YSW5OKL6CXQ5J6BBTV/
> > To uns
This is a good opportunity for us to take a look at the new conflict of
interest policies [1], 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
capitalizi
going to amplify tiny 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?
Kind regards,
Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
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 th
Hi SJ,
Just passing along a link shared @Waltercolor during another discussion
about paid editing,
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Mois_anti-pub
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
questions:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Cand
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
the
+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
the movement
oor and institute other normal, democratic controls.
Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:45 PM Maggie Dennis
wrote:
> Hello, all. :)
>
> I hope and trust that everyone is keeping well during these times!
>
> I’m Maggie Dennis, Vice President of the Community Res
In case there really is a question about whether we should be working
towards greater equity, please see the Wikimedia Foundation's vision
statement [1],
> 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 detail
on behalf of
>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I knew they are theoretically self-appointed, but was under the
>> impression
>> that at least until now an appearance of democracy and legitimacy
>> towards
>> the community has been respe
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, p
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." Edi
The Wikimedia-pedia [1] 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 the
On 8/25/20 10:51 PM, Strainu wrote:
It seems the WMF is going through another crisis of institutional
memory
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 a
Greetings,
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 relationshi
Horrifying!
Is there anything we can do from our side, e.g. include some Javascript
which can detect and disable the malware banner?
[[mw:Adamw]]
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:11 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I seem to recall some OTRS tickets recently sent wa
Hi, you might be interested in "Getting to the Source":
https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2491064
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Heather_Ford/publication/262291510_Getting_to_the_source_where_does_Wikipedia_get_its_information_from/links/56cfed9508aeb52500c9b44a/Getting-to-the-source-where-
Nice work!
I checked on my own face on the staff page and would like to request two
changes:
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
I did recently
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”.
Thanks for
Seddon was mostly agreeing with the sentiments here, so I don’t think it’s at
all difficult to understand him. Granted, I’ve worked on CentralNotice and am
familiar with the WMF’s internal discourse about the tool, and I even have some
experience picking through Seddon’s coarse brogue ;-)
Spec
Dear friends,
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, ou
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.
Quoting from t
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 th
ke,
though... Democratic 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.
Regards,
Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]
hing we are there for is to disseminate it is
> plain awful because it reads as if we should give up and hand it all over
> to Wikiwand. If that is your opinion why have people concentrate on our
> User Interface? You must be kidding.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 31 Ma
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
investigation forward:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106439
There's also some his
esent would probably be invited to this table, but as equals and
individuals, not as the holders of the purse strings.
-Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
This letter represents my personal views and not necessarily those of my
employer, the Wikimedia Foundation.
[1]
https://upload.wik
p;searchTerm=wikimedia%20foundation&listNameOrder=WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION%20N03053230
[2] https://efile.sunbiz.org/Profit_Filing_Help.html
[3]
http://www.nonprofitmaine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PrimerMembershipNonprofitOrganizations.pdf
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM Adam Wight wrote:
> Hi Flo
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. Many of you are puzzled
Thank you for beginning this important discussion! I have the same
concerns as
others, especially around how this consultation fits into the decision
making
process. This sentence from the introduction makes it sound very serious
indeed--
maybe this was a misunderstanding? [1]
> The outcomes of
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM Tomasz W. Kozlowski
wrote:
> 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
> whatsoever.
I have to disagree with this statement. Please see my analysis of th
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
perso
Hi Florence,
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 "les
ff: Anything you can 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.
In solidarity,
Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Board_o
gle_Search_Appliance
https://support.google.com/earthenterprise/?hl=en#topic=2802998
Speculation on why GEE was recently deprecated, lessons we might learn:
http://geospatialworld.net/Professional/ViewBlog.aspx?id=415
Adam Wight
mw:user:adamw
On Jan 16, 2016 6:12 PM, "Denny Vrandecic&quo
their vision and the goals they intend to pursue during their time on
the Board.
Warmly,
Adam Wight
Fundraising Tech "the sheepdog" Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Adamw
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As Chair of the Wikimedia Fou
sier to
> understand and make sense of the huge amount of information coming from
> various channels.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Adam Wight wrote:
>
> > There is a lot of room for improving the WMF's transparency an
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:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Transparency_Gap
-Adam
___
Wikimedia-l mail
public so we can have
informed conversations about the relative impact of campaigns. [3]
Thank you,
Adam Wight
Wikimedia Fundraising Tech
[1]
https://github.com/wikimedia/wikimedia-fundraising-tools/tree/master/FundraiserStatisticsGen
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNot
45 matches
Mail list logo
