Re: [Wikimedia-l] online meetings

2020-11-18 Thread AntiCompositeNumber
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments#Upcoming_Release_Train_disruptions
tends to provide a good idea of when WMF vacations are, since I've never
seen a public calendar of them. The last two weeks of December (starting 21
December 2020) are marked as having no deployments, so I would expect most
staff to be off for those weeks.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 7:35 PM Risker  wrote:

> Perhaps a way to think about it would be to pause meetings at which
> decisions are being made or "official" opinions are being collected,
> without expecting any pauses in more socially oriented meetings.  So,
> perhaps an embargo on most WMF-sponsored meetings, as well as formal
> meetings of our constituent organizations and groups including committees
> and perhaps even chapter/user group committees; co-editing sessions, online
> meetups, chatting cafes, etc that are more social in orientation and are
> optional participation could quite easily continue, and may even be
> particularly beneficial for those who are socially isolated because of the
> ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of the current health crisis.
>
> In reality, I expect that there's already a plan to put many if not all
> WMF-sponsored meetings/sessions on hold for a several-week break starting
> mid-December; this is a practice that has been in place for a couple of
> years, and I believe the WMF maintains only a skeleton crew for at least a
> week during that period.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 18:46, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> Kaya Jan
>>
>> Yes I agree,  I'm not asking for an absolute ban on all meetings,  just
>> that we give pause as and where possible.
>>
>> Boodarwun
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 00:39, Jan Ainali  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Gnangarra,
>>>
>>> I really like your sentiment and appreciate your effort to keep the
>>> community healthy. However, we should acknowledge that with the ongoing
>>> pandemic, not everyone is able to visit their families. Over the years a
>>> lot of friendships have been formed in our community as well. Being able
>>> to collaborate with them might be a very nice feeling for many.
>>>
>>> So as a compromise, I suggest not to enforce a complete stop for online
>>> meetings, but rather just pause the kind of meetings where important
>>> decisions are being taken. Friendly meetups, chatting cafés or co-editing
>>> sessions might be just what is needed for many to stay in a positive state
>>> of mind. As long as they don't *require* people to join because their voice
>>> would not be heard on some matter I believe online meetings are just fine.
>>>
>>> Warm regards
>>> Jan Ainali
>>>
>>> Den mån 16 nov. 2020 kl 04:11 skrev Gnangarra :
>>>
 Kaya

 Over the last 9 months the movement has really taken to the use of
 "zoom" style technology to hold and host events, I dont doubt they have
 been really productive in addressing the many needs of the community.

 One thing I have noticed is just how many of these notices are coming
 through now with some meetings taking place not once but multiple times to
 ensure everyone has access to them in their best time period.

 I know as volunteers we are able to pick and choose what we do, I also
 know we are placing a lot of pressure on affiliates to be upto date on all
 these events.  I raise a concern that perhaps we as a community are
 starting to over do these meetings and stretch volunteer resources to point
 of breaking or being overwhelmed.  I know that as WP20 approaches these
 meetings are going to accelerate and put greater demands on our limited
 resources.

 I propose that the community has a quiet period from the 14 December to
 5th January where we dont hold general meetings, webinars, cafes, and
 strategy discussions to give people time to refresh and focus on family.
 Obviously some small group focused community meetings will be necessary as
 part of WP20 and other preparations so I'm not suggesting ruling out all
 meetings just asking that we remember that there is life outside of the
 movement we should be allowing people time to focus on as well.

 --
 Gnangarra

 *Power of Diverse Collaboration*
 *Sharing knowledge brings people together*
 Wikimania Bangkok 2021
 August
 hosted by ESEAP

 Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
 Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
 My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

2020-05-23 Thread AntiCompositeNumber
While I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the intention, that sounds a
lot like "ban first and ask questions later".  As Pine noted, this is
a topic where great care must be taken to communicate intentions
clearly and diplomatically. This point was likely introduced to
respond to concerns about unappealable Office Actions. The way it was
phrased, however, diminishes the point it was trying to make and also
implies that community input is only applicable after the fact, and
only from functionaries.

Would it be fair to say that:
 - Enforcement of a universal code of conduct would happen though a
fair, clearly-defined process without significant bias and with
significant community oversight and input
- Universal code of conduct enforcement actions would be appealable
through a fair, clearly-defined process with significant community
oversight that allowed statements from involved parties and uninvolved
community members
- To ensure proper community oversight, code of conduct enforcement
actions and appeals would be made as public as possible as often as
possible (excepting issues where public disclosure would harm privacy
or safety)

AntiComposite

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 7:52 PM Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:
>
> Hello, Dennis!
>
> Not at all. What it means is that this a not a process that goes into play
> *before* a decision to act is made, but *after*. It should stand as an
> option for those who want to ensure that actions taken are fair, as long as
> the case does not relate to legal risks or other severe concerns.
>
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020, 01:58 Dennis During  wrote:
>
> >  "Work with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive
> > review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those cases
> > which pose legal or other severe risks "
> >
> > What does "retroactive review process" mean?
> >
> > I hope it doesn't mean applying standards that were not promulgated at the
> > time to past actions and applying severe sanctions to the alleged
> > perpetrators.
> >
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 5:59 PM María Sefidari 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees unanimously passed a
> > > resolution and published a statement[1] regarding the urgent need to make
> > > our movement more safe and inclusive by addressing harassment and
> > > incivility on Wikimedia projects. The statement builds on prior
> > statements
> > > from 2016 and 2019,[2][3] affirms the forthcoming introduction of a
> > > universal code of conduct, and directs the Wikimedia Foundation to
> > rapidly
> > > and substantively address these challenges in complement with existing
> > > community processes.
> > >
> > > This includes developing sustainable practices and tools that eliminate
> > > harassment, toxicity, and incivility, promote inclusivity, cultivate
> > > respectful discourse, reduce harms to participants, protect the projects
> > > from disinformation and bad actors, and promote trust in our projects.
> > >
> > > Over the past nearly twenty years, the movement has taken a number of
> > > unique and sometimes extraordinary steps to create an environment unlike
> > > anything else online: a place to share knowledge, to learn, and to
> > > collaborate together. In order for the movement to continue to thrive and
> > > make progress to our mission, it is essential to build a culture that is
> > > welcoming and inclusive.
> > >
> > > Research has consistently shown that members of our communities have been
> > > subject to hostility and toxic behavior in Wikimedia spaces.[4][5] The
> > > Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy recommendations have also identified the
> > > safety of our Wikimedia spaces as a core issue to address if we are to
> > > reach the 2030 goals, with concrete recommendations which include a
> > > universal code of conduct, pathways for users to privately report
> > > incidents, and a baseline of community responsibilities.[6]
> > >
> > > While the movement has made progress in addressing harassment and toxic
> > > behavior, we recognize there is still much more to do. The Board’s
> > > resolution and statement today is a step toward establishing clear,
> > > consistent guidelines around acceptable behavior on our projects, and
> > > guiding the Wikimedia Foundation in supporting the movement’s ability to
> > > ensure a healthy environment for those who participate in our projects.
> > >
> > > * Developing and introducing, in close consultation with volunteer
> > > contributor communities, a universal code of conduct that will be a
> > binding
> > > minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects;
> > >
> > > * Taking actions to ban, sanction, or 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2020 Community Wishlist Survey: Submit Your Proposals

2019-10-24 Thread AntiCompositeNumber
Furthermore, requests that "generally target all wikis" are also now
excluded. Does that mean that requests relating to the work of stewards and
global sysops, who do much of the work on small wikis, are also excluded?

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:53 AntiCompositeNumber <
anticompositenum...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The additional exclusion of Commons and Wikidata was not previously
> announced. In fact, the previous statement excluding Wikipedias explicitly
> stated that wishlist items from Commons and Wikidata would still be
> accepted.
>
> Could you explain the reason for this change and why it wasn't
> communicated earlier?
>
> Regards
> AntiComposite
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 18:08 Ilana Fried  wrote:
>
>> The 2020 Community Wishlist Survey
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2020> is now
>> open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the
>> Community
>> Tech <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech> team should work on
>> over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the
>> deadline on November 11, or comment on other proposals to help make them
>> better. To submit proposals, you can check out the guidelines on the
>> survey
>> page
>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2020#Guidelines
>> >.
>> This year, we’ll only be accepting wishes for non-Wikipedia content
>> projects with no dedicated teams (i.e., Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiquote,
>> Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Wikivoyage, and Wikinews). To learn
>> more about the new format, we invite you to visit the survey page
>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2020#New_format_for_2020_Survey
>> >.
>> Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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] 2020 Community Wishlist Survey: Submit Your Proposals

2019-10-24 Thread AntiCompositeNumber
The additional exclusion of Commons and Wikidata was not previously
announced. In fact, the previous statement excluding Wikipedias explicitly
stated that wishlist items from Commons and Wikidata would still be
accepted.

Could you explain the reason for this change and why it wasn't communicated
earlier?

Regards
AntiComposite

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 18:08 Ilana Fried  wrote:

> The 2020 Community Wishlist Survey
>  is now
> open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the
> Community
> Tech  team should work on
> over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the
> deadline on November 11, or comment on other proposals to help make them
> better. To submit proposals, you can check out the guidelines on the survey
> page
>  >.
> This year, we’ll only be accepting wishes for non-Wikipedia content
> projects with no dedicated teams (i.e., Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiquote,
> Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Wikivoyage, and Wikinews). To learn
> more about the new format, we invite you to visit the survey page
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2020#New_format_for_2020_Survey
> >.
> Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-12 Thread AntiCompositeNumber
As a housekeeping note, discussion has moved to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram


On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 09:37 Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> Through various means I'm aware of the partial or full circumstances
> of a number of office bans.  In all cases, T investigated thoroughly
> and acted appropriately.   I don't know why this case would be any
> different, or warrants pitchforks and torches from vocal members of
> the community, but these are the same community members who break them
> out at every opportunity in any case.
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >  I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.
> >
> > I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances,
> and
> > if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would
> expect
> > WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English
> > Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct,
> > and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating
> > situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic
> > evidence.
> >
> > In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem
> > with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate
> cases
> > in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are
> difficult
> > to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with
> > WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing
> > concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith
> in
> > the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a
> > case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified.
> > Even if a local community has well known problems with its
> self-governance,
> > I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community.
> > While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals
> of
> > specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would
> > likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global
> > community for WMF intervention.
> >
> > Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and
> > move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its
> > consideration.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…

2019-01-26 Thread AntiCompositeNumber
The   does
exist, but it doesn't seem to get much attention.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:29 PM geni  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 16:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking about actually bounties, like in bug bounties from
> > larger software vendors. We have some "bugs", like spellchecking,
> > which is pretty easy to quantify, and that can be done as part of
> > bounties with cash. Yes, the ugly word, paid editing! OMG!
> >
> > But quite frankly, why should we not? ¢1 per fixed single word typo
> > that leads to one-less spelling error? Perhaps even $1 per
> > spellchecked page? Delayed one week to see if anyone reverts the
> > edits?
> >
>
> You've just created a financial incentive to include spelling errors.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Mobile fundraising ads

2018-12-11 Thread AntiCompositeNumber
Pageviews isn't a good metric for this, because it isn't measuring the
people who load a Wikipedia page, see an obnoxious banner, and then
click away without reading the content. That's still a pageview and a
reader lost.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:17 AM Peter Southwood
 wrote:
>
> It is slightly less repellent than some I have seen in the past, but in 
> general I concur.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of MZMcBride
> Sent: 11 December 2018 03:20
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Mobile fundraising ads
>
> James Salsman wrote:
> >For those of you who have not seen the mobile fundraising banner this
> >year, and thus are uncertain of what all the fuss is about, here is an
> >example:
> >
> >https://i.imgur.com/wL4Y5dl.png
>
> Hi.
>
> This type of advertising is noxious and unacceptable. It should be revised
> or taken down as soon as possible.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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