It would be good to conclusively and definitively close the RFC, but I'm
not sure I agree with the notion that less posts is a *bad* thing. In some
months we've had quite a lot of traffic on this list, a lot of which has
been very low quality and only of interest to a small number of people. I
I think, as Geni says, that even that isn't going to provide any effective
barrier. If the NSA or other US Government spooks want to get into the
servers, they will, regardless of what hardware it's running on, what
software it uses, or what jurisdiction it is located in. Anything that the
Can I suggest to all parties that, as was the case last time this came up
here, raking this conflict over the coals here on a mailing list where very
few of us have direct knowledge of the situation, or the power to do
anything about it in any case, is probably not helpful for anyone? I am
Joining the pile-on here. The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than
substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that
you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on
someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective are
I am not closely familiar with the issuse at WMFR right now, and I would
suggest that those here that speak French probably already have a strong
view on this, and those who do not probably do not know enough to have an
educated view on what is happening. With that being said, if WMFR staff
I'm afraid I don't really see the logic in this. Even if we assume for a
moment that the WMF is sitting on top of an enormous, inexhaustible pile of
cash, it doesn't make sense that it should just splash that money around on
community initiatives without carefully assessing whether it is the best
Well, before we talk about funding the Signpost through the WMF or through
a non-WMF source, lets ask if that is what the folks who actually work on
the Signpost would like? There's a pretty big assumption here that the
writers there would like to be paid in the manner of a college newspaper,
It looks like discussion on this died out years ago; a user has recently
removed the rejected tag citing "discussion" (I'm not sure where), but it
looks like this particular idea ran out of steam long ago.
On 10 May 2017 at 15:28, George Ho wrote:
On 26 April 2017 at 02:31, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> Having said that, there are certain issues that can prevent a smooth
> transition from a chapter to a user group. In particular, any individuals
> considered to have personal responsibility for an
This is a fantastic idea. Well done to everyone involved.
On 17 March 2017 at 15:06, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> Dear Wikimedians,
> The Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce a small new program called
> the Hardware Donation Program. In a word, it is a
Again, could you clarify how this is related to Wikimedia? If there's a
direct connection I am not seeing it.
On 14 March 2017 at 09:49, James Salsman wrote:
> Recent leaks suggest almost all commercial x86 processors have been
> compromised by
On 4 March 2017 at 18:38, Pine W wrote:
> It seems to me that Anna is interested in improving the situation rather
> than having a battle with the community. I'd like to let the improvement
> process happen. Please have some patience, and let's be grateful that WMF
hope to see more of this rather than less in the future.
On 2 March 2017 at 19:09, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> Hi Anna,
> Thanks for offering your thoughts on this (and I mean that sincerely).
> Lord knows that sometimes the temper
Thanks for offering your thoughts on this (and I mean that sincerely).
Lord knows that sometimes the temperature on this list and in other venues
rises to a point where no communication of substance can occur, and all
that is achieved is that everyone walks away with bruised egos and
by Wikimedians, they have gotten
it wrong, because they've highlighted the causes rather than the
individuals. I suspect that it is too late to change the 2016 report, but
I hope that they are a little more mindful for the 2017 report.
On 2 March 2017 at 10:31, Michael Peel
This is a good point Pete. I only know the full circumstances of a couple
of the global bans, but in each case it is based on non-public information
that we would not want going public. Just because each discussion is not
subject to a yes/no decision on Meta, does not mean there is no community
I agree completely with both Robert and Marc.
James, it is my understanding that every global ban must be signed off by
the Legal department. Is this correct? If so, not only would this provide
a check against the hypothetical situation of someone being globally banned
in a fit of pique, but it
I know that at times keeping on top of a mailing list as "spicy" of this
one must have been a tough job. It's one that you've done well, in this
subscriber's opinion. Thanks for your service.
On 6 February 2017 at 07:18, Richard Ames <rich.
Agreed. Most of us are very concerned about the current state of affairs
in the United States, but if you want to discuss that there are plenty of
other venues where such discussion is not grossly off topic.
On 30 January 2017 at 09:26, Thyge <ltl.pri...@gmail.com>
io and how they'd react to
it. Now might be a good time for them to dust off that document and review
it, just in case.
On 28 January 2017 at 18:52, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have created a Phabricator task here:
This is excellent news! I am particularly excited by the idea of a better
suite of blocking tools, which will hopefully save admins from playing a
game of whack-a-mole with particularly tenacious vandals and harassers.
On 27 January 2017 at 06:37, Danny Horn
As frustrating as the drama was at the beginning of the year for us, I'd
prefer to get one well considered story from someone like Dariusz, rather
than a mishmash of uncoordinated replies that have some inconsequential
contradictions in them for people to obsess over. Sometimes too much
I know it's been said many times, but two-factor authentication, mandatory
for accounts with advanced privileges and optionally available for everyone
else, would seem to be a logical step. It's not foolproof, but it would go
a long way to making us less of a soft target.
So what you're saying is, Vox Day has created a "safe space" where his
circle of friends can reinforce each other's biases without interference
from the outside world? Great.
Also, "Starlords". Good grief.
On 11 October 2016 at 04:13, David Gerard wrote:
I know you've already answered Peter's original question, but are you able
to answer John's question as well?
On 17 August 2016 at 19:31, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is https://www.pages04.net/ ?
> WMF has gi
Well, he *did* say it was his final email!
I'd imagine the unsubscribe link would get you off the "former donors we
can spam" list without removing you from this august list.
On 17 August 2016 at 18:52, Peter Southwood
> Is there any way to
Just to expand a little on what John is saying here, I find it a little odd
that the information to separate out the cost of actually making trademark
applications, and the cost of legal consultants, has not been separated
out. I confess I'm not that familiar with the rules of Form 990,
I imagine that this is the email that Trillium is referring to, for those
who are just joining us:
Whether he means that he supported her "dismissal" or supported her
"resignation" is left to the reader.
The problem when you use jargon like "ideation" in this context is that
you're essentially excluding anyone who isn't familiar with the particular
terminology used in the field. Especially so when there are plenty of
plain-English alternatives that can be used in its place. Note
They have correctly identified that a lot of our articles on scientific
concepts are jargon-filled babble that is unintelligible to anyone who
isn't already an expert in the field (and if they're an expert, why are
they consulting an encyclopaedia?), but I'm not that confident that
A few days ago I asked what it was that we as the community could do to
enhance transparency within the Foundation. This was not what I had in
mind. Why would Jimmy or anyone else in a position of authority at the WMF
seek to engage with those making criticisms when they'll be subject to acts
ngle is a a
> distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
> Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and
> to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad
> choices, but there is still resolving what
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is going
to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila, and
especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative towards a
particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be the
As much as I agree Geoff would probably do a wonderful job, I'm not sure
that as a movement we want him away from the excellent job he's doing in
the Legal team for too long. Call me cynical, but I expect that the term
of the interim ED will turn out to be lengthy. Any number of people would
This sounds like an excellent strategy if you're looking to have the board
meetings turn into a rubber stamp for issues that have been discussed and
Rather than solving the transparency problem through gimmicks like wheeling
a video camera into the board room, we should look at
Unless you have specific evidence that Susanna has been specifically
involved with anything untoward, you are smearing with guilt by association
and creating your own chilling effect, and you would owe Susanna a
retraction and apology.
On 3 March 2016 at 09:15
My understanding is that the Foundation purchases certain technical and
apps services (cloud email, for instance) from Google.
On 1 March 2016 at 12:15, Risker wrote:
> I cannot for the life of me imagine what Google sells that the WMF would be
seats, but that doesn't change the reality that we must
deal with here and now.
On 27 February 2016 at 21:47, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 February 2016 at 11:33, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > While it's nice to think tha
While it's nice to think that everyone might be able to kiss and make up,
the trustees (particularly Jimmy) and James have been mauling each other
politely in public for the best part of two months. I don't think it's
realistic to expect that everything can just go back to the way it was, and
One could argue that any action that would injure the movement would also
injure the Foundation by definition. Denny is quite correct that trustees
have a legal obligation to put the Foundation before anything else, however
there's usually a fair bit of latitude in how that obligation is
People will have discussions at a location that is personally convenient
for them. Unless you're going to reprogram human nature, I don't see that
there's anything to be done about the resulting balkanisation of the
On 22 February 2016 at 09:54, Thyge
While I appreciate these concerns, I think that the most suitable people to
determine whether this is appropriate for the Portuguese Wikipedia are the
users of the Portuguese Wikipedia. Perhaps with a veto by the WMF Legal
Team if there's some terms of service related reason this can't happen.
You're correct in that most volunteers don't care directly. The problem is
that a lot of the BoT's recent difficulties have crossed the line from
"angry encyclopedia people venting on a mailing list" to "serious and
negative attention from the mainstream press". If there is too much
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this Michael. Reading the documents
I've seen, it seemed like (1) to me, but a lot of the assumptions seem to
lean towards (3). If it is (1), then that is an entirely reasonable thing
for the Foundation to be putting development effort into. The problem is
Thankyou Arnnon. I imagine it can't have been a pleasant decision for you
to make when you obviously feel that you have a lot to contribute, but I
think your decision is in the best interests of the Foundation and of the
movement generally, and for that I am appreciative.
On 16 January 2016 at 22:09, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> Do we want to charge for knowledge? Of course not. But do we want to be
> able to introduce cool new tools for everyone faster, because e.g. Google
> is willing to pay for their development if they can use it for some
ious explaining. Assume
> good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling*
> circumstances and evidence here.
> - d.
> On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > Chris,
> > Thanks for saying that.
Congratulations from me as well to both Kelly and Arnnon. I wonder if
they'll take the plunge and subscribe here? =)
But without in any way questioning their good faith, dedication and fitness
for the job (and it is good to see another female appointed), I have to say
that I also feel this is a
While it's not hard to find a WMF employee who will privately (or
increasingly, not-so-privately) complain of poor morale, I'd be wary of
reading too much into submissions to sites like Glassdoor. Employees that
are content rarely take the time to report this, so you end up with a
I'd like to second this. Getting to the point of dismissing a trustee,
whether they're community elected or not, is serious business. There
should be an investigation conducted by an impartial external organisation,
not to lay blame or point the finger, but to recommend changes to make sure
Jimbo has stated on Jimbo-talk that this was a removal for cause:
He also mentions on that page that he and others tried to talk Heilman into
resigning quietly, but he chose to make the BoT push him:
t; "false" answer ..it takes seconds to speak the truth, but days to
> > connive a lie..so i doubt we will get the 'truth' or atleast the full
> > truth..
> > On 12/30/15, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> > > Thanks Brad for spo
Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo for
filling in a few more details.
Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an
emergency action. Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for
awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a
Such issues are always going to crop up when you're attempting to describe
the world using Aristotelian propositions. In a source like Wikipedia, we
can provide some nuance, explain both sides of the issue, the history of
both claims, and let the reader decide. In a database, we are limited to
On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride wrote:
> Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial
> advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation
> has not yet sunk to that yet.
[[WP:BEANS]] comes to mind, don't say that too
Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" <cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > > Sadly, other sites can be more
t; forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net
> > wrote:
>> I likew
I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF;
the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially
considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is
something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my
Indeed, the things that make a Wikipedia article high quality (such as well
written and engaging prose) are not necessarily the same things that are
useful for a data-driven product like Wikidata. When Wikidata offers
assistance to another project, and that assistance is not received
Good riddance to a bad mistake. Hopefully the underlying causes of the
MediaViewer conflict can be addressed before any other incidents of this
On 06/11/2015 3:36 AM, "Quim Gil" wrote:
> Superprotect  was introduced by the Wikimedia Foundation
My suggestion is to take care with using the term "limited liability",
because it sounds like this might mean a different thing in my jurisdiction
and in my jurisdiction. As has been pointed out, volunteers in a user
group may be exposing themselves to significant risk of something goes
One thing I think that is missing from this discussion is that if people
want to collaborate internally, they will collaborate internally. If there
isn't a mailing list available to do that, it will simply be done through
other means, be that private email, instant messaging, etcetera.
This is not an especially helpful response.
On 14 October 2015 at 20:37, Jane Darnell wrote:
> Arkansas is considered one of the "fly-over" states. Good luck locating a
> Wikipedian somewhere around there, not to mention a Wikimedian.
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015
You could excuse the Perth and Manila bid teams for being very angry at
having wasted a lot of time and energy when the decision was apparently
made behind closed doors weeks ago. Even if you think the idea of getting
rid of the expensive bid process is a good idea (and I do), the way that
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > You could excuse the Perth and Manila bid teams for being very angry at
> > having wasted a lot of time and energy when the decision was apparently
> > made b
is a significant loss for the Foundation and for our
movement, but that's offset by the fact that it's going to be a great boon
for the cause of public education in California. Best wishes for the
On 11 September 2015 at 07:53, Garfield Byrd <gb...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Firstly, I'm delighted to see that a mutually acceptable compromise has
been reached here. Well done everyone in coming together with the best
interests of the entire movement in mind.
If I can make a suggestion though, I'd suggest that the fundraising team
and the community, particularly the
As someone who has been telling anyone at the WMF who will listen that this
sort of capacity development is *essential* if community groups are going
to meet the governance requirements of the Foundation and actually achieve
measurable outcomes, I'm enormously pleased that something has finally
It has been my experience that site banners are the best way to reach
casual readers who are not already integrated into the projects and
existing communication channels. This is why the Fundraising team run
banners, rather than begging for money through Facebook and targeted talk
On 12 August 2015 at 14:41, Bohdan Melnychuk bas...@yandex.ru wrote:
... It has a trail of bad usage it is connected with. ...
I'm not sure I agree with that. There are two known uses. The first one,
where a software tool was locked in over the consensus of the community was
a bad usage I'll
Indeed, as Kirill says, the grants process is owned by the WMF (albeit one
hosted on Meta), not by the community, so I'm not sure why the Meta
community needs to get involved. It actually seems to me that the
foundation wiki would be a better home for processes like this so that
There is already a consensus on enwiki (please, hold your rotten tomatoes)
that projects like this which have inflated article counts due to extensive
botting rather than through having a lively community not be included on
the main page. I think a lot of the comments here about a huge article
I think this is dancing around the perceived problem. You can either have
open, democratic, and fair elections with a result that represents the will
of the electorate, or you can have a group of people who are diverse in
terms of nationality, gender, ethnicity, etcetera. Not both. And I don't
Unfortunately I'm just heading out so i can't waffle at length, but there
are two active projects in Australia in Fremantle and Toodyay.
On 01/05/2015 7:45 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe Wikimedia AU did some work with this type of stuff…
this particular egg, as relocating now would probably end up costing more
than would be saved by moving to a lower cost centre, which is unfortunate.
On 10 April 2015 at 01:47, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We have 215 staff in total, with a hub of activity
Might I suggest that if folks want to continue talking about this, they
rename this thread, as it is no longer about Kourosh Karimkhany, and it is
just creating background noise for those of us who have no desire to
discuss the whole Wikipedia Zero freedom thing yet again?
On 24 February 2015 at 09:40, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Five years ago, I was part of the work on a strategic plan for the
Wikimedia movement. Much has changed since then. Now, I’m back...and
we’re working on strategic direction again. :-)
That's great to hear, I was really pleased with how Xero worked for our
organisation and I hope it's just as good for you. If you (or any other
user group) need a hand with it, please feel free to drop me a line as I've
a few years experience with it now.
the content, and make your own rules about what is and is not allowed.
On 5 January 2015 at 23:42, Richard Symonds
This sounds like a Wikisource idea - do we have any wikisourcerers who can
give their thoughts?
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.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the
Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of
On 12/12/2014 4:56 PM, Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote:
As you said, the first issue of Commons
Forget that, I'd like WMUK to fly me to Scotland so that I can, uh,
research and write about various types of whisky.
On 25 November 2014 at 18:59, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk
And next the wine project? Count me in.
On 24 November 2014 at 18:22, Christophe
in Megan Hernandez, the Director of Online Fundraising in the
hope of getting a comment, just in case she's not aware of this discussion.
On 27 November 2014 at 21:44, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
This notwithstanding, I think the issue *yet again*, is a lack
of a factor.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
community, and it would be a shame if that was undone through more moments
of carelessness like this one.
On 14 November 2014 11:16, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Geoff Brigham wrote:
In that context, we feel that laws in Russia offer a number of possible
and user group press contacts being the last people to find out about
potentially controversial issues like this.
(personal view only)
On 13 November 2014 10:07, Joseph Seddon josephsed...@gmail.com wrote:
I would hate to preclude any answer from
assist the engineering team in pushing through the present difficulties
with software deployments.
On 7 October 2014 11:02, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and welcome, Damon.
One thing I've long appreciated about the Wikimedia movement
On 5 October 2014 18:04, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you are asking about whether WMF and
thematic organization bylaws should allow employees to vote in trustee
elections for their own orgs.
I can see how this could create
intelligently reasoned with, they only harden feelings on both sides and
make a suitable arrangement being found less likely. No employee should be
made to receive that sort of harassment in the course of their job, no
matter how much you disagree with them.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. When I think back to when I was new on
Wikipedia, pretty early on I got an honest-to-god personal message from
someone to thank me for correcting a typo (
It made me feel
and chopped away a lot of the overhead and risk of maintaining everything
on our private Wiki and in Excel spreadsheets and the like.
On 20 August 2014 14:54, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
There are online small business accounting software packages. Do
like what happened on de.wp?
On 10 August 2014 23:27, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Admins are currently given broad leeway to customize the user
experience for all users, including addition of site-wide JS, CSS,
etc. These are important
I've spent a half hour or so going through this, and it looks like Nathan
is on the money here. If RCOM is as inactive as it seems (except where it
concerns the research of RCOM members) then it is no great surprise that
external parties eventually try to do an end-run around it. Unless an
Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the
problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is with
the legal status of the files in the United States, where the Israeli
Government may still have some copyright protections. So while the
Craig, et al
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Craig Franklin
Pardon me if this has already been covered, but as I understand it the
problem is not the legal status of the files in Israel, the problem is
On 22 June 2014 09:53, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
I might point out that I've perhaps needled GerardM more than most people
on this list (and even been moderated for it once years ago), but I find
his posts about WikiData interesting and I read them when I can. I think
I must agree with the frustration over the quality of discussion on this
mailing list lately, but I did want to make clear my appreciation to the
list admins, who have decided to avoid playing semantic word games over
what is and is not appropriate, and started moderating people who want to
Indeed. The thing that I like about this is that it shows these PR firms
are aware of our rules and the controversy around paid editing. If they
now get busted, they can hardly say that they didn't know.
On 13 June 2014 00:17, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
As someone who usually wears a suit and tie to Wikimedia events when I go
(Hong Kong last year was the exception to that for the most part, way too
humid), my advice to people would be to wear whatever the hell you feel
comfortable in, subject to the normal standards of decency and the local
started to become more responsive to community expectations, more
transparent, and all around effective as a governance group. I am sure
that this is not a coincidence.
On 4 June 2014 02:17, Alice Wiegand me.ly...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to the organizers and facilitators
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo