Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board appointment of Executive Director

2016-06-24 Thread Andrew Gray
On 24 June 2016 at 10:15, Patricio Lorente <patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
> It is our great pleasure to share that during the Board meeting at Wikimania
> 2016 in Esino Lario, we unanimously voted to appoint Katherine Maher as
> Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. This is effective as of our
> resolution dated Thursday, 23 June.

Hi Patricio,

On a pretty miserable day here in the UK, this is really cheering
news. Congratulations to Katherine and well done to the Board for
making a clear decision.

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] [Spam] Re: Affiliate Selected Board Seats - Result

2016-05-09 Thread Andrew Gray
Congratulations to Nataliia and Christophe - and well done to the
committee for getting such a good turnout. It was an excellent pool of
candidates this year and glad to see we got the votes to match.

Andrew.

On 9 May 2016 at 15:37, Manuel Schneider <manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
> I want to congratulate everyone who has engaged in this election
> process. It was for sure a very special one, in this special situation
> which was also reflected by the number of candidates.
>
> Thanks to the election committee and the candidates!
>
> Nataliia and Christophe, I wish you a good hand in helping the WMF board
> to steer through the current waters and whatever may come in the future.
> Also on behalf of the AffCom I hope for a good collaboration.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Manuel
>
> On 09.05.2016 16:11, Chris Keating wrote:
>
>> The successful candidates were *Christophe Henner* and *Nataliia Tymkiv.*
>>
>> A total of 40 chapters and thorgs voted - all except for the Macedonia and
>> Macau chapters - which is a record.
>
> --
> Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> www.wikimedia.ch
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-06 Thread Andrew Gray
Many apologies - I for some reason thought today was the 7th! I
entirely retract my scaremongering about tonight :-)

Andrew.

On 6 May 2016 at 16:05, Dennis Tobar <dennis.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris:
>
> Thanks for the clarification. When I read Andrew's message "tonight ends",
> I'm read it like as "the end of the world is near", because we will cast
> our vote tonight.
>
> Regards!
>
> El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:59, Chris Keating <
> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
>> As it says on the voting page:
>>
>> *Voting will end at* 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Dennis Tobar <dennis.to...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Just for ask: the final day to cast a vote, is tonight (May 6 23:59:59
>> UTC)
>> > or May 7 23:59:29 UTC?
>> >
>> > El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:55, Andrew Gray <
>> > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> escribió:
>> >
>> > > Hi Chris,
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for the update. So we're at 62% voted, another 21%
>> > > probably-voting, and 17% silent, with voting ending tonight. An
>> > > improvement on last year, at least!
>> > >
>> > > Andrew.
>> > >
>> > > On 6 May 2016 at 15:32, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > Just an update on this:
>> > > >
>> > > > Currently 26 of the eligible affiliates have voted. A further 9 have
>> > > either
>> > > > confirmed they are planning to vote, or have engaged substantively in
>> > the
>> > > > process (e.g. by nominating someone or participating in the Wikimedia
>> > > > Conference session on the subject). I'd expect most of them will do
>> so.
>> > > >
>> > > > Those whose intentions I don't know at all include Hong Kong,
>> Hungary,
>> > > > Czech Republic, India, Macedonia, and Macau. At least one of those
>> > > appears
>> > > > to be completely inactive.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Chris
>> > > >
>> > > > Many thanks
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry <
>> l...@bluerasberry.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hello,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
>> > > chapters'
>> > > >> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
>> > > trustees.
>> > > >> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
>> > > wishes
>> > > >> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
>> > > vote
>> > > >> by the May 7 end of election.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
>> > > support
>> > > >> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
>> > > >> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate
>> > being
>> > > >> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The
>> > election
>> > > >> result is more sound with more votes.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
>> > > >>
>> > > >> yours,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Lane Rasberry
>> > > >> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
>> > > >> 206.801.0814
>> > > >> l...@bluerasberry.com
>> > > >> ___
>> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > >> New messages to: 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/Maili

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-06 Thread Andrew Gray
Hi Chris,

Thanks for the update. So we're at 62% voted, another 21%
probably-voting, and 17% silent, with voting ending tonight. An
improvement on last year, at least!

Andrew.

On 6 May 2016 at 15:32, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just an update on this:
>
> Currently 26 of the eligible affiliates have voted. A further 9 have either
> confirmed they are planning to vote, or have engaged substantively in the
> process (e.g. by nominating someone or participating in the Wikimedia
> Conference session on the subject). I'd expect most of them will do so.
>
> Those whose intentions I don't know at all include Hong Kong, Hungary,
> Czech Republic, India, Macedonia, and Macau. At least one of those appears
> to be completely inactive.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> Many thanks
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry <l...@bluerasberry.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016 chapters'
>> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
>> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who wishes
>> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to vote
>> by the May 7 end of election.
>>
>> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to support
>> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
>> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
>> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
>> result is more sound with more votes.
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
>>
>> yours,
>>
>> --
>> Lane Rasberry
>> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
>> 206.801.0814
>> l...@bluerasberry.com
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Andrew Gray
On 3 May 2016 at 17:34, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We should be careful in not shaming communities to vote poorly to save
> face, or even vote for people they dont want as some may truly feel that
> the candidates who have nominated wont be a good representative of the
> community.

I agree with the first part, but on the second, it's worth noting that
"none" is an acceptable vote in this election. For myself I think
you'd be hard pressed to find *no* candidates you can support from
this round - they seem a pretty good selection - but others no doubt
differ :-).

A.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Andrew Gray
Yes, for clarity, this is what I meant - a public list of who has
voted so far (or who hasn't - it's much the same thing, as the overall
electorate is known), but not a list of the votes.

I'm quite happy with confidential voting - either fully secret or, as
Itzik says, just confidential until the end of the vote.

But knowing *who* has voted would be quite useful. Ultimately, the
chapters represent large chunks of the community, and if the chapter
isn't doing its job then it's good their members know about it in
order to chase them. Discovering afterwards that your chapter hasn't
voted is interesting, but not very useful at making sure votes get
cast while there's still time - and ultimately, I think that last part
is what we all want to achieve :-)

A.

On 3 May 2016 at 16:21, Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same time:
>
> - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
> after the election has finished)
>
> - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
> right now.
>
> It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made, and
> it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election works
> (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
> wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
> (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
> with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.
>
> So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of Chapters
> in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so, would
> it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
> voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they have
> indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]
>
> Thanks,
> -Liam
>
>
> --
> wittylama.com
> Peace, love & metadata
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Andrew Gray
Hi Lane,

While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
they've voted before doing this...

As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
presumably already know whether they've voted or not.

Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
help encourage some groups to actually vote.

Andrew.

On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry <l...@bluerasberry.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016 chapters'
> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who wishes
> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to vote
> by the May 7 end of election.
>
> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to support
> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
> result is more sound with more votes.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
>
> yours,
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

2016-04-20 Thread Andrew Gray
Hi Alex,

I compiled some numbers for the Oxford DNB a while ago. After the most
recent update, they have 6630 female, 53260 male, so 9% female. (This
omits any group/family entries). I haven't crosschecked this against
the Wikidata figures but they should be broadly comparable.

Britannica (and most other resources we're linking to) can't easily be
done in Wikidata as we don't have comprehensive matching yet. However,
there's an older study which is probably relevant:
http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewArticle/777

Andrew.



On 20 April 2016 at 08:39,  <alexhin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us how 
> many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an existing 
> comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? (Britannica, 
> Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of bios 
> are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases 
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-03 Thread Andrew Gray
On 3 March 2016 at 11:51, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A few reflections on this subject:
>
> 1) I would however endorse the idea of publishing more papers /
> presentations, and fuller notes of discussions in minutes.  These give a
> lot of context to what is going on, and often it's lack of context that
> makes people concerned about what is actually going on. (I'd echo Eric's
> comment about the level of depth that WMF staff share in quarterly reviews
> and so on!)

I think this may have got written out of order :-) But, yes, I agree
that publishing board papers can be very useful.

> 2) Audio or video recording meetings is, in my view, a very bad idea.
> Wikimedia UK tried this for a while and then abandoned it. Board members
> start worrying about how their words are going to be perceived by people
> outside the meeting rather than the people in the meeting. In an
> environment where someone will start a critical email thread about every
> single misphrasing or ambiguity, I really worry this would cripple the
> Board's ability to have a conversation about any issue.

Also agree. Detailed minutes strike a good balance here.

> 3) 3 weeks for publication of minutes sounds like a reasonable time frame
> to me. I'm seeing a few "How can it take 3 WEEKS??!!?!?" reactions from
> people. Probably because the Board spends all weekend meeting then on
> Monday go back to their jobs. Then someone starts writing up the minutes
> from their notes, probably the next weekend. The realise they need to query
> something and drop someone an email about it. They respond on Tuesday, by
> which point the minute-writer is spending the free evening they dedicate to
> Board work on addressing some other issue and the next chance they get to
> look at it is first thing on Saturday morning - they spend Saturday morning
> writing up minutes and then circulate a draft  which then someone wants
> to amend ... .you get the picture. :)

I think this is entirely reasonable for minutes made by and for an
entirely volunteer group. But WMF is a large organisation, employing
many staff. It coordinates and supports the board meetings, presumably
at some cost. Surely it could arrange to provide a confidential
note-taker whose *job* it is to take those minutes, put them into a
fit state the following day, and circulate them shortly afterwards? It
might still take a little while to get them approved and published,
but we'd still be a step up on where we are now.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] How To Recover From Having Made A Mistake [a reminder]

2016-01-11 Thread Andrew Gray
On 11 January 2016 at 19:58, Philippe Beaudette <phili...@beaudette.me> wrote:

> Plus I know of at least one donation made from Antarctica, that year i ran
> the fundraiser...  If that isn't enough to justify chapter creation

And, of course, after much prodding from Lodewijk, in 2013 we had:

http://wikilovesmonuments.aq/

(September is not a good monument-hunting month, so I think all
contributors had given us pictures from their existing collections...)

Asaf: wonderful piece as always.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees

2016-01-06 Thread Andrew Gray
On 6 January 2016 at 02:09, Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've always believed that Wikimedia is an education charity that happens to
> exist exists in a technology field. I often note in presentations that I
> give that the Wikimedia vision statement does NOT use the words, Internet,
> or Wiki, or Encyclopedia. But these appointments indicate the Board and WMF
> Executive believe Wikimedia is a technology charity that happens to exists
> in the education field.
>
> These appointments will make a crucial difference to how the new WMF
> strategic direction will go - and clearly the leadership is wanting to make
> us act more like a Californian dot-com and less like a global education
> charity. Less "community consensus building" and more "move fast and break
> things" - is the message I am reading here.

I would like to very much second Liam's concerns here. This feels like
we're drifting further into the bubble of SF technology companies, and
frankly the world needs less of that not more. I think it's valuable
that we have some board members with experience from outside the
Wikimedia bubble - but also very important that we try to avoid too
large a proportion of the board coming from within the SF technology
bubble. This feels like a step sideways in that regard, and it's
unsettling.

(I also agree with his concerns about diversity, but we're not always
great at solving that through the elected seats either, to be fair...)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees

2016-01-06 Thread Andrew Gray
On 6 January 2016 at 07:52, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is all fascinating and concerning. Most concerning to me is the
> presence on the board of someone actually on Google's payroll right now.
> How can Denny not be fatally conflicted in all - or most - board
> deliberations that involve broad strategy - especially but not only to do
> with WikiData?

Given Denny's long history with Wikimedia and his role in Wikidata, I
would be more concerned about influence working the other way around
;-)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] [Wiki Loves Monuments] Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy largely blocked by WMF fundraising

2015-08-21 Thread Andrew Gray
On 20 August 2015 at 06:26, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 I can understand the frustration that members of WMIT are expressing here,
 but I also see Fundraising's point.  I wonder if there are not some other
 options that could be considered.  For example, instead of a banner,
 perhaps a big bright button on the sidebar that says Upload images for
 Wiki Loves Monuments here! may be technically feasible.  It's not quite
 the equivalent of a banner, but it does address the wayfinding issue at
 least.  (I think that's possibly the biggest downside of not having the WLM
 banners in rotation.)

I can see this working, to a degree. I think it would be quite
valuable serving the role of wayfinding for a returning contributor
looking for it - but I'm not sure it could effectively replace the
banner as a first port of call  way to attract attention.

Still, nothing ventured!

Some projects have restyled the globe logo for special occasions -
that might be another approach to consider.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] [Wiki Loves Monuments] Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy largely blocked by WMF fundraising

2015-08-19 Thread Andrew Gray
On 19 August 2015 at 14:26, Sam Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
 There's a more general problem here we should fix:

 We already know that effectiveness of any single banner drops off
 dramatically after the first few views.  So there's rarely a reason to run
 a continuous banner -- certainly not if there are other banners to run.

I think we should be cautious about using our fundraising experience
to predict the efficiency of 'delayed call-to-action' banners like WLM
- to my mind they seem to function in quite different roles.

The fundraising banner is calling for an immediate action. You see it,
and you either donate or you don't. If you decide not to donate, you
probably won't decide to donate on seeing it tomorrow, either; while
if you have donated, you're probably not going to donate again. So the
banner being repeated doesn't gain us much, and it has progressively
less value on the third, fourth, fifth appearances. There are
relatively few people who see a fundraising banner and decide I'll
sleep on it, then come back tomorrow and donate. And if they *do*,
well - there's a donate link on every page, once they're looking for
it.

However, WLM is calling for a delayed action - go off, do something,
and come back again to tell us about it.

The most desired outcome is probably that a previously uninvolved
person will see it, click through, think that sounds fun, and go off
to take some photos - after all, it's running all month, they can do
it at the weekend. A few days later they come back, and want to upload
their photos... but if the banner's not there on Wikipedia, they won't
really know where to go. They might not remember the name (Wiki
something?), making it hard to search for the contest, and they
probably didn't bookmark the WLM pages. There isn't anything else on
the page that would help to take them there, and if they're not
involved in the projects already they probably won't know where the
information's likely to be. If we can't make sure they can find WLM
easily when they return, then we've wasted the original call to
action, we've wasted the potential contributions, *and*, most
importantly, we've wasted their time and goodwill.

I think this difference in intended response styles makes it hard to
generalise from the diminishing returns experienced on fundraising.
Yes, a repeated banner will get progressively diminishing
clickthroughs. But with WLM, those second clickthroughs in some ways
provide the value to the first clickthrough - they need to return to
make the campaign a success, which isn't really a concern for
fundraising. We need to make sure that that channel is open and
visible in some way when they come back.

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] CAPTCHA issues discouraging new editors

2015-06-19 Thread Andrew Gray
It's true that events *can* get whitelisted, but this is a very
complex method. It relies on the organiser knowing the IP ranges in
advance, and knowing who to contact at WMF - and on WMF having the
time to deal with it. It would rapidly break down if we needed to use
this method for every small training session. (I used to do two or
three workshops a week...)

Andrew.

On 19 June 2015 at 19:16, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Events sometimes get whitelisted for account creation purposes:
 https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/throttle.php.txt
 The exceptions there there could be made to set $wgCaptchaWhitelistIP too.

 On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 8:54 AM, WereSpielChequers
 werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
 alternatively perhaps we could whitelist certain domains as likely to be 
 reliable sources and unlikely to be spam.
 There actually already is a whitelist ($wgCaptchaWhitelist in
 https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/CommonSettings.php.txt).
 Unfortunately, as far as I know, there's no on-wiki way to change it,
 but you could always compile a list of domains and submit it through
 Phabricator.

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] What's cool?

2015-06-17 Thread Andrew Gray
Nice! I love that someone has finally settled the size-in-volumes
debate in a somewhat... direct... fashion.

Incidentally, the largest print serial I'm aware of is the 'Serial
Set' of American official papers; it currently runs to around 14,000
volumes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_Serial_Set

So we're half-way there.

If we take the reasonable guess that enwiki is about the same text
volume as all other Wikipedias put together, then we're probably just
about to overtake them...

Andrew.

On 17 June 2015 at 14:06, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 phoebe ayers wrote:
I need a break from thinking about things going wrong. And so per Milos'
observation that discussion here is falling off, I thought I'd start an
open discussion thread about things going right.

What's a cool thing you just discovered or are involved in that is
happening in the Wikimedia world?

 Hi.

 http://nyti.ms/1Bl9VpB

 This story about an art exhibit opening in New York on Thursday is pretty
 neat. A Wikipedian has been working for years to create a print version of
 Wikipedia, described as half utilitarian data visualization project, half
 absurdist poetic gesture. Hopefully we'll have photos of the project on
 Wikimedia Commons soon.

 Related reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_in_volumes.

 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] [Spam] Re: While Election committee counts the votes...

2015-06-03 Thread Andrew Gray
On 3 June 2015 at 12:32, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote:

 As a number-crunching nerd myself I would love all my fellows with this
 interest to also be able to study the detailed numbers. But in order to keep
 secrecy of who voted, the figures for small  project can not be made general
 available. And to work with the figures from the bigger and medium projects,
 probably a more qualified analysis of the quality of the numbers used would
 be needed, just along the reasoning you bring up.

I might be misremembering, but I thought that whether or not user X
had voted was public information? It certainly was in 2013; digging
through old emails turns up a link to
https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290 which
seems to be the voter list from that election.

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] 2015 Strategy/Community consultation on the Wikipedia for children idea

2015-03-19 Thread Andrew Gray
Do we have an idea of the time commitment needed - X months of
full-time work? (Potentially more now than it took first time around).
Might be something which would justify an IEG grant, or a similar
small grant from an external body...

Andrew.

On 18 March 2015 at 16:38, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 18 March 2015 at 16:07, Richard Symonds
 richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

 Indeed. http://schools-wikipedia.org is already used around the world -
 it's a great example of what can be done if Wikimedians work with (even
 passively with) other orgs.


 Everyone likes it, not many are coming forward to lead the ongoing
 update cycle since User:Bozmo left SOS Children (the charity who put
 it together). (And I'm not volunteering.) Not sure what to do about
 that.


 - d.

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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 financing model for editations

2015-03-19 Thread Andrew Gray
On 19 March 2015 at 00:52, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Therefore, I propose that someone try some editathons where half the
 tickets are auctioned, the other half are raffled, and the Foundation pays
 to support them if and only if the auction fails to pay all of the expenses
 in advance, and then only the difference. This will allow them to become
 more exclusive, but not completely exclusive, (...)

I'm a bit lost here. At the moment, editathons are (almost?) always
free to attend, though some are tacked onto a paying event (eg a
conference); when ticketed, this is usually to control numbers when
space is limited. This model works pretty well and makes them popular
events; indeed, they're one of our most visible public activities.

I don't see where the benefit would come from selling - or raffling,
auctioning, etc- tickets. It would invariably deter attendees and
reduce uptake; why would making them more exclusive be a *good* thing?
We want as many people as possible to attend, and most do not run at
absolute capacity.

This looks like a problem rather than a solution, even assuming we
need a solution at all. Yes, it would be nice if they were
cost-neutral - but the cost of running editathons is, in my
experience, not high. There are probably easier savings to be made by
WMF.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] UTC in politics, editors threaten, or how rev history made the news

2015-03-02 Thread Andrew Gray
On 2 March 2015 at 13:49, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:

 But if we're going to implement something, why not just..have timezone
 be an element of the timestamps on history pages? It's UTC unless the
 user explicitly changes it, and if they explicitly change it that's
 known in the database (and already referenced to decide how to convert
 the UTC timestamp when the page is displayed). It's a perfectly
 sensible UI change that makes sense independent of this problem.

This sounds like a good idea - in some ways, it's more robust than a
notice at the top of the page. It's very easy for someone to not
notice a general message, especially if they're looking at more than
the first two entries in the history.

If we want to be clever, we could always get JS trickery to display
something like xx.xx UTC ($localtimezone +5.00) rather than just
xx.xx UTC.

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] UTC in politics, editors threaten, or how rev history made the news

2015-03-02 Thread Andrew Gray
On 2 March 2015 at 13:49, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:

 But if we're going to implement something, why not just..have timezone
 be an element of the timestamps on history pages? It's UTC unless the
 user explicitly changes it, and if they explicitly change it that's
 known in the database (and already referenced to decide how to convert
 the UTC timestamp when the page is displayed). It's a perfectly
 sensible UI change that makes sense independent of this problem.

This sounds like a good idea - in some ways, it's more robust than a
notice at the top of the page. It's very easy for someone to not
notice a general message, especially if they're looking at more than
the first two entries in the history.

If we want to be clever, we could always get JS trickery to display
something like xx.xx UTC ($localtimezone +5.00) rather than just
xx.xx UTC.

Related point: if we adapt the way history timestamps are displayed,
eg by adding 'UTC', we should be consistent and apply the same
approach to the old revisions view of a page, and the This page was
last modified on... footer. Signatures have (UTC) by default, so
that's solved, at least.

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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 Listen Button

2015-01-25 Thread Andrew Gray
Max Klein and I had a chat with someone from a similar group a couple
of years ago, and he reported much the same thing - the actual site
structure is pretty good for screenreaders and similar software, or
was in early 2013.

(His main suggestion was to look into improved audio materials -
recordings of what things sounds like, soundscapes, etc. - which we
don't really do much with. Andy Mabbett picked up part of this with
the Voice Intro Project, which is great, but the rest is still fertile
ground...)

Anecdotally, I believe the spoken Wikipedia article recordings are
mainly used as surrogates for podcast-type use, rather than
accessibility purposes. However, if anyone has some firm numbers on
this (or even an indication of how much they're used at all...) I'd
love to know about it!

Andrew.


On 25 January 2015 at 12:00, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
 We were discussing it with an association of blind people in Poland - and
 they told us - that for them the most important thing is clear and logic
 structure of the website - plain main text, menu/navigation in plain text
 and descriptions of media in plain text. They are using their own free
 text-to-speach software to which they are used to. Such software simply
 reads everything on the screen in the same neutral way. So they don't need
 any other tools for voice reading - if other websites provide it - they
 usually do not use it. Maybe in some other languages the situation is
 different - but it would be better to discuss it with relevant associations
 before investing time and money for such solutions. Fortunately, Wikipedia
 actually is quite  text-to-speach friendly at the moment.



 2015-01-24 23:21 GMT+01:00 James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com:

 While human read articles are great they quickly become out of date and are
 available for only a fraction of our articles.

 Why don't we have a Listen button beside our read button that when
 clicked will read the article for the person in question?

 There are 37 open source text-to-speech listed here
 http://www.findbestopensource.com/tagged/text-to-speech. Some of them
 support up to 50 languages. This of course would require the support of the
 Wikimedia Foundation.

 I guess we could also do it with a gadget initially. Thoughts?

 --
 James Heilman
 MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

 The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
 www.opentextbookofmedicine.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




 --
 Tomek Polimerek Ganicz
 http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
 http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
 http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz
 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] [Spam] Re: Become a Digital object identifier (DOI) registarnt

2015-01-23 Thread Andrew Gray
That said, there was an attempt in 2013 to provide Memento support,
which would (partially) mitigate this problem by using appropriate
templates:

http://mementoweb.org/wikipedia/

Of course, this would still be vulnerable to deleted images etc. And
we weren't even thinking about Wikidata transclusions then :-)

Andrew.

On 23 January 2015 at 16:09, Petr Kadlec petr.kad...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
 wrote:

 The oldid. At the moment, I trust our long-term viability more than a
 2014 web-archiving startup, even one with praiseworthy names attached
 ;-)


 Possibly an obvious remark: an oldid-based permalink gets you an old
 version of the source text of the specific page, but does not give you the
 original visible _result_: The page is reparsed and displayed using the
 _current_ version of all used templates, images, data from Wikidata etc. We
 do not store the complete state anywhere, so perma.cc does provide extra
 value here.

 -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] [Spam] Re: Become a Digital object identifier (DOI) registarnt

2015-01-21 Thread Andrew Gray
The oldid. At the moment, I trust our long-term viability more than a
2014 web-archiving startup, even one with praiseworthy names attached
;-)

(Foolish question: can oldids be reconstituted from dumps?)

Andrew.


On 21 January 2015 at 00:01, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
 phoebe ayers, 20/01/2015 23:42:

 suggests relying
 on*us*  for persistent identifier stability:


 Hmm I'm not sure that's what it's written there.

 However, relatedly, also today:
 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/26/cobweb
 «The footnote, a landmark in the history of civilization, took centuries to
 invent and to spread. It has taken mere years nearly to destroy. [...] The
 footnote problem, though, stands a good chance of being fixed. Last year, a
 tool called Perma.cc was launched.»
 I looked into perma.cc some time ago but I had never read such an emphatic
 supporter yet. (Their stats also seem rather flat lately.)

 The two articles combined make me wonder: if I cite a Wikimedia projects
 page in a long-term document, should I link something like perma.cc or to
 the oldid? I prefer the oldid, because I think it's every website's
 responsibility to offer really permanent links. But if such a
 permalink/archival service was offered by a national library with the
 guarantees of legal deposit... then I wouldn't be sure.

 Nemo


 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] Become a Digital object identifier (DOI) registarnt

2014-12-31 Thread Andrew Gray
My experience is that to create a DOI you need to provide a basic
level of metadata for each item rather than simply registering a
target URL - I'm not sure how curated this needs to be, and it can
probably be autogenerated, but there might be problems scaling it and
doing it on demand. There is also a short delay before they become
active at the central registry. (I've certainly seen cases where a
publisher has issued a DOI then announced it to the world before
CrossRef are able to resolve it, and it takes a day or two before the
DOI works...)

As a result, I don't think we could generate these on the fly and use
a URL-shortener type approach - there might be problems with
generating that many of them, and they would not reliably work at the
moment they're generated.

Andrew.

On 30 December 2014 at 21:53, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
 Digital object identifiers are an international standard for document
 identification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier

 The WMF could be a DOI registrant, and resolve DOIs in the form
 10..Qn for Wikidata items, or, say, 10..en:609232908 for:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_King_of_Romeoldid=609232908

 Where 's the best on-wiki (Meta?) place to propose this?

 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] [Spam] Re: Fwd: Our final email

2014-12-19 Thread Andrew Gray
:21:31 +
 From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
 Message-ID:
caj0tu1gosobr6texio5u+gpb2kzsxqq1n8ykkmsa1alpof2...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly
 unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest
 solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.


 +1

 And we're not talking about semantic arguments, we're seeing blatant 
 falsehoods.


 - d.



 --

 Message: 6
 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:59:50 +1000
 From: Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email
 Message-ID:
cahf+k3-6xezdz+q5o45-kneefd7o-92aeuzd83ahun30lds...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 On 19 December 2014 at 10:12, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:


 The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly
 unacceptable. Having the first rule be don't lie might be the easiest
 solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
 The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in
 an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling
 Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director, calling Brandon Harris a
 Wikipedia programmer, and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading
 suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online.

 The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous
 $3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_
 that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money
 again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that
 suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today.
 Please add my name to the list of people who are troubled by what's been
 said and done in the latest round of fundraising.

 I think that most of us, even if we feel some distaste for begging for
 money, realise the importance and necessity of engaging in fundraising.
 The fact that we're asking for money is not the problem.  The problem is
 that in order to maximise the amount of revenue gained, the Fundraising
 team has engaged in a misleading scare campaign.  In the short term, that
 means that a few more dollars will flow into the Foundation's coffers, but
 in the long term it just damages the brand and the entire movement.

 It is very disappointing that the responses from the WMF to these entirely
 reasonable concerns so far have been either:

 a) Silence
 b) Completely ignoring the point (The fundraiser has been very successful
 because we've received more money, and those who are not aware that they've
 been mislead are not upset!)
 c) Semantic word games (Well, in a technical sense what we've said is not
 a lie, depending on how you look at it)

 The solution that I'd like to see for next time is less focus on A/B
 testing that has its sole purpose of maximising the amount of revenue
 raised, and more of a view to alternative ways to raise money.  Imagine a
 world in which we gave our readers a positive message that we already had
 enough money to keep the lights on thanks very much, but needed more to
 build cool new tools, improve the quality of the project content, and
 implement more innovative projects to meet our movement's goals.

 Regards,
 Craig Franklin


 --

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list,  guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


 End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 129, Issue 85
 
 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] edited mercilessly

2014-12-03 Thread Andrew Gray
I remember edited mercilessly as well...

The current message is from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn and
dates from 2012. I wonder if this was changed when the ToU came in?

An unscientific hint is that posters to the Wikimedia mailing lists
more or less stopped using mercilessly in 2009 ;-)

Andrew.

On 3 December 2014 at 13:11, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
 ... Oh, actually now I see at the top of the English Wikipedia source
 editing page: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and
 redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.

 As far I recall, however, it was near the Save button, and it definitely
 said something more hard-core, like it will be edited mercilessly.

 And I can't find anything like that in the Visual Editor.


 --
 Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
 http://aharoni.wordpress.com
 ‪“We're living in pieces,
 I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

 2014-12-03 15:08 GMT+02:00 Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il:

 Hi,

 I have a vague recollection that when I started editing the English
 Wikipedia ten years ago, there was a notice near the Save button, which
 said something like this: Your changes will be edited mercilessly.

 I remember similar notices in other languages as well, though even more
 vaguely.

 I don't see it now. I checked English, Hebrew and Russian.

 Does anybody know why was it removed? Did the editors communities just
 decide independently to remove it for whatever reason? If it was, I'd love
 to see links to discussions if anybody has them. Or was it a design
 decision by the Foundation?

 Thanks!

 --
 Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
 http://aharoni.wordpress.com
 ‪“We're living in pieces,
 I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] Wiki Project Med

2014-11-13 Thread Andrew Gray
It's possible to do this with a single-purpose account and Email me
when a page or file on my watchlist is changed (which was re-enabled
on enwiki a few years back). Not the most straightforward process, but
it's there; you could do it with a regular account, but you'd get
swamped fast!

A better solution would be some kind of prioritised watchlist, which
has been proposed a few times but I'm not sure if anyone's ever worked
on it.

Andrew.

On 13 November 2014 04:12, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 Actually, as I recall, email alerts for changes in articles has never been
 activated on English Wikipedia.

 Risker/Anne



 On 12 November 2014 22:53, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote:

 Agree with all that, Svetlana - though we don't have a button at the top of
 articles making it easy for readers to enable email alerts. 99.999% of
 readers wouldn't know it was available. (This is something BLP subjects
 would appreciate too, I'm sure.)

 Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole


 On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 7:17 PM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au
 wrote:

  Thanks Anthony for sharing your ideas!
 
  Anthony Cole wrote:
   Svetlana, presently we have
  
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Lists_of_pages/Articles
   which reports all changes to articles tagged on their talk page as of
   interest to WikiProjedt Medicine (about 33,000 so far).
 
  This is a grand tool. Though
  1) it doesn't filter for new page creations (would it be nice to have a
  new page tag?), and
  2) is not as grained as subcats would be (where people would be able to
  pick a more narrow topic to watch).
 
  Anthony Cole wrote:
   I'd like all our
   medical articles to have a button at the top saying email me when this
   article changes, so interested experts could easily adopt a few
  articles.
 
  Yes, this is a watchlist thing, it's already there (interested people can
  enable email delivery).
 
  ___
  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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] To Flow or not to Flow

2014-09-10 Thread Andrew Gray
On 8 September 2014 08:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:

 If it is good
 software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
 with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
 even if the wider community isnt ready to migrate.


 This is the key point.

 Those of us who presently use talk pages to get the work done. What is
 going to make us *love* Flow, for all its imperfections, and demand to
 have it for ourselves? What's Flow's killer feature for us?

 (I asked this before.)

When I sat in on a talk about Flow at Wikimania a year or so ago, the
two that made me sit bolt upright as things we can't easily do with
wikitext:

* potential to work with Notifications (tell me when anyone replies
to this discussion) without needing individual pings or relying on
spotting one talkpage edit in a busy watchlist - especially since on
some pages a comment may come two years later.

* inter-wiki or intra-wiki integration of multiple-venue discussions
rather than several parallel pages and potentially parallel
discussions (not a very frequent issue, but a messy one when needed;
Pine notes this below)

The more nebulous one that has great promise is using Flow for
workflows/processes (which falls out naturally from the integration of
discussions) - this is what Erik describes below as tags, though I
think that terminology is new to me.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] slow death of anyone can edit concept (was: let's elect people to serve on the wikimedia engineering community team! (brainstorming))

2014-08-09 Thread Andrew Gray
It's not in exactly the same place it was before, but I'm not sure I'd
call it not prominent - the existing tabs have just been moved under
the headline title, and then an additional [edit] button on every
section heading as usual:



Temperate climate

Read Edit 1 Discussions Updated 16 days ago More



Andrew.

On 9 August 2014 11:57, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
 On Fri, 8 Aug 2014, at 11:47, MZMcBride wrote:
 [...]
 For comparison, we now have MediaViewer, which moved through as a beta
 feature. They say MediaViewer may one day be as feature-ful as the file
 description pages we've had for a long time (editing capability, oh my!).
 [...]
 MZMcBride

 Related: http://unicorn.wmflabs.org/winter/index.html?page=Temperate_climate
 This re-make of the Vector skin lacks a prominent Edit button.
 I would adore talking to the relevant project people, but I /do not see them/ 
 on this wonderful page:
 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Winter

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] Bitcoin now accepted, but there are privacy concerns

2014-07-30 Thread Andrew Gray
Hi Pine,

The IRS link includes the note that:

A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information
reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property.

- no expert, but I suspect this is the explanation. Because the IRS
treat bitcoin as property (like, eg, shares) rather than currency,
it triggers different - and presumably more complex - reporting
requirements.

Andrew.

On 30 July 2014 20:20, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
 There is a post on the blog saying that bitcoin is accepted but there are
 several questions about why WMF is asking for contact info. Is that an IRS
 requirement? Might want to post the reason in the blog entry. AFAIK with
 the nonprofits I donate to none require personal info for small
 contributions.

 Thanks,
 Pine
 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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

2014-07-14 Thread Andrew Gray
 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 gryll...@fastmail.fm 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
  
   Will WMF deactivate MediaViewer on English Wikipedia per community
   consensus?
  
   Also, as WMF probably knows, Commons is currently having a similar
   discussion:
  
 
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer_software_feature
  
   Thanks,
  
   Pine
   ___
   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

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] 24 TB for User:Dispenser on Tool Labs please

2014-07-04 Thread Andrew Gray
On 4 July 2014 01:00, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
  I don't think it's a donation if you're getting something (a survey) in 
 return.

 How could the Foundation possibly not benefit from understanding
 contributors' opinions about general strategic goals for improving
 participation?

 I also want development of accuracy review. If there are any reasons
 that the Foundation would not benefit from that, the survey, or a
 reflinks cache which includes enough room to fit a category adjacency
 map in, then please bring them to my attention.

The survey *again*? Oh, dear. It was a bad idea before, and it's still
a bad idea when we're bribed into agreeing to it with hardware
donations.

James, this is getting a bit sad to see. You've raised this idea of a
political issues survey a dozen or more times on the mailing list over
a couple of years, and the responses tend to be along the lines of
no, that's inappropriate or no, that's irrelevant, both from the
community and from Foundation staffers; at least one person honestly
seemed to think it was satirical!

I don't think these responses were particularly ambiguous, so it's a
bit odd that you seem to think that people haven't clearly explained
why it's a bad idea.

See, eg,

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070583.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/070937.html

Almost every issue on that political survey is irrelevant to most of
our work - I suppose you could make a case for metropolitan
broadband, which might be relevant - and irrelevant to the specific
question of volunteer participation.

To take a straw poll on whether a few people in the community prefer
steeply progressive taxation to school class size reduction, and
then use that as justification to divert resources into one or the
other those topics, is frankly insulting to our donors and volunteers,
who have signed up to support something entirely different and nothing
to do with either of them. It also arrogantly presumes a lot about
other people's political and economic beliefs which I find somewhat
disquieting - why are you so confident that Wikipedians are *for* all
of these things?

Wikimedia has a goal we have chosen to adopt and a general method we
have developed to try and achieve it. That method does not involve
engineering massive external changes in order to produce long-term
second or third-order effects that *might*, in some undefined fashion,
lead to incidental benefits towards the goal in a decade or three.

Those changes may be *good* in and of themselves - in most cases, I'd
agree they would be, and I think our community would broadly tend to
agree as well - but bringing them about is simply not what Wikimedia
was set up to do and it's not what people have given money and time to
support. Why not throw WMF's efforts at cancer treatment or clean-air
programs? Or climate-change campaigns? All great things and need all
the support they can get, and they'd probably have as much effect on
user activity as data-centre energy efficiency... which is to say,
very little direct impact.

Put it from the other perspective: we should try and work on (or at
least identify!) things which might directly affect the problem of
participation, rather than trying to solve all the world's political
and economic issues and hoping our original problem will be a bit
easier afterwards.

And, finally - the more you argue for this tangential idea, the more
people are going to ignore any other (reasonable) suggestion you make.

I hope this (sadly lengthy) email constitutes bringing some minor
objections to your attention.

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] Number of volunteers. (Was: How many volunteers (not editors) ...?)

2014-07-04 Thread Andrew Gray
On 2 July 2014 01:08, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 As for the Volunteer Coordinator, he was Cary Bass and left the
 Foundation some time ago.  See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bastique
 or https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cary_Bass .

It's worth remembering that Cary's duties was essentially everything
else; when he was hired there were ten other staff, and by the time
he left there were still only a few dozen.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Staff_and_contractorsoldid=19911

This may explain why volunteer coordinator seems to cover such a lot :-)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] [Spam] Re: 24 TB for User:Dispenser on Tool Labs please

2014-07-03 Thread Andrew Gray
On 3 July 2014 18:49, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:

 Also, 24T is a significant chunk of the space available to Labs in
 general; storage is nowhere near as inexpensive in our context as would
 be with off-the-shelf customer-grade disks.  There's nothing that
 prevents us from allocating significant resources to a project that
 needs it (to wit: open street maps tile generator) but we're not going
 to do that site unseen and without supervision.

As an aside to this: even were you to do it with crappy consumer-grade
disks, you're still looking at the better part of a thousand dollars -
the cheapest price for a new off-the-shelf disk looks to be about
$35/tb, so perhaps eight hundred dollars or more. Presumably even for
crappy disks the costs of putting them in a box and plugging it in are
still there, too - call it a round thousand for the cheapest option.

I haven't been following this case, but I would think saying let's
figure out what you want to do before we spend a thousand dollars on
it would be an eminently reasonable position for Marc to take.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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 tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Andrew Gray
On 17 June 2014 17:53, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:

 educational and other uses, by Wikimedians and third parties. If it's not an
 open-content encyclopedia, for example if Wikipedia articles make use of
 provincial American copyright loopholes that render them illegal to
 redistribute here in Denmark, imo it has failed in its educational mission.

We already do this, and it's been going on for a decade.

The English Wikipedia is stuffed full of text added under a pre 1923
so public domain basis, which of course is a complete minefield
anywhere else in the world. Some of it is tagged, some of it isn't

See, for example, the 12000+ pages (often very prominent) in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica

Some of this is PD in most of the world (assuming life+70). Some
isn't. We cheerfully warrant it all to be CC-BY-SA...

(In practice, I think this is reasonably de minimis. The amount of
material that survives is relatively small in many articles, and I've
even removed a few EB1911 tags when it's been written out entirely.
But it's interesting to compare this with the way we handle Commons
material.)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation

2014-06-15 Thread Andrew Gray
On 15 June 2014 19:13, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:

 From my point of view, french wikimedian, all I saw is some drama around
 specific topics that stopped days ago. As far as I know, the crisis isn't
 going further than that. And what your email, sofar, is doing, is
 generating fruitless discussions.

Agree entirely with this. Not really sure what the original post was
intended to achieve, but it doesn't seem to be doing it...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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

2014-05-23 Thread Andrew Gray
I suppose the caveat would be that what actually happens may be
*broader* than the policy suggests, if anything (eg deleting personal
information on a pre-emptive basis)

On the English Wikipedia, see also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protecting_children%27s_privacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents

In addition to the English Wikipedia policy, note that there's
versions on four other wikis, as well. Catalan notes that theirs was
adaptat de l'anglesa i de Commons, so probably close in general
content, and judging by the dates on them I suspect the others had a
similar source, but you may want to check this.

The Commons policy is at:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection

- also adapted from enwiki but marked as 'proposed'.

There's a policy also marked as proposed on meta, dating from 2010;
however, as it quotes the terms of service, I think we can reasonably
conclude that the content does have the force of policy despite this
tag :-)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Child_protection

The Wikimedia-wide terms of use were formally codified in 2012 (there
had been ToU before then, but they mostly dealt with copyright issues)
and do include relevant material in Section 4. But I know this has
been a topic raised on many occasions well before 2010-2012...

Andrew.

On 23 May 2014 18:34, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On May 23, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 23 May 2014 13:05, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com 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

 Right.

 I can guarantee you that the policy more or less as written will be 
 implemented by most senior experienced admins.  It documented existing very 
 poorly publicized informal practice in that regard.

 There is and has been much controversy as to whether it's good, fair, 
 reasonable, appropriate.

 As with the responding to threats of harm essay (originally responding to 
 threats of suicide, now expanded), there were considerable theory based top 
 down discussions that did not resolve, followed by someone documenting what 
 was actually being done most of the time and that settling is as precedent.

 This is perhaps not the best process.  However, even in the absence of total 
 community support on these issues, admins and arbcom and senior community 
 members will act to protect individual people and the community and 
 encyclopedia and foundation.  It seems to be agreed that documenting usual 
 parameters for that, so people understand the usual responses, was a net 
 positive.


 -george william herbert
 george.herb...@gmail.com

 Sent from Kangphone
 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] MET allows free image download for 390, 000+ works already in the pubic domain

2014-05-22 Thread Andrew Gray
On 21 May 2014 23:58, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 21 May 2014 21:25, Lane Rasberry l...@bluerasberry.com wrote:

 Despite what the museum director says in the press release, they are not
 providing images in accord with open access principles as they forbid
 reuse in commercial publications, like school textbooks.

 Well, arguably they are, barely. Green open access in scientific journals
 includes NC licenses. It's far short of being proper free content, as you
 note.

Indeed - Green OA is simply the right to make available for reading
(and usually in fairly constrained circumstances). Direct reuse
doesn't enter into it.

Open access is a very multifaceted term. :-)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] Non-renewal of Wikimedia UK fundraiser agreement

2014-05-21 Thread Andrew Gray
On 21 May 2014 12:22, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi all,

 A couple of things popped into my head that I am unsure of, but hope
 someone might be able to answer.

 1) I understand that processing of UK donations in the US has significant
 tax implications on the funds collected. I would imagine that the WMF
 couldn't claim anywhere near the same tax relief on this income in the USA?

Very significant; with some caveats, any donation from someone who a)
is a basic rate taxpayer (earns more than ~£10k/year) and b) fills in
a short form agreeing to it, gets increased by 25% by HMRC.

This is handled by the charity rather than the donor - ie, the donor
still pays tax and then the charity recovers it, rather than the donor
claiming a tax deduction as in the US model. (It's an open question
which of these is more efficient...).

I don't believe an overseas charity would be eligible for this rebate,
and so money paid to WMF directly by UK residents is not going to get
this aid.

 2) If there are tax implications, wouldn't it make more sense for the WMF
 to register its own charity in the UK, thereby it could essentially take
 WMUK out of the equation completely?

...which is why WMUK was created in the first place, including a lot
of legal back-and-forth to demonstrate that it was actually possible
under charity law! (It took quite a while to get to this stage,
including a first chapter which basically fizzled, but charitable
donations was right there on day one as an issue.)

The chapter qua chapter has done some pretty good things, but one of
the big drivers from the very first discussions back in 2005 (or
earlier?) was the efficiency of being able to fundraise and take
advantage of gift aid; everything else followed on since then. Of
course, Wikimedia as a whole had a lot less money in 2005 and we were
all somewhat unclear on what a chapter could actually do ;-)

So it seems a little weird, to me, to create a second charity to do
the job that the first one was created for...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] [Wikitech-l] Request for comments: How to deal with open datasets?

2014-05-15 Thread Andrew Gray
On 15 May 2014 12:42, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:

 You will find more details here

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/How_to_deal_with_open_datasets

 Your comments, thoughts and ideas are appreciated!

 Thanks for the pointer, How can I put this open data on Wikidata is a
 question that I have been asked many times, this page was needed.

Definitely agree that we needed something like this. There's a lot of
confusion about what Wikidata is for, and what is and isn't appropriate for
it - both from outsiders and from within the Wikimedia community. I've seen
vague it's data, it'll go on Wikidata a few times, which is a bit like
saying it's text, it'll go on Wikipedia ;-)

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
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.

2014-05-13 Thread Andrew Gray
On 13 May 2014 21:08, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 I've never heard Principle of Least Astonishment used this way. I've
 only heard it used in the context of software design- specifically
 user experience- and never to describe content. WP seems to agree:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment
 Certain terms seem to have special significance in the WP community;
 is this one of those cases?

 FWIW, I'm not taken aback by words like fuck, but in my experience
 it always undermines serious arguments that it is used in.
This is grand historic debate :-)

POLA got thrown around a lot in the c. 2011 debates about whether WP
should support/enable/allow/contemplate some kind of image filtering -
it was used in the Board resolution which more or less kicked the
whole thing off.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content

The sense here seems to be that you might expect nudity on a medical
or sexuality-related page, but you wouldn't expect random nudity in an
article about a bridge.* But then, what level of nudity?
Click-to-view? How graphic? etc. It's a good principle but relies on
individual editorial common sense, which of course is very difficult
to scale and very vulnerable to deliberate disruption.

We had a few months of yelling, lots of grumbling and accusations of
bad faith, and the whole thing eventually ground to a halt in late
2011 with very little actually done. The resolution is still out
there, though...

Andrew.

* today's surprising fact: a particularly odd contributor tried to
argue for this, at great length, in ~2005. I forget which article on
enwiki it was.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] [Wikitech-l] Affiliation in username

2014-05-10 Thread Andrew Gray
On 9 May 2014 19:04, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Indeed, or in the user preferences so that it could be accessed natively.


 Whatever solution is proposed must accommodate the fact that the
 affiliation at the time of the edit or other action must remain linked to
 the edit or action, even if the affiliation changes at a subsequent time
 (kind of like subst'ing templates).  Not sure this is possible through
 preferences.

If history/logs/etc displayed username at the time rather than
username as it is now, then you could square this circle - encourage
renaming from User:Jane_Smith to User:Jane_Smith_(Megacorp) then back
to User:Jane_Smith, in order to accomodate changes over time.

Of course, this would have other side-effects - the rename-to-vanish
or rename-for-privacy method we currently use would be impossible, for
one thing...

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles

2014-05-08 Thread Andrew Gray
On 8 May 2014 01:56, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 (However, this study does not seem to have been based on a random sample –
 at least I cannot find any mention of the sample selection method in the
 study's write-up. The selection of a random sample is key to any such
 effort, and the method used to select the sample should be described in
 detail in any resulting report.)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EPIC_Oxford_report.pdf

Section 3.3 of the report covers article selection. They went about it
backwards (at least, backwards to the way you might expect) -
recruiting reviewers and then manually identifying relevant articles,
as the original goal was to use relevant topics for individual
specialists.

Even this selective method didn't work as well as might be hoped,
because the mechanism of the study required a minimum level of content
- the articles had to be substantial enough to be useful for a
comparison, and of sufficient length and comparable scope in both sets
of sources - which ruled out many of the initial selections.

(This is a key point to remember: the study effectively assesses the
quality of a subset of developed articles in Wikipedia, rather than
the presumably less-good fragmentary ones. It's a valid question to
ask, but not always the one people think it's answering...)

Thus the selection of articles was constrained by two important
factors: one, the need to find topics appropriate for the academics
whom we were able to recruit to the project; secondly, that articles
from different online encyclopaedias were of comparable substance and
focus. (Such factors would need to be taken carefully into account
when embarking on a future large-scale study, where the demands of
finding large numbers of comparable articles are likely to be
considerable.)

You'd need to adopt a fairly different methodology if you wanted a
random sampling; I suppose you could prefilter a sample by likely to
be suitable metrics (eg minimum size, article title matching a title
list from the other reference works) and randomly select from within
*those*, but of course you would still have the fundamental issue that
you're essentially reviewing a selected portion of the project.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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 Israel been accepted to the Google Grants program

2014-05-05 Thread Andrew Gray
Interesting! WM-DE and WMF have both had adword grants - looking at
the mailing list archives, they seemed to use them for directing
people to fundraising. Any other chapters used these?

Amdrew.

On 5 May 2014 13:53, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote:
 Hey,

 We are pleased to announce that Wikimedia Israel been accepted to the
 Google Grants program. Google Grants is an in-kind advertising program that
 awards free online advertising to nonprofits via Google AdWords up to
 10,000$ per month.

 This grant will help Wikimedia Israel to uses another way to reach people
 in Israel and to invite them to learn about Wikipedia, attends editing
 workshops and to donate to Wikipedia.

 Google is a longtime supporter of Wikimedia Israel – They sponsored Wiki
 Loves Monuments on 2012 and 2013 and hosted many Wikimedia Israel's events
 at their Google Campus in Tel Aviv (Hackathons and community meet-ups).


 P.S. Happy 66th Israel's Independence Day!



 *Regards,Itzik Edri*
 Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
 +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
 Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
 sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations

2014-04-17 Thread Andrew Gray
I think Steven's interpretation here is pretty sound - yes, it's
legitimate for us to do this, but we should be a bit cautious :-)
Infrastructure tools yes, GIMP probably not.

Andrew.




On 17 April 2014 04:10, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On the software side, we have Ubuntu Linux (itself highly indebted to
 Debian) / Apache / MariaDB / PHP / Varnish / ElasticSearch / memcached
 / Puppet / OpenStack / various libraries and many other dependencies [2],
 infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of
 these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and
 support, some don't.

 One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on
 server-side to client-side open source applications used by our
 community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice
 (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on,
 like OpenStreetMap.


 Speaking personally, I think we should consider doing this kind of thing on
 rare occasions and where there is a critical dependency. There are two
 questions that I think are relevant:

 1). Do they *really *need our help?

 Organizations like Ubuntu and Puppet are in fact supported by for-profit
 companies as well as through a FOSS community. There are other examples
 here, like Redis and Vagrant. They surely do not need our money to survive.
 However, something like MariaDB might, since they're in fact asking us.

 2). Would Wikimedia projects be fine, if these other organizations/products
 perished?

 Seems like we really depend on MariaDB having strong support in the future,
 as an open source infrastructure requirement. We moved to Maria in part
 because Oracle is a terrible terrible steward of open source, including
 MySQL. There are other great FOSS databases out there, but switching to
 something like PostgreSQL or a non-relational database (I troll) would be
 infinitely more painful. It's in our self-interest as an organization and
 for the survival of Wikimedia projects that our database engine is a
 healthy open source product.

 Products you mentioned which don't pass this test include things like GIMP,
 Inkscape, and LibreOffice. It feels like it would be wasteful of donor
 money to support something most of our users don't really depend on/we
 don't depend on internally at the WMF. We'd essentially be making an
 investment in these open source products, not ensuring a critical piece of
 our toolkit survives.

 Steven
 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Mobile Operator IP Drift Tracking and Remediation

2014-04-16 Thread Andrew Gray
Hi Adam,

One thought: you don't really need the date/time data at any detailed
resolution, do you? If what you're wanting it for is to track major
changes (last month it all switched to this IP) and to purge old
data (delete anything older than 10 March), you could simply log day
rather than datetime.

enwiki / 127.0.0.1 / 123.45 / 2014-04-16:1245.45

enwiki / 127.0.0.1 / 123.45 / 2014-04-16

- the latter gives you the data you need while making it a lot harder
to do any kind of close user-identification.

Andrew.
On 16 Apr 2014 19:17, Adam Baso ab...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Inline.

 Thanks for starting this thread.
 
  Sorry if I've overlooked this, but who/what will have access to this
 data?
  Only members of the mobile team? Local project CheckUsers? Wikimedia
  Foundation-approved researchers? Wikimedia shell users? AbuseFilter
  filters?
 

 It's a good question. The thought is to put it in the customary wfDebugLog
 location (with, for example, filename mccmnc.log) on fluorine.

 It just occurred to me that the wiki name (e.g., enwiki), but not the
 full URL, gets logged additionally as part of the wfDebugLog call; to make
 the implicit explicit, wfDebugLog adds a datetime stamp as well, and that's
 useful for purging old records. I'll forward this email to mobile-l and
 wikitech-l to underscore this.


  And this may be a silly question, but is there a reasonable means of
  approximating how identifying these two data points alone are? That is,
  Using a mobile country code and exit IP address, is it possible to
  identify a particular editor or reader? Or perhaps rephrased, is this
 data
  considered anonymized?
 

 Not a silly question. My approximation is these tuples (datetime, now that
 it hit me - XYwiki, exit IP, and MCC-MNC) alone, although not perfectly
 anonymized, are low identifying (that is, indirect inferences on the data
 in isolation are unlikely, but technically possible, through examination of
 short tail outliers in a cluster analysis where such readers/editors exist
 in the short tail outliers sets), in contrast to regular web access logs
 (where direct inferences are easy).

 Thanks. I'll forward this along now.

 -Adam
 ___
 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] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

2014-03-26 Thread Andrew Gray
 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

 ___
 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

-- 
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2014-03-17 Thread Andrew Gray
On 13 March 2014 11:32, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

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

+1

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a good and important
thing, and I would certainly agree that the two nations which have
somehow neglected to ratify it should certainly be strongly encouraged
to do so...

...but I would strongly oppose WMF being the vehicle for such domestic
political campaigning. It's simply not what it's for. Likewise the
appearance of tax policy or education funding.

On much the same basis, I would be uncomfortable with Greenpeace being
persuaded to act as a spokesman for net neutrality, or for UNICEF to
suddenly start aggressively campaigning against whaling. All good
topics, but they should have other priorities.

The underlying argument here seems to be these things are important
and indirectly affect the work we do or might do. However, were we to
follow this to its logical end, we should campaign to shut down about
half the world's charities and redirect all their funds to researching
asteroid deflection...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] My choice for ED

2014-02-03 Thread Andrew Gray
To me, these proposals always sound a bit like:

We want this person to be resilient and good-humoured. So we're going to
punch all our possible candidates in the face a few times and see where
they want to go from there.

I know that's not the intention, but it's certainly the plausible effect...

Andrew.

On Monday, 3 February 2014, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','martijnhoeks...@gmail.com');
wrote:

 I understand your reasoning, but we already have an extremely difficult
 time finding a suitable candidate. While such community vetting would
 definitely weed out the people we don't want, it will also slim down the
 pool we do want, which currently sits  around a cool 0. I don't think we
 can afford that either.
 On Feb 1, 2014 4:47 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:

  I'm sure dismissively calling people's legitimate concerns playing with
  (a) toy will help greatly in that regard.
 
  If someone's going to apply for a job where they'll be scrutinized by a
  large volunteer community, it is not unreasonable to determine if they
 can
  withstand that type of scrutiny by a real world test, nor to find whether
  they'll be responsive and direct to concerns brought up when that
 happens.
  The community has had enough of diplomatic null statements with lots of
  words, and should be. Someone needs to give an answer, not just blather
 on
  and wind up saying nothing concrete at all.
 
  It is right for the community to be fed up with that and demand that a
  candidate go through that process. Yes, it would be hard. Yes, it would
  discourage some applicants. Those are the applicants we want to
 discourage.
  We want someone who fits well with our particular project, and who 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 frivolous,
 slightly
   insulting, and embarrassing - and said nothing in the hope it would
 just
   fizzle away.
  
   But amazingly, it's still here.
  
   We have to accept that while crowdsourcing is the genius of Wikipedia
 and
   a few of its sister projects, it's totally inappropriate for choosing
 the
   executive director of a big, prominent Foundation that lives in a
   competitive, complex, and often negative jungle. There's a bunch of
  reasons
   for doing this largely away from the gaze of the rest of the world. Do
 I
   really need to spell them out?
  
   It would be good to move on to more useful and practical topics.
  
   Tony
  
  
  
  
  
  
   On 02/02/2014, at 1:32 AM, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote:
  
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:29 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com
   wrote:
   
   
Chad, I wonder if Rory has been considered. (:
   
   
Given his history of biting newbies, I'm not sure he'd be in a good
position to help solve the editor retention problem.
___
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/wikhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2014-01-16 Thread Andrew Gray
On 16 January 2014 16:05, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 16 January 2014 16:02, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:

 Instead, I'd neutralize backdoored to something like, unwittingly shifting
 our cherished values for the worse.

 This is about the fourth time this has come around; I hope you can
 understand that it's harder to credit unwittingly than if it were
 the first.

It's certainly come around a lot, but it's never really been put to
the question.

I've seen we should support mp3/mp4/mpeg/flash a lot - skimming my
mailing list archives, it was brought up in 2005 (already as a
perennial suggestion), 2007, 2008, 2009, and early 2013. None of these
actually resulted in a formal proposal or anything other than a flurry
of discussion (though in 2008 there was a draft board resolution which
would have explicitly ruled out patent-encumbered formats...)

To me, this seems to be one of those decisions that we made years and
years ago and have never really thrashed out properly and widely,
rather than just saying well, we said no. As such, I think a clearly
structured community-wide discussion is a definite advance - and if
it's a firm no, and we remain in the status quo, we'll have a firm
basis for that in future rather than a sort of decision-by-inertia.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2014-01-16 Thread Andrew Gray
I read that as we plan to have a discussion, and if that discussion
is positive, go ahead.

Putting something in the schedule in advance of the decision makes
sense - there's no point in having the discussion without planning the
resources to follow through on what you've offered to do!

Andrew.

On 16 January 2014 18:32, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 It is important to note that WMF itself is not in any way neutral on
 this issue: adding MPEG4 is explicitly listed as a 2014 goal for the
 Multimedia team.

 That is, it has already been determined that this is *going to happen*.

 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/2013-14_Goals#Activities
 https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=File:Multimedia_Quarterly_Review_12-03-2013.pdfpage=61


 - d.

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-13 Thread Andrew Gray
I don't know if we can confidently assume non-registered users know
that they're using a shared IP - one of the most frequent complaints
from readers, historically, was some variant on why the  am I
getting all these messages, I never edited anything with varying
degrees of alarm/distress.

A.

On 11 January 2014 06:10, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote:
 On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, at 6:21, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
 These are two reason we don't have Thanks for anonymous editors:
 ...
 2. Multiple editors often share the same IP address

 They already share talk page and contribs. I don't see notifications being a 
 problem: each of them *knows* that the IP is shared, and has registration 
 instructions readily available if such situation is a problem.

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

2014-01-12 Thread Andrew Gray
It varies. Some are essentially unfunded or self-funded; some are
institutionally funded; some are funded by chapter-sourced grants;
some are funded by third parties (I was!); and a mix of #2 and #3 is
not uncommon.

Andrew.

On 12 January 2014 10:06, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
 Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
 Welsh Coastal Path project, or the York Museum),


 Wikipedians-in-Residence are not funded by Wikimedia, but by the
 organisation where they are working with.

 --
 André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2014 scholarship now accepting application

2014-01-08 Thread Andrew Gray
Note, though, that this is WMF, and presumably doesn't stop the
individual chapters offering partial scholarships if they want to...

Andrew.

On 8 January 2014 17:50, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
 On 08/01/2014 17:39, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

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

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

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

 Can I ask why this was decided against this year?


 Per the FAQ[1]:

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

 I hope that helps.

 KTC


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


 --
 Katie Chan
 Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
 author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
 author is associated with or employed by.


 Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine


 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The British Library releases 1 million images

2013-12-19 Thread Andrew Gray
I did put a few of the books up in the past (as PDFs provided by the
BL, then manually converted to DjVu):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kennedy,_Robert_John_-_A_Journey_in_Khorassan_(1890).djvu
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kennedy,_Robert_John_-_A_Journey_in_Khorassan_(1890).pdf
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Journey_in_Khorassan_and_Central_Asia

I kept running into size limits  wasn't quite sure how best to get
the right material to Wikisource, but if there's particular titles,
let me know  I'll see what can be done.

On 19 December 2013 09:07, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
 I like the stray text around the images - it  shows that the picture
 is from a book, rather than a separate unattached file like a photo or
 engraving, and the captions are necessary in most cases. The
 problematic images are the ones of letterheads and margin decorations,
 which, though perhaps interesting for articles on publishing or
 printing, are not really useful in the quantities available unless
 Wikisource is able to ingest the books in such a way that they use
 those too. As I understand it however, you cannot recycle a Commons
 image in a djvu file (yet). I do think some of the more encyclopedic
 books would be great to have in their entirety on Wikisource.

 2013/12/18, geni geni...@gmail.com:
 On 17 December 2013 20:08, Matthew Flaschen
 matthew.flasc...@gatech.eduwrote:


 As Andrew said, the interesting question is whether the Commons community
 can effectively help curate/add metadata for this unidentified content.


 Even if we could a lot of the images could do with some preprocessing to
 remove things like stray text.

 --
 geni
 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] The British Library releases 1 million images

2013-12-16 Thread Andrew Gray
Remember that while US caselaw is clear on this point, it is less clear-cut
elsewhere. We at WM tend to take a clear line that 2D reproductions are
ineligible, but it's not a guaranteed absolute truth, particularly in the
UK! We can predict how a court might rule... but they haven't yet, and
claiming copyright is a legally defensible position in many cases.

(Legally defensible is not always correct, of course...)

As a result, an explicit declaration is a positive thing and definitely
should not be discouraged.

A.
On 16 Dec 2013 04:57, Robinson Tryon bishop.robin...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com wrote:
  its more legal/copyright descriptive, that necessitates the wording than
  just release them to the public which can still indicate they have
  restrictions

 I guess I was just concerned that it was sending the wrong message re:
 the images, suggesting that the British Library had to put the images
 into the Public Domain because they (or some other entity) could still
 hold copyright to them.

 If it is unclear to the public that slavish reproductions of
 out-of-copyright 2D works are not themselves eligible for copyright,
 then perhaps we should work to improve that understanding. It's
 difficult for a member of the public to exercise his rights unless he
 knows to what he is entitled!

 --R

 ___
 Commons-l mailing list
 common...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

___
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] [Commons-l] The British Library releases 1 million images

2013-12-15 Thread Andrew Gray
I was just about to respond with this :-)

I discussed this with the BL team a few weeks before the release, and
while we could sort out the technical issues of a million items fairly
easily, it looked like the lack of metadata would make them very
unsuited for Commons.

There's nothing stopping us harvesting them individually, of course,
but I think adding a million unidentified images and saying the
community will sort them out would be a very quick road to my getting
beaten up ;-)

Andrew.

On 15 December 2013 17:37, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote:
 Just discovered a short note of Andrew Gray, why Flickr was preferred
 instead of Commons.
 http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2013/mechanical-curator-on-commons/


 2013/12/15 Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de

 Thanks for the news.

 A question comes to my mind when I read this article: Why did the British
 Library use Flickr instead of Wikimedia Commons? Maybe it has to do
 something with a better usability of Flickr? -

 The usability of Wikimedia Commons most be increased to make it more
 attractive to individual and institutional users. Don't you think so?

 The next steps mentioned in the article indicates good opportunities for
 us to get involved and show the potential of an experienced platform for
 crowdsourcing information and knowledge:

 We are looking for new, inventive ways to navigate, find and display
 these 'unseen illustrations'. and furtheron in the blogpost, We plan to
 launch a crowdsourcing application at the beginning of next year, to help
 describe what the images portray. Our intention is to use this data to train
 automated classifiers that will run against the whole of the content.


 http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html

 Best regards,

 Jens






 2013/12/15 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emi...@gmail.com

 Quote from full announcement

 http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html

 We have released over a million
 imageshttp://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibraryonto Flickr Commons
 for anyone to use, remix and repurpose. These images
  were taken from the pages of 17th, 18th and 19th century books
  digitised
  by
  Microsofthttp://pressandpolicy.bl.uk/Press-Releases/The-British-Library-19th-Century-Book-Digitisation-Project-343.aspxwho
  then generously gifted the scanned images to us, allowing us to release
  them back into the Public Domain. The images themselves cover a
  startling
  mix of subjects: There are maps, geological diagrams, beautiful
  illustrations, comical satire, illuminated and decorative letters,
  colourful illustrations, landscapes, wall-paintings and so much more
  that
  even we are not aware of.


 Flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary
 Example of image http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11307195524/
 Example of all images from a book
 http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/tags/sysnum002660292
 Stuff for coders https://github.com/BL-Labs/imagedirectory

 So... :-)
 ___
 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




 --
 --
 Jens Best
 Präsidium
 Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
 web: http://www.wikimedia.de
 mail: jens.b...@wikimedia.de


 Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
 Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
 Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
 anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
 Steuernummer 27/681/51985.




 --
 --
 Jens Best
 Präsidium
 Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
 web: http://www.wikimedia.de
 mail: jens.b...@wikimedia.de


 Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
 Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
 Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
 anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
 Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

 ___
 Commons-l mailing list
 common...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising mysteries

2013-11-29 Thread Andrew Gray
It's clear that the million dollars do have to fit in somewhere that
month! One possible explanation would be that finance processed a
bunch of offline income at that time - not just the single Sloan
grant, but also other individual non-banner donations (eg a month's
worth of people sending in cheques). This would explain a blip over a
few days without any direct correlation to the banners.

This is speculation, though - you'd have to comb through the daily
accounts to be sure.

Andrew.

On 26 November 2013 09:12, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
 If October 4th and/or 22nd had large donations because of one-time events
 instead of regular donation appeal changes, why are they both bracketed by
 vastly abnormally successful previous and subsequent days?


 On Monday, November 25, 2013, James Salsman wrote:

 P.S. As the referenced attachment doesn't make it through to the
 archives or digests, there is a copy of the fundraising data graph at:
 http://i.imgur.com/MkXIW4J.png


 On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:51 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi Megan,
 
  Per the attached graph of the
  https://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-sum.csv
  data, your announced October 4th fundraising test on 100% of anonymous
  users was anticlimactic. But what the heck did you do on September 2nd
  and October 22nd, and would you please do that every day? Even if it
  falls off at the same rate as the July test, that still means you
  could produce an endowment sufficient to do away with fundraising at
  current spending levels in less than eight months.
 
  Best regards,
  James Salsman

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising mysteries

2013-11-25 Thread Andrew Gray
Megan can certainly correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick,
but I think these are probably once-off payments rather than the
result of a good day of banner-based fundraising.

The October report estimates $2.7m fundraising through the month, but
the spreadsheet data totals $3.8m. The discrepancy is around a million
dollars, and the monthly report mentions a $1m grant from the Sloan
Foundation, which tallies nicely.

I couldn't spot a specific grant for September, but there was a
provisional estimate of approximately $2m, and the data totals $2.5m.
The blip on 2/9 is about half a million dollars, roughly the same as
the discrepancy, and I would not be surprised if this is again a large
donation/grant.

Sadly, daily Sloan grants are probably not a sustainable approach...

A.

On 25 November 2013 11:51, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Megan,

 Per the attached graph of the
 https://frdata.wikimedia.org/yeardata-day-vs-sum.csv
 data, your announced October 4th fundraising test on 100% of anonymous
 users was anticlimactic. But what the heck did you do on September 2nd
 and October 22nd, and would you please do that every day? Even if it
 falls off at the same rate as the July test, that still means you
 could produce an endowment sufficient to do away with fundraising at
 current spending levels in less than eight months.

 Best regards,
 James Salsman

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monobook was optimised for editors, Vector is more balanced between readers and edtors

2013-11-24 Thread Andrew Gray
A/B testing major interface changes is very difficult. (I think we had
this same discussion over VisualEditor).

For example, in order to make the results comparable, you'll have to
update all the help pages  documentation to deal with both styles
(why doesn't my screen look like that?), otherwise one becomes more
difficult to use  will have consequent drop-out rates. You also have
to try and deal with the fact that all readers (and indeed editors)
without accounts will use Vector, and will be immediately confused by
why it looks different once logged in - at which point many will get
frustrated.

A/B testing is good for small things like the login form, where it
works great, but won't always work for everything...

Andrew.

On 22 November 2013 07:24, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
 WereSpielChequers, 22/11/2013 08:03:

 But it would be interesting to see some stats on the relative
 retention and upgrading of editors who use monobook and Vector.


 The idea sounds crazy, but yes, why not, let's test this. I believe you can
 put your thoughts on a Meta-Wiki Research: page, describing the background,
 the A/B test and the proposed analysis, and then ask the WMF to run it
 (preferably with the consensus of the target wikis, but it's not usually
 considered necessary for so-called experimentations).

 Nemo


 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright infringement - The real elephant in the room

2013-11-19 Thread Andrew Gray
It could use abuse-filter tags, just not in an entirely standard way:

* Bot scans edit X
* Script flags it as a problem
* Bot makes edit X+1 to page (perhaps adding copyvio template?) which
triggers an abusefilter rule for (if this bot and does such-and-such
an edit) and tags it.

The offending edit itself won't be tagged, but the page history will
and it can probably be spotted quite easily from there.

A.

On 19 November 2013 01:07, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 On 11/16/2013 09:04 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:

 The problem of false positives from mirrors doesn't exist if we scan edits
 as they are made.


 Agreed.  However, that example is a legal, attributed (at least on the talk
 page) copy from a third-party freely licensed text, not a false positive
 copy from a Wikipedia mirror.

 Maggie says
 herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Emergency_block_of_an_editor_with_which_I_have_been_previously_involvedthat
 copyright bots populate
 WP:SCV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SCV So a
 similarly-configured bot could scan recent changes and tag suspected
 copyvios in watchlists and page histories like suspected vandalism is
 currently tagged.


 The suspected vandalism checks that actually tag the edit (e.g. Tag:
 possible vandalism)  are based on AbuseFilter checks.  These are relatively
 fast determinations that consider the text of the edit (e.g. regexes for
 strings of curse words, or meaningless repeating characters), and
 comparisons to the previous version (blanked the section, blanked the page).

 As far as I know, regular AbuseFilter rules can not hit a database or web
 search to check for copyright violations.  An extension could in theory do
 this.  But there would possibly be performance problems, since AbuseFilter
 runs on the actual server (not just some bot's computer) on every edit.

 It is possible for a bot to scan every edit; it just can't use AbuseFilter
 tags.

 Matt Flaschen

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Education] How to force to enable Visual Editor

2013-10-16 Thread Andrew Gray
  
   ___
   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
  
 
 
 
  --
  Richard Nevell
  Wikimedia UK
  +44 (0) 20 7065 0753
 
  Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
  Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
  Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
 4LT.
  United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
  movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
  operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
 
  *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
  over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
  ___
  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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Education] How to force to enable Visual Editor

2013-10-15 Thread Andrew Gray
 the problem that only half of the new accounts have the
 visual
 editor
  activated, it's quite annoying to have two teach two way of
  editing.
  
   Is there a trick to force the activation of Visual Editor for
 a
  specific user?
  
   Thanks
  
   Charles
  
   ___
   Charles ANDRES, Chief Science Officer
   Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free
   knowledge –
   www.wikimedia.ch
   Skype: charles.andres.wmch
   IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch
  
   ___
   Education mailing list
   educat...@lists.wikimedia.org
   https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
  
  
  
   ___
   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
 



 --
 Richard Nevell
 Wikimedia UK
 +44 (0) 20 7065 0753

 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in
 England
   and
 Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
   Registered
 Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London
  EC2A
4LT.
 United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global
 Wikimedia
 movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia
 Foundation
   (who
 operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

 *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
   control
 over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
 ___
 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
  
 
 
 
  --
  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
 



 --
 *Be Bold!
 Sophie Österberg
 sosterb...@wikimedia.org*


 *Every single contribution to Wikipedia is a
 gift of free knowledge to humanity. *
 ___
 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 
 todayhttp://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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

2013-09-17 Thread Andrew Gray
As often, I agree entirely with Risker - ethics and privacy are as big an
issue here as copyright and we need to be able to give a clear declaration
that both aspects are okay.

That said, I think Nathan has spotted a way forward - OA journals might be
the way to square this circle. Three points:

a) Medicine (thanks in part to our friends at the Wellcome and similar
groups) has been very active in adopting open access publication;
b) many gold (paid) open access uses a Wikipedia-compatible license, and
many funding mandates now require it;
c) most reputable journals now have robust ethics  subject-consent
policies and so we can work on the basis that images published in them will
be ethically usable;

Putting these three together, we might well have some good sources without
needing to develop our own ethical-clearance process. Searching for just
license-compliant OA articles is not yet a solved easy problem, but at
least we have somewhere to start looking.

Andrew.

On 17 September 2013 17:15, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 In many jurisdictions, there are specific privacy laws that address the
 rights of patients to control access to *any* information about them,
 whether identifying or not, and requirements that any use of patient
 information, whether anonymized or not, must be done with the consent of
 the patient unless specifically legislated. This has nothing at all to do
 with copyright. A surprisingly large number of studies, tissue samples,
 and so on *are* actually pretty easily identifiable. In many cases,
 patient consent is required in order to use information for research or
 educational purposes; those participating in research have to sign fairly
 extensive consent agreements that often include a clause about how their
 information will be shared.

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

 Risker




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

 Maybe they don't own the images outright from a legal perspective, but
 certainly ethics (and particularly medical ethics) is moving in the
 direction of securing permission from the subject of the images before
 they are used for purposes other than treatment. Documenting this kind
 of permission in a format like Commons is going to be tough, but that
 could be resolved with a policy of only using images published by an
 organization known to pursue permission where feasible.

 On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Mathias Schindler
 mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
  My concern is that if we are going to be both super cautious and
assume
  that X-rays are copyrightable than we will need to get permission from
 all
  9 potential copyright holders (ordering physician, patient,
radiologist,
  hospital, government, X-ray tech, machine manufacturer, software
  programmer and the Queen of English in my jurisdiction, shareholders
of
  hospitals in other jurisdictions).
 
  Out of the 9 categories of potential copyright holders, we should be
  able to eliminate patients as they are not an active part of the
  creation process and there is no transfer of copyright to them.
 
  Mathias
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

-- 
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Radiological images

2013-09-17 Thread Andrew Gray
It was certainly my understanding that most major medical journals
have much better ethical clearance for publication of patient images
than they did ten or twenty years ago. This isn't my field, so quite
likely I've got the wrong end of the stick, but is it that only a few
journals are sufficiently rigorous, or that their form of rigour
doesn't match what we'd need?

On the second point - these discussions seem to me to be saying it's
a very complicated environment - ethically, legally, perhaps
practically, all these things are making it difficult for us to know
how we can say something is safe. If we have the opportunity to hand
the problem to someone else who makes the material available to us,
that seems pretty beneficial to me.

It's not perfect, but there already contexts where Commons is
primarily full of professionally published material - the ones where
we cannot easily get non-professional stuff. (Most of our pictures of
military operations are taken from professionally published resources,
for example, because the many issues surrounding going into warzones
tends to discourage most people not paid to do so.)

If it turns out, once the lawyers have chewed it over, that the
copyright/ethical clearance/whatever situation around these images can
be made clear and unencumbered, great. Everyone wins, and I think we'd
all be happy if there was a clear and convincing just go for it. But
if it turns out to be sufficiently complicated that it's going to be
very difficult for Commons to do suitable levels of due diligence,
then it might well be that we're faced with a choice of externally -
professionally - cleared, or almost nothing.

Andrew.

On 18 September 2013 02:29, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
 Per c) most reputable journals now have robust ethics 
 subject-consent policies
 and so we can work on the basis that images published in them will be
 ethically usable

 If this were true, which it isn't by the way, than that would mean that
 commons is only a repository for professionally published material. Sort of
 defeats the purpose of commons in a way.

 --
 James Heilman
 MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

 The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
 www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia blog moving to WordPress.com

2013-09-08 Thread Andrew Gray
Once we have Flow working well, then a Media-Wiki based public blog
with comments might actually be workable (and it'd be nice to have
comments mesh seamlessly with WM accounts).

However, that's still a year or two off - I don't think it's any
reason not to transfer the blog for now, assuming we can handle the
privacy issues that implies. We can always move back if we develop the
mediawiki magic bullet :-)

A.

On 8 September 2013 14:08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 8 September 2013 13:16, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 Because turning MediaWiki from a terrible blogging platform into a
 good one (comment management and blog-style RSS at absolute minimum)
 would be more work than even maintaining our own WordPress
 installation.



 Chatting with Rupert about this just now, he pointed out that Wikinews
 does RSS just fine:

 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:GoogleNewsSitemap

 The URL is ugly (but that's why mod_rewrite exists):

 https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewsFeedfeed=atomcategories=Publishednotcategories=No%20publish|Archived|AutoArchived|disputednamespace=0count=30hourcount=124ordermethod=categoryaddstablepages=only

 So that's that problem actually solved (and I thought that'd be the hard one).

 Comments remain a problem: LiquidThreads is unloved and largely
 unmaintained, and Flow is barely started.


 - d.

 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia blog moving to WordPress.com

2013-09-05 Thread Andrew Gray
=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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out

2013-08-06 Thread Andrew Gray
I very rarely want to follow up a post to say yes, this, but I think Max
has hit the nail on the head here.

One other issue around 'heavy-handed' is that this is in part perception. I
didn't feel the deployment heavy-handed, but then it did not cause me more
than minor technical annoyance, I had tried to keep abreast of the
discussions and schedules leading up to the day, and I didn't object to it.
I know this is not a universally held feeling, of course!

A.



On Tuesday, August 6, 2013, MZMcBride wrote:

 Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
 Op 2013/08/05 19:35, MZMcBride schreef:
  Finally, and somewhat related to the complaints page, I've been
  thinking lately about the British and the Irish and the nature of
  insurgencies. I believe the VisualEditor team is now viewed by many on
  the English Wikipedia (and other wikis) as an occupying force.
  Consequently, this has created an insurgency composed of long-time
  editors. This isn't meant to be hyperbolic: nobody is rioting in the
  streets or planning warfare (yet). However, the anger felt by many in
  the editing community toward the VisualEditor team is very real and
  very worrying, as is the seemingly heavy-handed way in which
  VisualEditor has been deployed. Just a few weeks ago, VisualEditor was
  receiving accolades for the way in which it had been slowly and
  thoughtfully developed and deployed. However, seemingly arbitrary
  deadlines and a few key bad decisions have greatly hurt it. The wounds
  are deep, but it remains to be seen whether they will be fatal.
 
 I notice you used the phrase seemingly heavy-handed above. Do you
 truly believe that this was not *actually* heavy-handed?

 Using seemingly twice so close together was certainly sloppy writing.
 :-)  I'll try to explain where I am currently.

 As with many things in life, I think whether the deployment of
 VisualEditor was heavy-handed depends on your perspective; mine is still
 forming. At https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Complaints, a
 few key issues/developments are discussed.

 There was a decision to deploy without an opt-out user preference,
 followed by a reversal of this decision and a re-instatement of the user
 preference.

 There was a decision to deploy with that awful section-edit animation,
 followed by its removal.

 At no point was the wikitext editor ever made unavailable to editors. And
 rhetoric and hyperbole aside, nobody was ever forced to use VisualEditor.

 The fact that the software is experimental (beta) is now much more
 prominent throughout the user interface, the user interface now
 consistently uses edit source, and the order of the tabs has been
 changed to make wikitext editing more prominent.

 With the points above, it's a mixed bag as to whether the deployment of
 VisualEditor was heavy-handed.

 This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out. Erik
 and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they make
 reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in. However, a very
 large number of my colleagues and your colleagues have strongly disagreed
 with this decision, which leaves doubt in any reasonable person's mind.

 That said, this doubt is tempered by the _enormous_ selection bias we see
 in the on-wiki discussion. Namely that (a) the discussion has only been
 advertised to logged-in users, and (b) that nearly everyone participating
 in the on-wiki discussion is someone who has figured out wikitext. That
 is, the people who would most benefit from a visual editor right now are
 the silent majority who are unaware of, and in many cases incapable of,
 participating in the discussion about whether VisualEditor should be
 opt-in or opt-out. And in the on-wiki discussions, we've seen a lot of
 comments that are quite simply out-of-touch with the level to which people
 are capable of interacting with Wikipedia via wikitext editing alone.

 I used seemingly to indicate nuance. Any editor could easily look at the
 deployment fiasco and claim that it was heavy-handed and be right. But I
 think there's also a legitimate case to be made that, whether or not we
 agree with the decision, it was considered and backed by reasonable views.

 As I said on my talk page, I believe that we need a visual editor and an
 active group of people are trying to develop one (however haphazardly).
 Rather than simply attack and banish them, I think we should instead focus
 on ways to make it better or make it easier to get it out of the way of
 those who don't want to use it or can't use it.

 MZMcBride



 ___
 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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a compromise proposal for visual editor dogfooding

2013-08-03 Thread Andrew Gray
On 25 July 2013 06:29, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
 Why not make the visual editor the default with opt-out for 5% of
 newly registered editors and anonymous IP page loads, and opt-in for
 everyone else until there is evidence that it is not decreasing the
 number of edits?

Meant to reply to this earlier and it got lost:

I think there's a problem with any kind of A/B testing on the main
site interface for more than small changes - it's that we only have
one set of documentation. Wikipedia's help pages (certainly on enwiki)
aren't amazing, but they are used, and people will fall back to them
if they have problems using the site.

Having a substantially different editing interface for a fraction of
users means that there's now one more layer of confusion before (some
or all) people can get help, probably leading to more abandoned edits
*compared to all-in VE with documentation*. So the results would be
skewed downwards; it might be a small effect, but if we're looking for
a statistical difference on 5% of new edits, it might be enough to
give a spurious negative result.

Again, I don't think A/B testing is inherently bad, but we'd need to
test an integrated environment. Where people aren't going to consult
help pages (say, the login page) it's much simpler.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a compromise proposal for visual editor dogfooding

2013-08-03 Thread Andrew Gray
On 3 August 2013 17:51, Kevin Wayne Williams kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:

 That's one of the biggest chicken-and-egg problems in this whole deployment:
 those help pages are exclusively maintained by editors. Until there's a
 substantial body of volunteers that believe that updating the help pages to
 match VE is a worthwhile endeavour, the pages will remain at the current
 version, which means that all new editors can only get help if they don't
 use VE. That makes it hard to ever find a group of people that thinks
 updating the documentation is worth the effort.

At the moment we seem to have a marvellous inconsistency (perhaps this
is A/B testing help pages...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing - new
environment, noting both and recommending VE,  but only updated 9th
July

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing - old style, with 135 word
(!) notice at the top about VE

I wonder sometimes if maintaining help/documentation pages would be a
sensible thing for WMF to have a (part?) time staffer working on, but
I guess this gets into the muddy area of paying people for volunteer
tasks

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a compromise proposal for visual editor dogfooding

2013-08-03 Thread Andrew Gray
On 3 August 2013 18:50, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 3 August 2013 18:46, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:

 I wonder sometimes if maintaining help/documentation pages would be a
 sensible thing for WMF to have a (part?) time staffer working on, but
 I guess this gets into the muddy area of paying people for volunteer
 tasks

 The trouble is (1) there's ten years' volunteer effort in the old
 how-to pages, (2) the VE interface isn't even finished yet (I
 certainly hope it isn't, anyway) (3) to the extent the VE needs a
 manual, it's not a good interface.

Yes and no. *Wikipedia* needs an interface manual. The standard page
has twenty visible interface links, another sixteen or so in
collapsible sidebar sections, ten in the footer, however many language
links, and goodness knows what else from sitenotices or boxes on the
page itself.

The actual mechanism you use to edit is almost secondary to this
problem, but if you've gone back to a manual in order to find so, how
do I do this, you're going to get really thrown if there's two
buttons where it says there's one, or if you don't get the wall of
weird text it's told you the editing page looks like... etc etc.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Picturing Canada: historic Canadian photography now on Commons

2013-07-06 Thread Andrew Gray
On 1 July 2013 21:26, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hmm are we going to need to include a dislaimer with regards to some of the
 captions? Eg:

 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scalp_dance,_Blackfoot_Indians_%28HS85-10-18743%29_original.tif

I went with using the original caption tag on all uploads. The
relative rarity of problematic captions meant that I thought a more
explicit disclaimer was probably overkill, compared to (say) the
Bundesarchiv caveats.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Picturing Canada: historic Canadian photography now on Commons

2013-07-01 Thread Andrew Gray
Hi all,

Today, the British Library announced the Picturing Canada project to
mark Canada Day (1st July). Those of you who were at GLAM-Wiki in
April may remember this collection: it's a digitisation of the
Canadian Copyright Collection, 1895-1924, covering photographs
deposited for copyright registration in Canada during this period.
There's currently about 2,000 photographs, many of which are
composites of multiple images stuck together; all are available as
full-resolution TIFFs and JPEGs.

There's more files still trickling up - including some interesting
aerial photographs, panoramas, and a collection of official
photographs from WWI - but almost all of the general images are now
online, and we're now just adding the oddities. Including the official
photographs, this will total around 4,000 works. Please do take a look
- there's some marvellous material in there.

WMF: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/01/picturing-canada/ (in
English and French; translation by Benoit Rochon)
BL: http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/americas/2013/07/happy-canada-day.html
Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picturing_Canada

Thanks to Wikimedia UK and the Eccles Centre for American Studies for
funding this, and to Phil Hatfield at the British Library for
championing the collection!

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF May 2013 Metrics and Activities Meeting: Thursday, June 6, 18:00 UTC

2013-06-06 Thread Andrew Gray
That's amazing!

This is the now-closed office hours calendar, which I think was run by
someone in WMF (but I could be wrong):

https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=wikimedia.org_1co89h9c5s99d0jt9ld1tlsols%40group.calendar.google.com

- Andrew.

On 6 June 2013 19:55, Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de wrote:
 I don't know if this is exactly what you mean, but probably this google
 calendar can serve this purpose.

 https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=wikimedia.de_8225p16hl9ibtgnjq068k4o...@group.calendar.google.com

 If anyone is interested in contributing to this calendar, let me know and
 I'll add you to the list of editors.

 We are trying to add all dates with relevance for the global movement to
 the calendar (deadlines, dates, events etc), but any help and input is very
 appreciated. :)

 Cheers,
 Nicole




 On 6 June 2013 20:39, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:

 Hi Praveena,

 is there a general google agenda feed where this kind of meetings could be
 mentioned/announced too? In the past office hours were scheduled that way
 (unfortunately someone decided to discontinue that apparently), and that
 was very helpful.

 Lodewijk


 2013/6/6 Praveena Maharaj pmaha...@wikimedia.org

  REMINDER: This meeting starts in 30 minutes.
 
 
 
  On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Praveena Maharaj 
 pmaha...@wikimedia.org
  wrote:
 
   Dear all,
  
   The next WMF metrics and activities will take place on Thursday, June
 6,
  2013 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is #wikimedia-office on
  irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be broadcast as a live YouTube
  stream.
  
   The current structure of the meeting is:
   * Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also
  specialized reports and analytics* Review of financials* Welcoming recent
  hires* Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest
  priority initiatives* Update and QA with the Executive Director, if
  available
   Please review
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for
  further information about how to participate.
  
   We'll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
  
   Thank you, Praveena
  
  
   --
   Praveena Maharaj
   Executive Assistant to the VP of Engineering and Product Development
   +1 (415) 839 6885 ext. 6689
   www.wikimedia.org
  
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




 --
 Nicole Ebber
 International Affairs

 Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
 Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0

 http://wikimedia.de

 Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
 Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
 der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
 Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


[Wikimedia-l] UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

2013-05-03 Thread Andrew Gray
On 2 May 2013 11:25, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote:
 On 2 May 2013 11:24, geni geni...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote:

 However orphan works legislation is a hack designed to allow long
copyright
 terms to keep working without upsetting even more people. Its of no use
to
 us.

 I think you're wrong there. But it's an arguable point, not one that
 goes either way.

I would agree it's a hack, but there are two major advantages to having it:

a) it's a hack that *works*, and will produce results. It may not work for
us, not directly, but it will enable content to be made available where it
previously could not be. Free licensing is exactly the same thing - a hack
to allow us to do what we want within the framework of the existing law,
rather than a fundamental change to the underlying system.

b) it's a start. We will have it, the sky won't fall, and in ten years time
we can say - look, the sky didn't fall, the principle is now accepted, how
about we refine the process?

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk javascript:;


-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Single User Login finalisation: some accounts will be renamed

2013-04-30 Thread Andrew Gray
On 30 April 2013 03:29, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Unfortunately, some accounts are currently not unique across all our
 wikis, but instead clash with other users who have the same account
 name. To make sure that all of these users can use Wikimedia's wikis
 in future, we will be renaming a number of accounts to have ~” and
 the name of their wiki added to the end of their accounts' name. This
 change will take place on or around 27 May. For example, a user called
 “Example” on the Swedish Wiktionary who will be renamed would become
 “Example~svwiktionary”.

I was wondering if this would ever finally happen!

One ide-effect of centralised renaming: a lot less work for individual
projects and a lot less confusion over where and how names can be
used/usurped, in which order, etc...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The case for supporting open source machine translation

2013-04-24 Thread Andrew Gray
On 24 April 2013 11:35, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote:

 If we constrain b) a lot, we could just go and develop pages to display
 for pages that do not exist yet based on Wikidata in the smaller
 languages. That's a far cry from machine translating the articles, but it
 would be a low hanging fruit. And it might help with a desire which is
 evidently strongly expressed by the mass creation of articles through bots
 in a growing number of languages.

There has historically been a lot of tension around mass-creation of
articles because of the maintenance problem - we can create two
hundred thousand stubs in Tibetan or Tamil, but who will maintain
them? Wikidata gives us the potential of squaring that circle, and in
fact you bring it up here...

 II ) develop a feature that blends into Wikipedia's search if an article
 about a topic does not exist yet, but we  have data on Wikidata about that
 topic

I think this would be amazing. A software hook that says we know X
article does not exist yet, but it is matched to Y topic on Wikidata
and pulls out core information, along with a set of localised
descriptions... we gain all the benefit of having stub articles
(scope, coverage) without the problems of a small community having to
curate a million pages. It's not the same as hand-written content, but
it's immeasurably better than no content, or even an attempt at
machine-translating free text.

XXX is [a species of: fish] [in the: Y family]. It [is found in: Laos,
Vietnam]. It [grows to: 20 cm]. (pictures)

Wikidata Phase 4, perhaps :-)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-ambassadors] Deploying alpha of VisualEditor to non-English Wikipedias

2013-04-22 Thread Andrew Gray
Any user on one of fifteen Wikipedias (English plus the fourteen new
ones). I don't think it will be opt in on any others just yet, though
hopefully soon!

Andrew.

On 22 April 2013 11:02, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote:
 I think by opt-in, James means that any user from any Wikipedia can opt
 themselves in from Thursday onwards. Is that correct?
 Deryck

 On 22 April 2013 07:14, Nasir Khan nasir8...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,
 Is it possible to include bn (Bengali Wikipeda) in the list ? i want to
 start the test earlier :)

 *
 --
 **Nasir Khan Saikat* http://profiles.google.com/nasir8891
 www.nasirkhn.com



 On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:

  Hey,
 
  The VisualEditor is going to be deployed in an opt-in version to several
  Wikipedias on Thursday next week.
 
  I am planning to hold a BarCamp session this afternoon in the Milan to
  discuss how chapters can support or facilitate a community communication
  and feedback process in this regards.
 
  So anyone interested in this topic is welcome to join!
 
  Thanks,
  Nicole Ebber
  International Affairs
 
  http://wikimedia.de
 
  All,
 
  TL;DR: VisualEditor will be deployed on 14 new Wikipedias next week as an
  opt-in alpha. Your assitance is requested to inform your wikis about this
  and help get the software translated.
 
  Next week (on 25 April) we are going to deploy the alpha opt-in version
 of
  the VisualEditor to some non-English Wikipedias in the same way that it
  has been on the English Wikipedia since December 2012.
 
  This will let users get familiar with the VisualEditor, give us feedback
  on what works and what is broken, and help us prioritise further work
  ahead of the planned deployment as a 'default' editor for all users which
  we intend to do in a few months' time.
 
  Due to a number of issues we have been unable to release VisualEditor to
  non-English wikis until now, and we would very much like to get some
 great
  feedback from as many wikis as possible - especially for extended Unicode
  and RTL languages, but also other languages. Does the VisualEditor work
 in
  your language? Does it gel with your wiki's workflow?
 
  The initial languages we want to target are the top 10 Wikipedias by
 way
  of scale - de, nl, fr, it, ru, es, sv, pl, ja - plus selected others to
  help us discover issues we anticipate: ar, he, hi, ko, zh. These will let
  us test most of the locales we are concerned about. If this goes well, we
  hope to deploy the opt-in alpha to all Wikipedias.
 
  Please tell your wiki colleagues that this is coming, especially if your
  wiki is in this list! Additionally, you can see how fully-translated the
  software is into your language in the stats at TranslateWiki.Net[0] -
  please encourage wiki colleagues to help translate the messages ahead of
  the deployment!
 
  As a note, we have just updated the VisualEditor integration so that the
  Edit tab goes to VisualEditor, and there is an Edit source tab to go
  to the wikitext editor.
 
  This change (which affects the English Wikipedia opt-in deployment and
  MediaWiki.org as well as the new deployments mentioned above) moves the
  way that VisualEditor integrates with the wiki's workflow to be closer to
  how it will appear when it is the 'default' editor. It is still easy to
  use the wikitext editor if that is what you want to do - the Edit
 source
  tab (at least for now) will be above the fold and not in the drop-down
  menu on Vector.
 
  Happy to answer any questions you might have!
 
  Yours,
  --
  James D. Forrester
  Product Manager, VisualEditor
  Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
 
  jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester
 
  ___
  Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
  wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
  ___
  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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lack of community involvement in WMF budget planning

2013-04-09 Thread Andrew Gray
On 9 April 2013 12:22, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Without going into unneccessary detail, let me just ask a simple
 question: are there any particular reasons why the WMF does not want
 community input on the budget, and drafts such a vital document in
 total privacy?

 For the sake of precision, that slide says that there is no space for input
 by the board either. Revisions are made only after Stu's comments, then
 the board votes no or yes (in 15 days only out of 5 months of work).

Doesn't the community consultation *follow* this?

The WMF works out a budget internally, and the Board vote to approve
it by the end of June. It is released on 1 July, but isn't yet final;
it promptly goes into...

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Timeline

and presumably will have a community consultation like this one:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form

(Please feel free to correct me if I've got this wrong!)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The value of Wikipedia for the economy

2013-04-08 Thread Andrew Gray
The Economist had an estimate recently:

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21573091-how-quantify-gains-internet-has-brought-consumers-net-benefits
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/03/technology-2

- of approximately $50m value to readers. It's a pretty vague
estimate, but it's an interesting start.

Andrew.

On 8 April 2013 13:28, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
 Hi all,

 Last weekend we had a discussion about how to 'sell' the importance of
 Wikipedia to economics-focused people (a.k.a. politicians etc), and the
 question came up on how much Wikipedia contributes to the global economy.
 Many people access it daily, and the information they get from that might
 help them to run businesses, be more efficient etc. Third world countries
 (and maybe even the rest of the world) might have better educated people
 thanks to Wikipedia, which might make better and more efficient workers,
 higher literacy and cheaper university educations.

 Has there been any scientific (or other) research on the effect Wikipedia
 has (or had) on the world economy, or even the economy of a specific
 country/region? There are some numbers what Wikipedia would be 'worth' if
 it were a commercial company, but that is not what I'm looking for. What is
 Wikipedia worth to society, the way it currently runs.

 Alternatively, are there similar studies to other knowledge compendiums, or
 even 'the internet'?

 Thanks for any pointers!

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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

2013-03-14 Thread Andrew Gray
On 14 March 2013 17:55, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:


 My feeling would be that the obvious first place to start would be the
 Board of Trustees.  I'd probably start by emailing them and asking them
 what they think.  It seems to me, if I were in your shoes (and I'm
 carefully taking no position here, not because I don't have an opinion but
 because I don't have a considered opinion), that the response to that
 would drive the next set of actions.

Looking at the 2011 candidate questions:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/Candidates/Questions/1

SJ: definite yes
Kat: defer decision, but worth considering
Ting: ambivalent

So there's a start ;-)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


[Wikimedia-l] GLAM-Wiki 2013 - one month to go!

2013-03-14 Thread Andrew Gray
Hi all, and apologies for crossposting -

We've been pushing ahead with the last stages of planning for the
GLAM-Wiki conference these past couple of weeks, and I thought I'd
send around a reminder that it'll be four weeks from now!

The conference will be looking at the work done by Wikimedians working
with cultural organisations over recent years, and highlighting the
prospects for future cooperation. It will involve a series of talks
and reports (Friday), workshops (Saturday), and an
unconference\hackathon run by THATcamp (Sunday).

The conference is hosted by the British Library in London from 12-14
April, and organised by Wikimedia UK with support from Wikimedia
Sweden and Europeana. Speakers include Michael Edson (Smithsonian),
Lizzy Jongma (Rijksmuseum), and Nick Poole (Collections Trust), as
well as twenty or thirty others from inside and outside the Wikimedia
community. More details on WMUK's blog post:
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/03/glam-wiki-celebrating-culture-and-open-access/

An outline of the conference is here:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_2013 with a detailed schedule
here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_2013/Schedule

Looking forward to seeing some of you there, and please do circulate
this to anyone who might be interested!

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Mid-Year Financial Statements

2013-03-12 Thread Andrew Gray
On 12 March 2013 13:03, Mathieu Stumpf psychosl...@culture-libre.org wrote:

 Where are job offers so we can apply?

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


[Wikimedia-l] Longest living hoax?

2013-03-05 Thread Andrew Gray
On 5 March 2013 16:42, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:

 It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
 matches the popular belief that history is by far the biggest weakness of
 Wikipedia.

Our historical coverage is patchy, but I don't think it's our biggest
weakness - art and culture probably are. That said, history (especially
non-western history) is one of the bigger weaknesses of the internet as a
whole, which reinforces the problem; it's much easier for something made up
to stick if there's no easy online falsification of it. You can plausibly
demonstrate that a contemporary band or ongoing war does not exist without
too much trouble; if you draw a blank on a Renaissance painter, you're more
likely to assume the digital resources are lacking.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk javascript:;


-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interesting research?

2013-02-19 Thread Andrew Gray
Delightfully, it turns out that someone had done exactly this months
ago, and is now running a contest to pick the best:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/02/19/vote-most-exciting-research-about-wikipedia/

Thanks for the other suggestions,

- Andrew.

On 18 February 2013 15:10, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
 Hi all,

 A speculative question: what's the most novel, thought-provoking, or
 otherwise interesting piece of research you've seen, either

 a) using information from Wikipedia (ie extracted text), or
 b) looking at Wikipedia itself as a subject?

 I'm giving a talk next month which will cover research about/with WP
 and other WM projects, and I'm curious to know what people think would
 be most interesting as examples. I've a few, but the things I find
 interesting are often unusual :-)

 Suggestions appreciated!

 Thanks,

 --
 - Andrew Gray
   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


[Wikimedia-l] Interesting research?

2013-02-18 Thread Andrew Gray
Hi all,

A speculative question: what's the most novel, thought-provoking, or
otherwise interesting piece of research you've seen, either

a) using information from Wikipedia (ie extracted text), or
b) looking at Wikipedia itself as a subject?

I'm giving a talk next month which will cover research about/with WP
and other WM projects, and I'm curious to know what people think would
be most interesting as examples. I've a few, but the things I find
interesting are often unusual :-)

Suggestions appreciated!

Thanks,

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] OTRS summaries and statistics report, 2012

2013-01-23 Thread Andrew Gray
Bear in mind that this year's figures will be skewed by the absolutely
enormous SOPA response - I don't have the final numbers to hand, but I know
that at one point that morning OTRS was fielding an email every minute or
two about it. It's not clear from the report if these are seperated out or
if they're included in the overall info-en unsorted total.

- Andrew.

On Wednesday, 23 January 2013, phoebe ayers wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:51 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
  Keegan Peterzell wrote:
 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Reports/2012
 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS
 
  Nice. Thanks for putting this together. :-)
 
  MZMcBride
 

 +1, thanks, this is a great report! It's very cool to see these
 numbers. Answering 50K emails, many of which are complex and delicate,
 is a pretty massive undertaking -- as ever I am super impressed with
 the diligence of our OTRS'ers!

 -- phoebe

 ___
 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] Wikipedia, top Internet brand in Germany

2013-01-17 Thread Andrew Gray
On 17 January 2013 14:37, Tobias church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:

 Maybe someone is capable of finding the actual index (not me at 6am,
 apparently).

 I found another source for this story, but apparently YouGov, the company
 behind the ranking, hasn't made any press release yet or put the actual
 ranking online
 http://www.markenartikel-magazin.de/no_cache/unternehmen-marken/artikel/details/1004363-beliebteste-marken-der-deutschen-canon-vorn/

Here's their release (in German) and links to the top-5 rankings in
each category:

https://research.yougov.de/presse/2013/pressemeldung-yougov-topperformer-brandindex-2012/

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lsjbot has now started to generate 1-1, 5 M articles of species on sv:wp

2013-01-12 Thread Andrew Gray
On 11 January 2013 16:45, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote:

 He has since then extended the scope to include all living species, both
 animals and plants, which means another 1-1,5 million articles. Running
 at full permissible bot speed, the bot generates around 10,000 articles
 per day, but at a more realistic speed, the full project will take the
 rest of 2013 to complete.

Wow!

Very interested to see you got community support for this - normally
it's sharply the other way around.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


[Wikimedia-l] A related project's perspective on WMF

2013-01-09 Thread Andrew Gray
I've noticed this discussion on the OpenStreetMap mailing list:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065624.html  onwards

There's a few parallels being drawn there (both good and bad) to
Wikimedia, to the way it's developed over time, and to what degree
this should be a model for similar organisations like OSM, eg/

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065648.html
http://osm.gryph.de/2012/04/learn-from-wikipedia/

Quite an interesting perspective!

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF HR and leadership questions

2012-12-28 Thread Andrew Gray
On 28 December 2012 07:31, Matthew Roth mr...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 A count of office.wikimedia.org account deactivations suggests that
 about 59 people left the WMF in 2012, for whatever reason. To me, that
 seems like a lot of people. Maybe it's occasionally good for people to
 leave, but so many?

 Does that include interns? I know my interns get access to Office Wiki, so
 it might skew the numbers higher. I believe LCA has had at least 8-10 (?)
 interns cycle through in 2012. I've had a couple.

Gayle no doubt has more precise numbers, but using @wikimediaatwork I
count 3 Dec, 1 Oct, 2 Sep, 3 Aug, 1 July, 4 Jun, 1 May, 2 Apr, 3 Feb,
1 Jan - twenty-one departures in a year, including fixed-term
contractors (who probably shouldn't be counted in turnover
discussions)

Whether that result is still too high or not I leave as an exercise
for the reader!

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] fundraising status?

2012-12-27 Thread Andrew Gray
On 25 December 2012 14:00, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 For those outside of the U.S.,
 http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Wikimedia-Foundation-Reviews-E38331.htm
 (2.8, 55%) should resolve correctly. Because Glassdoor is susceptible
 to sour grapes, it is probably best read in comparison to similar
 nearby companies. For example:

(...)

 I hope the Board and leadership find some way to exceed the employee
 satisfaction scores of at least one of those nine others in the coming
 year.

Of the other nine companies, seven have a fairly clear bell curve
distribution of rankings (peaking around 3-4) and several hundred
comments; the two exceptions are Wikia (four comments) and Twitter
(19).

In the case of WMF, as well as having a low number of respondents
(currently 13, it's had another since your first email), the
distribution looks very different - it's skewed to the extremes and
has no neutral rankings at all. My gut feeling would be that this is
a sign not to place too much weight on it; it's a very small sample,
not helped by it being a small organisation, and the data doesn't
really look like the theoretically similar companies.

The comments are interesting, but any interpretation of the numbers
should probably be treated very cautiously.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Throttling (was: Re: Please can someone put 50p in the meter)

2012-10-14 Thread Andrew Gray
On 14 October 2012 13:59, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
 If you are planning an event it is fairly easy to get your IP address
 temporarily whitelisted from the account creation throttle. You just
 need to know your IP address that will be used.

Is it possible to whitelist IPs from the edit throttle, though? That
one's the killer, and it's not really possible to workaround.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Throttling (was: Re: Please can someone put 50p in the meter)

2012-10-14 Thread Andrew Gray
On 14 October 2012 15:50, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
 IPs shouldnt get hit with an edit throttle, (it is really really high)

It doesn't seem it! Over the past few months, I've had it triggered
four times in an hour in two workshops, and one or two times in
perhaps four more. They're not all at the same location or using the
same machines, though they were all using institutional networks.
These are all new logged-in contributors editing from - presumably -
the same IP; I've not had it happen to me in the same sessions, but
that might just be chance.

These aren't very busy networks, however, and I can't imagine there's
a vast flood of active editing coming from them at the same time as
the workshop...

Is it possible to see where this is configured?

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please can someone put 50p in the meter

2012-10-13 Thread Andrew Gray
I evade account creation by always making them log in first...

Periodically, with a roomful of users, we'll get told that an edit has been
throttled; no further details, I think. It seems to happen with one or at
most two editors at a time out of a dozen, but it can happen to different
people later on. This happened several times in a couple of weeks in the
summer (I only started workshops in June), and then occasionally since -
including yesterday. I originally assumed it was related to external-link
additions by new users, but I've seen it for no-link sandbox edits as well.

My guess is that this entails something to do with checking for multiple
edits from the same IP at once, but I don't know if this is actually the
reason, or if it can be disabled/whitelisted.

(It's the one I give, though! Corrections gratefully appreciated)

- Andrew.
On 13 Oct 2012 17:25, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, WereSpielChequers
 werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
  As it is this combined with the throttling feature made for
  quite a bit of disruption to a session where we had ten people having an
  introduction to editing.

 By throttling feature, do you mean the account creation
 restrictions?  If so, you know there are ways around that, right?
 Email me offlist, so as not to clutter the list, and I'll give you a
 pointer.

 If you mean something different, disregard :)

 pb
 ___
 Philippe Beaudette
 Director, Community Advocacy
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

 415-839-6885, x 6643

 phili...@wikimedia.org

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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion

2012-09-19 Thread Andrew Gray
Yes, this is definitely an issue. My recollection was that the unwanted
content issue was seen as secondary to the debates about placement, but
it's many years ago ;-)

Agree entirely on testing and having a sense of the cost-benefit ratio. One
feature of the old system was that it predominantly went on BLPs - which
are a magnet for easy looks free content like publicity photos.  I wonder
if the proportion of acceptable material would be higher if, eg, we
trialled placeholders on towns and villages with no photos, or buildings?

- Andrew.

On Tuesday, 18 September 2012, Risker wrote:

 On 18 September 2012 14:00, Andrew Gray 
 andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukjavascript:;
 wrote:

  On 13 September 2012 12:10, Yaroslav M. Blanter
  pute...@mccme.ru javascript:;javascript:;
  wrote:
 
   Btw it occurred to me that we never (to the best of my knowledge) tun a
   Wikipedia banner asking to donate pictures. Smth like to take a World
   Heritage site article without illustrations, or a town, and to say that
  this
   is easy to illustrate in several clicks - just to donate pictures. Or
  about
   your town.
 
  Enwiki used to have a system where articles about people without images
 got
  a placeholder - No picture available! Can you donate one? - but it was
  taken down a few years ago, partly due to community dislike of it and
  partly due to technical problems.
 
  I believe a number of those technical issues have since been resolved, so
  it might be worth thinking about trialling it again on a small scale...
 


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

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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] the hidden toolbox

2012-09-19 Thread Andrew Gray
On 17 September 2012 19:27, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com javascript:;
wrote:
 On 17 September 2012 18:03, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com javascript:;
wrote:

 Naturally every link wants to escape from the toolbox, if it's collapsed
 :-)
 They were designed to be used, after all.
 I also haven't seen any solid argument for collapsing any navboxes by
 default (except perhaps those in the topnav which pop up on mouseover).

 It was one of the usability ideas from the Vector team. Apparently
 features confuse users.

I think it's not unreasonable to say every extra word in the interface
makes the interface a tiny bit more confusing - one of the eternal
problems of our interface is excessive and disorienting clutter. It's great
if you're used to it - it's always impressive to watch an experienced
Wikipedian navigate a site in an entirely different language and script
just by knowing where things are - but it's a pretty daunting thing to
start with.

I don't know if a collapsed toolbox is the best way to do it (perhaps a top
drop-down, like the gadgets option, would be better) but it's an attempt at
solving the overload problem.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk javascript:;


-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] the hidden toolbox

2012-09-19 Thread Andrew Gray
NSince sending that last email, I've been thinking about why the toolboxes
are effectively hidden. (I don't disagree they are - to a new user, having
a link in a collapsed toolbox is functionally equivalent to it not existing)

One possible problem is that the collapsed toolbox has, visibly, very few
cues to distinguish it from a link. There's the triangle, but that can
easily be mistaken for a pretty bulletpoint. If we changed it to (eg) Page
tools menu / Print/export menu / Languages menu... would that be more of a
cue? No easy way of telling how people use it without looking over their
shoulders, though.

- Andrew.

On Wednesday, 19 September 2012, David Gerard wrote:


  I don't know if a collapsed toolbox is the best way to do it (perhaps a
 top
  drop-down, like the gadgets option, would be better) but it's an attempt
 at
  solving the overload problem.


 That there was a plausible reason to hide functionality doesn't mean
 it actually works out to be a good idea, and it arguably not working
 out to be one is the point of this thread. It turns out that if you
 obscure functionality, people don't know it exists and their use of
 the site is hampered. We do need to convert readers to editors, after
 all.


 - d.

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



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] commons promotion

2012-09-18 Thread Andrew Gray
On 13 September 2012 12:10, Yaroslav M. Blanter
pute...@mccme.rujavascript:;
wrote:

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

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

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

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk javascript:;


-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


  1   2   >