Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook test features Wikipedia

2017-10-05 Thread Dan Andreescu
Couple of scenarios come to mind: If this succeeds, and is launched more widely, we might have a lot of preparation to do, and this might not be obvious to Facebook or even to us. Facebook has a huge audience and is currently extremely fertile ground for fake news. Diverting some of that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-03 Thread Dan Andreescu
I want to express respect for this discussion and re-iterate two favorite points: Erik says: "I haven't done an extensive survey, but I suspect all the major Wikipedia languages largely agree in their presentation on climate change. If so, that is itself a notable fact, given the amount of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] We appear have been partially blocked in France (probably accidentally)

2016-10-21 Thread Dan Andreescu
btw, I checked out the traffic from France over the past 30 days and I don't see an obvious drop, so this doesn't seem to have caused a real drop. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:32 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, geni wrote: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] Wikimedia Foundation executive transition update

2016-03-10 Thread Dan Andreescu
Thank you, Katherine, and congratulations. You have my full and enthusiastic support : ) On Friday, March 11, 2016, Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive) < nhas...@wikimedia.org.bd> wrote: > Great! Congratulations Katherine! > Really a positive move from the Board. > > -Hasive > WMBD > > On Fri, Mar 11,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-26 Thread Dan Andreescu
I loved the healthcare idea, sounded like such a positive thing. Until I thought about implementation details. Inevitably, there would have to be some connection to how active the editor was, otherwise we would have to get healthcare for millions of users. So then, even worse, if someone fell

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

2016-02-26 Thread Dan Andreescu
I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his brand of intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED position at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are. We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward collapse of our

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

2016-02-25 Thread Dan Andreescu
Congratulations Katy! So great :) On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel < it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote: > As behalf of the FDC, we demand Katy will continue to hold the FDC role in > additional to the new rule :)) > > Good luck Katy! indeed the right and greatest person to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The right time is now!

2016-02-25 Thread Dan Andreescu
Milos's subject line is a good tl;dr; though : ) On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Mardetanha <mardetanha.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > first revolutionary action would be to force millosh to write shorter and > more concise emails > > Mardetanha > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The right time is now!

2016-02-25 Thread Dan Andreescu
I agree, Milos, this is one hell of a moment. I will treat this moment with the utmost respect. I also love that we have made this connection, on this list, on Facebook, on the wikis, with some great community members. You're right, we should cherish this. On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:34 PM,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

2016-02-25 Thread Dan Andreescu
Denny, with all due respect, I think you have things backwards. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment "committed to Wikimedia Foundation’s goal to establish and maintain the highest level of public confidence in its accountability" Your interpretation seems to be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-24 Thread Dan Andreescu
I'm very new to this concept of paid editing. But from what I understood paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid by on their talk page or in edit summaries. I understood this to be roughly the idea of the Wikipedian in Residence title. I didn't look this up on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Dan Andreescu
Now, I agree with Oliver's points but I disagree they apply to the entire organization, and I have proof. I also objectively think there's much more reason for optimism than pessimism. I'm open to being proven wrong or told that I have an Authority Voice and I just don't understand, I really am,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-23 Thread Dan Andreescu
gt; whose core competency is to nurture small projects? When projects are > > mature and need to switch into maintenance mode, they move under the > > umbrella of a different team. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-23 Thread Dan Andreescu
> > If I remember correctly, I think that's how the Content Translation project > started -- it was someone's personal project, which got more people and > attention because it's a great idea and showed real success. and Event Logging, and the Graph extension, and Mediawiki Vagrant , and ... and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-23 Thread Dan Andreescu
Well, I see nothing in the rule-book [1] that says we have to be rigid. Sure a lot of our work aligns with Reading, Editing, Discovery, and Infrastructure. But some of our work needs bits and pieces from each vertical, and even if managers and "hierarchists" [2] moan and groan, it doesn't make

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

2016-02-22 Thread Dan Andreescu
Thank you! For providing context to those that don't have it, structure to those who do, and evidence of our values of collaboration, openness, and empiricism. Remarkable thing to accomplish with a timeline : ) On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > Yes,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access to pageviews (was: An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT)

2016-02-21 Thread Dan Andreescu
> > I have followed that process, been subscribed to > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T44259 which I just reread > and thus rather surprised by your comment. I have never > seen any technical reason mentioned in the bug. It would > have been very helpful, because someone might have come up >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-21 Thread Dan Andreescu
> > Again, I do not know who is right and who is wrong here, we have excellent > examples of WMF staff work all the time through (let me name Maggie Dennis > as an example of someone who is doing excellent work as both WMF staffer > and a project volunteer, and there are more examples), but things

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-19 Thread Dan Andreescu
> > People will leave despite how much they love a place, its mission, and its > volunteers at the point it becomes too painful for them to stay. And no one > can make that decision for them. While the support of one's colleagues goes > a very long way, it is necessary but not sufficient. I have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

2016-02-18 Thread Dan Andreescu
> > This is happening in spite of -- not thanks to -- dysfunction at the top. > If you don't believe me, all you have to do is wait: an exodus of people > from Engineering won't be long now. I hope you're wrong, Ori. I hope people have the presence of mind, like you say - despite the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Simple English please! was The conversation is happening elsewhere :(

2016-02-17 Thread Dan Andreescu
At our all-hands meeting this year, Risker [1] gave a moving talk in which she pointed out that the Wikimedia movement is a part of the open knowledge movement. She showed us a picture of Pando, which is a remarkable organism as you can see for yourself in that article. And she said that the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

2016-02-16 Thread Dan Andreescu
Asaf, and everyone else, really, I guess the time for silence is over. I think that, just because Siko feels this way, now, about this wmf, and about this moment, doesn't mean that the next moment will maintain, integral, this same truth. It is the rest of us that get to craft the next moment.