Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Peter,

Could you please give an example of the instances that it wouldn't predict
well?

Regards,
Micru

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 10:44 Peter Southwood, 
wrote:

> That would be a fair operational definition in our context, but it does
> not predict well for all instances.
> Cheers
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Amir E. Aharoni
> Sent: 22 February 2019 10:39
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ו׳, 22 בפבר׳ 2019 ב-10:30 מאת ‪David Cuenca Tudela‬‏ <‪
> dacu...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 08:27 Amir E. Aharoni, <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What is our definition of knowledge?
> > >
> >
> > In my opinion, the informal definition would be: all the information that
> > the Wikimedia community allows into their projects.
> >
>
> OK, that makes sense. It can even be formal :)
>
> Do the people to whom you speak have the same understanding of what our
> definition of knowledge is?
>
> --
> 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 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 9:52 AM Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> Do the people to whom you speak have the same understanding of what our
> definition of knowledge is?


I guess I can make them aware of it from now on :-)
___
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] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 08:27 Amir E. Aharoni, 
wrote:

> What is our definition of knowledge?
>

In my opinion, the informal definition would be: all the information that
the Wikimedia community allows into their projects.

Regards,
Micru

>
___
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] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Mark,
Benjamin and me we had a Skype conversation about this topic. Maybe he can
elaborate with his insights?
Regards
Micru

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, 19:11 Mark Rousell,  wrote:

> On 18/02/2019 11:04, David Cuenca Tudela wrote:
> > the current definition of knowledge by Wikimedia
> > projects is narrow-minded and does not fit the relationship with
> knowledge
> > that exists in other parts of the world.
>
> This sounds intriguing. Can you expand on it?
>
> --
> Mark Rousell
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

@Benjamin: I tried to put it into words, but I have realized that what I
have to say doesn't fit well into a short text. If you are really
interested, send me an email with your availability and we can have a video
call about it.

@Chris: Thanks for the recommendation, but I don't feel like pasting it
there without proper context, and it is not my priority right now. If you
or any of them want more details they can contact me any time.

Regards,
Micru

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:08 PM Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Hi Micru,
>
> How about documenting your insights on here. I know a number of people in
> the Roles & Responsibilities group have been reading with interest, thank
> you very much for sharing.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Roles_%26_Responsibilities
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 4:23 PM David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > @Benjamin: It is already there, as answer to Farkhad.
> >
> > @Ziko: I have no idea where to store this. If you find a suitable place,
> > please go ahead and let me know.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:11 PM Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, maybe there is a suitable place on Meta Wiki to conserve this?
> > Later
> > > it will be a little bit difficult to find it again on a mailinglist.
> > > I myself find this point of view of "outsiders" very interesting and
> > worth
> > > to notice e.g. in strategic discussions.
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > > Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 11:41 Uhr schrieb David Cuenca Tudela <
> > > dacu...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Bodhisattwa,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Governance recommendation *
> > > > I assisted to a session on sociocracy organized by the Transition
> > Network
> > > > that basically blew my mind. The speaker explained how for her it has
> > > been
> > > > always difficult to participate in decision-making because she feels
> > that
> > > > she is a very vocal person, and she felt that with democracy it was
> > > mostly
> > > > about taking sides and wining or losing, which was quite
> disappointing
> > > for
> > > > her. Then she started to explain the sociocratic principles of
> decision
> > > by
> > > > consent, and what does that mean.
> > > >
> > > > What is interesting about sociocracy itself, is not the process or
> the
> > > > method, but how it challenges the participants to truly understand
> the
> > > > meaning of a decision, and their own relationship with it. Objections
> > are
> > > > seen as a gift that will help improve the proposal, once they have
> been
> > > > properly understood. Normally it takes effort from the participants
> to
> > > > address their own personal issues as well, because they have an
> impact
> > on
> > > > how the group can operate.
> > > >
> > > > Trust can be built during in person sessions, and it is necessary for
> > the
> > > > group to operate smoothly. Sociocracy is not for people who like to
> > > > accumulate power, or are not able to share power with others, and
> that
> > > can
> > > > drive people away. On the other hand, those who stay feel more
> included
> > > and
> > > > supported by the organisation. There is also an element of
> celebration,
> > > > which sometimes we forget. Taking decisions is hard work, and we
> should
> > > > celebrate when we reach one.
> > > >
> > > > Sociocracy it is easy to grasp, but difficult to master. The members
> of
> > > the
> > > > Transition Network had to undergo a training during a long time at
> the
> > > > Université de Nous, to become proficient in this method. There is
> also
> > a
> > > > software that assists self-organization: https://www.holaspirit.com/
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Micru
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:45 AM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> > > > bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Micru,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am interested about your thoughts about governance recommendation
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > movement and community model of affiliates.
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

@Benjamin: It is already there, as answer to Farkhad.

@Ziko: I have no idea where to store this. If you find a suitable place,
please go ahead and let me know.

Regards,
Micru

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:11 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello, maybe there is a suitable place on Meta Wiki to conserve this? Later
> it will be a little bit difficult to find it again on a mailinglist.
> I myself find this point of view of "outsiders" very interesting and worth
> to notice e.g. in strategic discussions.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 11:41 Uhr schrieb David Cuenca Tudela <
> dacu...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Bodhisattwa,
> >
> >
> > *Governance recommendation *
> > I assisted to a session on sociocracy organized by the Transition Network
> > that basically blew my mind. The speaker explained how for her it has
> been
> > always difficult to participate in decision-making because she feels that
> > she is a very vocal person, and she felt that with democracy it was
> mostly
> > about taking sides and wining or losing, which was quite disappointing
> for
> > her. Then she started to explain the sociocratic principles of decision
> by
> > consent, and what does that mean.
> >
> > What is interesting about sociocracy itself, is not the process or the
> > method, but how it challenges the participants to truly understand the
> > meaning of a decision, and their own relationship with it. Objections are
> > seen as a gift that will help improve the proposal, once they have been
> > properly understood. Normally it takes effort from the participants to
> > address their own personal issues as well, because they have an impact on
> > how the group can operate.
> >
> > Trust can be built during in person sessions, and it is necessary for the
> > group to operate smoothly. Sociocracy is not for people who like to
> > accumulate power, or are not able to share power with others, and that
> can
> > drive people away. On the other hand, those who stay feel more included
> and
> > supported by the organisation. There is also an element of celebration,
> > which sometimes we forget. Taking decisions is hard work, and we should
> > celebrate when we reach one.
> >
> > Sociocracy it is easy to grasp, but difficult to master. The members of
> the
> > Transition Network had to undergo a training during a long time at the
> > Université de Nous, to become proficient in this method. There is also a
> > software that assists self-organization: https://www.holaspirit.com/
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:45 AM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> > bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Micru,
> > >
> > > I am interested about your thoughts about governance recommendation for
> > the
> > > movement and community model of affiliates.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bodhisattwa
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, 12:14 Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
> > > f...@yandex.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Micru,
> > > > I would be interested to learn about "External perception of the
> > > > movement".part of your insights.
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > from Russia with love,
> > > > farhad
> > > > https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/
> Тел.+79274158066
> > /
> > > > skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / WMRU:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 18.02.2019, 02:35, "David Cuenca Tudela" :
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people
> > from
> > > > > different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat,
> > > > > democratic, and diverse organisations. I was one of four speakers
> in
> > a
> > > > > "world cafe" format (basically a circle where participants can
> > > > > interact with the speaker). I represented the Wikimedia movement in
> > > > > general, with the intention that participants would learn from our
> > > > > movement, and so that I would learn from them. There were also Open
> > > > > Space sessions.
> > > > >
> > > > > If there is interest, I can share with you my insights on any of
> > these
> > > > topi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Amir,


*How can the Wikimedia movement be more truly international *
Participants reported that the current definition of knowledge by Wikimedia
projects is narrow-minded and does not fit the relationship with knowledge
that exists in other parts of the world. The only way to break this cycle
of cultural colonisation would be to actually research the needs of other
communities, and how we can create a project that fits those needs. It is
naive to expect that one tool can fit all, and while Wikipedia et al have
covered many important niches, it is well possible that there are other
elements that we are not seeing because we are not explaining our projects
to people who could give us ideas about how to go further. There is also a
lot of knowledge that could be interesting to collect, but does not fit in
any of our projects yet.

In that regard, thanks to the input of the participants, and my own
experience, I came up with some ideas that I would like to present in
Wikimania if I am given the opportunity.

Regards,
Micru

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:49 AM Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> I'm interested.
>
> I'm especially interested in any recommendation that is even remotely
> related to how can the Wikimedia movement be more truly international, and
> it sounds like there could be something about it there, but even if there
> isn't, is love to hear the rest.
>
> Thanks!
>
> בתאריך יום ב׳, 18 בפבר׳ 2019, 01:36, מאת David Cuenca Tudela <
> dacu...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people from
> > different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat,
> > democratic, and diverse organisations. I was one of four speakers in a
> > "world cafe" format (basically a circle where participants can
> > interact with the speaker). I represented the Wikimedia movement in
> > general, with the intention that participants would learn from our
> > movement, and so that I would learn from them. There were also Open
> > Space sessions.
> >
> > If there is interest, I can share with you my insights on any of these
> > topics:
> > - External perception of the movement
> > - Recommendations to the WMF
> > - Governance recommendations for the movement
> > - Community model for affiliates
> > - How to increase diversity
> >
> > There is a lot to say about each topic, so please ask only about the
> > topic you have genuine interest in. If there is no interest, I'm ok
> > keeping it to myself.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> >
> > ___
> > 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>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Bodhisattwa,


*Community model of affiliates *
Many participants reported difficulties building trust with volunteers. It
is very easy to lose the volunteer appeal if the organisation is not
conscious about their needs, and there is no active communication. I
reported the case of Amical, which is the one that I know well, and it is
the only model that I trust.

The model of Amical is based on friendship. Volunteers and members of the
organisation are bound by the mission, but that doesn't mean that it is the
only kind of connection that it should exist between them. For
organizations that are geographically close, the ideal scenario is to have
some kind of mutual personal understanding and not focus only on the
projects. Wikimedians can be interesting people to get to know better so,
why not organize events where people just talk or have fun together without
editing anything?

When there is a personal relationship, it becomes easier to modulate
frustrations and deal with them more effectively than through online
channels. Written communication is deprived of the human element, and it
should be used as little as possible.

What is important to know is that our communities are open systems, however
in order to enter them, one must be ready to be changed by them, and the
organisation should be open to be changed by new members. This should
happen at different levels, but of course, it should be possible for anyone
to enter an organization informally, and over time reach the core.

Regards,
Micru

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:45 AM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Micru,
>
> I am interested about your thoughts about governance recommendation for the
> movement and community model of affiliates.
>
> Regards,
> Bodhisattwa
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, 12:14 Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
> f...@yandex.com wrote:
>
> > Micru,
> > I would be interested to learn about "External perception of the
> > movement".part of your insights.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > from Russia with love,
> > farhad
> > https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region
> >
> > --
> > Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> > skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / WMRU:
> >
> >
> > 18.02.2019, 02:35, "David Cuenca Tudela" :
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people from
> > > different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat,
> > > democratic, and diverse organisations. I was one of four speakers in a
> > > "world cafe" format (basically a circle where participants can
> > > interact with the speaker). I represented the Wikimedia movement in
> > > general, with the intention that participants would learn from our
> > > movement, and so that I would learn from them. There were also Open
> > > Space sessions.
> > >
> > > If there is interest, I can share with you my insights on any of these
> > topics:
> > > - External perception of the movement
> > > - Recommendations to the WMF
> > > - Governance recommendations for the movement
> > > - Community model for affiliates
> > > - How to increase diversity
> > >
> > > There is a lot to say about each topic, so please ask only about the
> > > topic you have genuine interest in. If there is no interest, I'm ok
> > > keeping it to myself.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Micru
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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>
> ___
> 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
> Unsubs

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Bodhisattwa,


*Governance recommendation *
I assisted to a session on sociocracy organized by the Transition Network
that basically blew my mind. The speaker explained how for her it has been
always difficult to participate in decision-making because she feels that
she is a very vocal person, and she felt that with democracy it was mostly
about taking sides and wining or losing, which was quite disappointing for
her. Then she started to explain the sociocratic principles of decision by
consent, and what does that mean.

What is interesting about sociocracy itself, is not the process or the
method, but how it challenges the participants to truly understand the
meaning of a decision, and their own relationship with it. Objections are
seen as a gift that will help improve the proposal, once they have been
properly understood. Normally it takes effort from the participants to
address their own personal issues as well, because they have an impact on
how the group can operate.

Trust can be built during in person sessions, and it is necessary for the
group to operate smoothly. Sociocracy is not for people who like to
accumulate power, or are not able to share power with others, and that can
drive people away. On the other hand, those who stay feel more included and
supported by the organisation. There is also an element of celebration,
which sometimes we forget. Taking decisions is hard work, and we should
celebrate when we reach one.

Sociocracy it is easy to grasp, but difficult to master. The members of the
Transition Network had to undergo a training during a long time at the
Université de Nous, to become proficient in this method. There is also a
software that assists self-organization: https://www.holaspirit.com/

Regards,
Micru

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:45 AM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Micru,
>
> I am interested about your thoughts about governance recommendation for the
> movement and community model of affiliates.
>
> Regards,
> Bodhisattwa
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, 12:14 Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
> f...@yandex.com wrote:
>
> > Micru,
> > I would be interested to learn about "External perception of the
> > movement".part of your insights.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > from Russia with love,
> > farhad
> > https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region
> >
> > --
> > Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> > skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / WMRU:
> >
> >
> > 18.02.2019, 02:35, "David Cuenca Tudela" :
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people from
> > > different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat,
> > > democratic, and diverse organisations. I was one of four speakers in a
> > > "world cafe" format (basically a circle where participants can
> > > interact with the speaker). I represented the Wikimedia movement in
> > > general, with the intention that participants would learn from our
> > > movement, and so that I would learn from them. There were also Open
> > > Space sessions.
> > >
> > > If there is interest, I can share with you my insights on any of these
> > topics:
> > > - External perception of the movement
> > > - Recommendations to the WMF
> > > - Governance recommendations for the movement
> > > - Community model for affiliates
> > > - How to increase diversity
> > >
> > > There is a lot to say about each topic, so please ask only about the
> > > topic you have genuine interest in. If there is no interest, I'm ok
> > > keeping it to myself.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Micru
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Farkhad,

*External perception of the movement*
The Wikimedia movement is seen as a very complex entity. Most participants
knew about Wikipedia, not so many about the other projects. Even for those
who knew Wikipedia, it was not so clear how decisions are taken or what is
allowed to do. I explained the concept that the more you work with any of
the projects the more you will find out about its inner processes, or other
people will make you aware of them (because you will do something wrong or
you will try to find out or "invent" how to do something). Participants did
not understand what are the roles that are available for them, or what to
do in them, they felt that with so much freedom to do anything, they were
incapable of participating.

In a way they were marveled that just by having guidelines created and
enforced by the community, it is enough to have a working project without
any visible leadership. Leadership does exist, but it is exercised in
different ways (for instance, by participating in conversations about
policy, behaviour, or strategy). Another thing that surprised participants,
is that you can do anything that you want, that there are no restrictions
other than your own interest to do something and respecting the policies.

Participants did not know about the WMF, and did not know where the
fundraising money goes. They did not understand how the community can
participate in allocating the resources. I told them the my opinion, that
the WMF still hasn't learned how to share its leadership together with the
community and that they are operating as a company, which alienates me
because they are not respecting the spirit of the projects.

Also it was unclear to them how to interact with the community, affiliates
or the Foundation. They were not certain that they would be able to find
the right person or the right place to ask questions. It that regard they
saw the movement as a walled garden that can be contemplated from outside,
but it is very restricted to participate in. Some participants they
mentioned that Wikimedia is a faceless project, that we are very good at
presenting the faces of many important people, but that we fail miserably
at presenting our own.

A participant suggested to use the yellow banner to recruit new people
instead of using it only to raise money. The reason being that many people
would be interested in participating if they were asked to and if they were
shown how to (preferably with videos recorded by Wikimedians explaining
what they do).

Regards,
Micru


On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:44 AM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
f...@yandex.com> wrote:

> Micru,
> I would be interested to learn about "External perception of the
> movement".part of your insights.
> Thanks.
>
> from Russia with love,
> farhad
> https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region
>
> --
> Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / WMRU:
>
>
> 18.02.2019, 02:35, "David Cuenca Tudela" :
> > Hello,
> >
> > Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people from
> > different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat,
> > democratic, and diverse organisations. I was one of four speakers in a
> > "world cafe" format (basically a circle where participants can
> > interact with the speaker). I represented the Wikimedia movement in
> > general, with the intention that participants would learn from our
> > movement, and so that I would learn from them. There were also Open
> > Space sessions.
> >
> > If there is interest, I can share with you my insights on any of these
> topics:
> > - External perception of the movement
> > - Recommendations to the WMF
> > - Governance recommendations for the movement
> > - Community model for affiliates
> > - How to increase diversity
> >
> > There is a lot to say about each topic, so please ask only about the
> > topic you have genuine interest in. If there is no interest, I'm ok
> > keeping it to myself.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> >
> > ___
> > 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@list

[Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hello,

Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people from
different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat,
democratic, and diverse organisations. I was one of four speakers in a
"world cafe" format (basically a circle where participants can
interact with the speaker). I represented the Wikimedia movement in
general, with the intention that participants would learn from our
movement, and so that I would learn from them. There were also Open
Space sessions.

If there is interest, I can share with you my insights on any of these topics:
- External perception of the movement
- Recommendations to the WMF
- Governance recommendations for the movement
- Community model for affiliates
- How to increase diversity

There is a lot to say about each topic, so please ask only about the
topic you have genuine interest in. If there is no interest, I'm ok
keeping it to myself.

Regards,
Micru

___
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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Answering the initial question: It depends on how you understand "death".
Wikipedia is the manifestation of a collection of algorithms running in the
minds of thousands of people. With time it could become less popular to run
that algorithm in your life, or you would like to try a different one. With
less people then the Wikipedias would be different as they are today. More
out-of-date information, less capacity to oversee the project, stagnation,
and perhaps eventually irrelevance. Myspace, digg, and winamp are still
alive, however people prefer other options these days.

I think it is important to move with the flow, and open new opportunities
for collaboration as the technology and our contributor base are ready for
them. Wikidata started 6 years ago, Structured Commons is in the making,
and who knows what could come next.

In the age of review manipulation and mistrust, I see opportunities in
identifying thought leaders, and building a balanced critique on a subject
based on multiple sources. Wikipedia does this partially, but it is not its
main aim. Assigning trust to people or organizations is something that the
community does quite well, so it could be applied to other contexts.

A snippet-pedia also sounds useful, specially if a topic could be explained
with different levels of complexity. Layman's explanations are really
useful and there are communities built around them (for instance ELI5 with
16 million subscribers), however their explanations are neither
collaborative nor structured, so it is quite difficult to improve them or
navigate them.

It doesn't matter so much that Wikipedia "dies", what matters is that the
Wikimedia community adapts with new projects that keep the spirit of
gathering, organizing, and sharing knowledge alive. Perhaps we could also
consider other approaches that could be executed in real life. With diverse
approaches, there would be different kind of contributors, aka more
diversity. I would definitely welcome projects that would attract 90% of
female contributors, even if they are radically different and they are not
a wiki. In the end our mission is to enable everyone to share knowledge,
not necessarily encyclopedic, and not necessarily using current technology.
Just because we have a hammer doesn't mean that all problems can be solved
with it.

Regards,
Micru

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 10:35 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> I have written a long text today (posted in my FB) which the readers of
> this mailing list might find interesting. I copy it below. I understand
> that it is very easy to critisize me for side issues, but if you want to
> comment/reply I would appreciate if you address the main issue. The target
> audience I was thinking about was general (not necessarily
> Wikimedia-oriented), and for the readers from this mailing list the first
> several paragraphs can sound trivial (or even trivial and wrong). I
> apologize in advance.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> _
> I currently have a bit of time and can write on the future of Wikipedia.
> Similarly to much of what I write it is probably going to be useless, but
> someone may find it interesting. For simplicity, I will be explicitly
> talking about the English Wikipedia (referring to it as Wikipedia). I am
> active in other projects as well, and some of them have similar issues, but
> there are typically many other things going on there which make the picture
> more complicated.
>
> Let us first look at the current situation. Wikipedia exists since 2001,
> and in a couple of weeks will turn 18. Currently, it has 5.77 million
> articles. I often hear an opinion that all important articles have already
> been created. This is incorrect, and I am often the first person to point
> out that this is not correct. For example, today I created an article on an
> urban locality in Russia with the population of 15 thousands. Many articles
> are indeed too short, badly written, or suffer from other issues, and they
> need to be improved. There are new topics which appear on a regular basis:
> new music performers, new winners of sports competitions or prizes, and so
> on. As any Web 2.0 project, Wikipedia requires a regular cleanup, since
> there are many people happy to vandalize the 5th website in the world in
> terms of the number of views. However, as a general guideline, it is not so
> much incorrect to state that all important things in Wikipedia have been
> already written. Indeed, if someone looks for information in Wikipedia -
> or, more precisely, uses search engines and gets Wikipedia as the first hit
> — they are likely to find what they need with more than 99% chance.
>
> In this sense, Wikipedia now is very different from Wikipedia in 2008 or
> Wikipedia in 2004. Ten and especially fifteen years ago, everybody could
> contribute something important. For example, the article on the 1951 film
> "A Streetcar Named Desire", which won four Academy Awards, was started in
> 2005, as well as an article on Cy

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Page views of male/female biographies?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Of course, there is more than one way to skin a potato, but it doesn't mean
that those ways are useful, desirable, or informative. You say that readers
are more likely to access people who are named, than people who are
notable, but isn't that relevant? If notable people are not named, then we
can point at the issue, bring the information to the light and ask for
measures to be taken. Because as it is now, it seems as if we are at the
mercy of what others decide that is relevant, however I believe that the
community also can have a say in identifying media blind spots and
reporting them to the public.

I am not asking for "ongoing research", I am asking for data to back our
claims that wikipedia reflects the bias of the media. OTOH, for research
purposes it would be interesting to:
- evaluate the distribution of sources by gender and area of expertise
- correlation between page views and sources

"It should be noted that there is also an inherent bias in that there are
far fewer biographical articles about women in most categories, as compared
to men."

That is not so injurious. If we have 80% articles about men and 20%
articles about women, however 50% of pageviews go to men and 50% go to
women, suddenly the gender gap would be narrower, as it would show that
women, even with a reduced number of articles, have more public exposure.
Still there would be areas of expertise where men would attract more
pageviews than women, and vice versa, but that would be ok according to my
understanding.

It should be noted however, that in the depths of the gendergap rabbit hole
there is the core of societal (and individual) values, and how individuals
are rewarded in exposure (and money) according to those values. If women
are naturally more skilled than men in certain areas, why is not that
expertise recognized and valued? If our platforms are predominately male,
does it mean that our mission has an inherent gender bias?

@Strainu: thanks for the links!

Micru



On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:45 AM Risker  wrote:

> Hmm.  I think the subject of what you call "audience bias" is far more
> general than the tiny targeted area you're talking about.  I'm pretty sure
> that readers from Poland are thousands of times more likely to access the
> Wikipedia article about [name any town in Poland] than readers in Indonesia
> are.  I'm pretty sure that readers from all over the world are far more
> likely to access articles about people who are named in other publications,
> particularly the news media, than they are about notable but comparatively
> obscure article subjects who haven't recently been the subject of public
> interest.  I do not think you have made a good case for considering the
> viewing of articles of male subjects vs. female subjects to be directly
> linked to "audience bias".  We only need to look at the top100 articles
> viewed on any project to see that what drives page views is usually some
> event external to the Wikipedia projects.
>
> Page view data is pretty readily available - it is available for every
> single page on every single Wikipedia (and probably for a lot of other
> projects too, I've just never checked).  It would require some technical
> knowledge to write a script targeting page view information for articles in
> selected categories - such as page views of articles about women scientists
> - provided there is correct and appropriate categorization of the article.
> I'm the first to admit I'm incapable of writing such a script, but there
> are lots of Wikimedians who have such skills.
>
> It certainly looks like you are asking for ongoing research to be carried
> out on a topic that interests you (and, I am certain, a lot of other
> Wikimedians). I am unclear what this kind of metric would tell us about
> "audience bias" (or any other kind of bias, for that matter), but there may
> be value in better understanding the frequency of viewing of articles in
> certain categories and comparing them to related categories; for example,
> comparing the frequency of viewing of the average article about a female
> architect as compared to a male architect.  It should be noted that there
> is also an inherent bias in that there are far fewer biographical articles
> about women in most categories, as compared to men.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 18:20, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tilman,
> >
> > I disagree with your appraisal that there are better venues for my
> > question. The gendergap mailing list is technically dead, before your
> > message the last one was from April. The other mailing list is related to
> > research, not to stats that should be readily available.
> >
> > From your answer (and the lack of more informat

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Page views of male/female biographies?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Tilman,

I disagree with your appraisal that there are better venues for my
question. The gendergap mailing list is technically dead, before your
message the last one was from April. The other mailing list is related to
research, not to stats that should be readily available.

From your answer (and the lack of more information) I understand that there
is a poor (inexistent?) tracking of audience bias. In my opinion these data
would be very useful to monitor how visitors evolve with more availability
of women's biographies. I have requested it to be added to the Metrics Kit.
If anyone else wants to endorse or comment:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/Metrics_kit#Gender_bias_of_audience

Regards,
Micru


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:22 AM Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> Hi Micru,
>
> in general, there may be better venues to ask this kind of question, e.g.
> the Wiki-research-l and Gendergap mailing lists (both CCed). But for a
> partial answer, the paper by Marit Hinnosaar reviewed here looks at these
> stats (if not their long-term trend):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/December#Does_advertising_the_gender_gap_help_or_hurt_Wikipedia
> ?
>
> E.g. "On a typical (median) day in September 2014, no one read 26 percent
> of the biographies of men versus only 16 percent of the biographies of
> women."
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:35 AM David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are there any statistics that track the evolution of page views of
> > male/female biographies in the different Wikipedias?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> > ___
> > 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>
>
>
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
> ___
> 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>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] Page views of male/female biographies?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi,

Are there any statistics that track the evolution of page views of
male/female biographies in the different Wikipedias?

Regards,
Micru
___
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] Subject lines for WMF fundraising emails

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 6:17 PM Caitlin Cogdill 
wrote:

> That said, there is a final input which is harder to measure on a per-test
> basis: how do we, our colleagues, and volunteers feel about our messaging?
> This team cares deeply about Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, and
> about the mission we all work to achieve. We want to represent it
> faithfully, and do so in a way our readers and donors can engage with and
> understand. This balance can be really hard to strike and it will always be
> an ongoing challenge in our work.


Caitlin, thank you for caring about the concerns that were raised and
taking action to address them. I can imagine that it is difficult to know
how volunteers feel about some action or message. It would be nice if in
case of doubt there would be some invitation to participate assessing the
lines or suggesting alternatives. I'm sure that in this list there are some
people who would be willing to offer their perspective on how the message
comes across. As Pine has suggested a public discussion on how to
incorporate community review would be interesting.

Regards,
Micru
___
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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

[David Cuenca Tudela]

SJ, other groups can meet and discuss, but they only have relevance if they
are given some legitimacy.
If the output of paralel groups is ignored, the only inspiration they can
give is about how to waste community good faith (and resources).
Having discussion groups only makes sense if there is a community to
interact with, and if the output of that interaction serves some purpose.

I also think that it wouldn't be fair to take community attention bandwidth
away with paralel groups until the official groups have had some chance to
perform.
Considering all the feedback that has been given here, I trust that it will
be used to improve the blindspots.

Micru

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 11:31 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Micru -- these are good and kind thoughts, and practical suggestions.
>
> I don't know how much energy it's usfeul to put into *extra communication*
> to/from/about the current groups.  But I would be especially interested in
> ideas for ways other groups (some are excluded from any closed process)
> could organize similar visions and proposals and priorities for the future,
> in parallel.  Sometimes it is easier to develop crisp ideas as
> contrast/critique of an existing process, than from scratch.  In which case
> quirks of a process, like incomplete sections of articles, can serve as
> helpful inspiration.
>
> SJ
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > > The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> > distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
> focus
> > was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
> the
> > Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> > those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.
> >
> > "The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the
> > whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1].
> It
> > is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global
> > movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not
> > organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being
> > organised, yet they might want to participate.
> > I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new
> > ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted)
> do
> > the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the
> > status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps
> more
> > inclusive, approaches.
> >
> > > We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
> > people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have
> > ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
> >
> > Ideas:
> > - Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly)
> > - Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less
> frequent
> > updates (monthly/bi-monthly)
> > - Blog posts every 3-6 months
> > - Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group
> > participants and community members
> > - Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing
> WG
> > participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language
> > and participation barriers
> > - Ask working groups to document arguments on meta
> >
> > > We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer
> project
> > communities.
> >
> > I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of
> > applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they
> were
> > not fulfilling.
> >
> > > As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
> > published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
> thoughts
> > regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
> >
> > "Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the
> > participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the
> > motivation letters of the participants?
> > I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to
> know
> > the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to
> > format/structure it, I can help there.
> >
> > I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the
> > working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas
> > they support. There are monolingual Engl

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jane Darnell  wrote:

> But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others.
>

I can subscribe to the sentiment. All the criticism that I might have about
another person, or about some procedure, it is due to me not being aware of
the difficulties being experienced. This is why I am very careful when
expressing criticism because that lack of understanding is reciprocal, and
the other person might not know what is going on in me either, and might
even not realized of what from my perspective looks like an issue.

The way I describe the current governance system of the organized part of
the global movement is an "unintended oligarchy". I don't think anyone ever
wanted to have an oligarchy, but to take decisions, to be in the loop,
requires that someone must have time to spend on it, and that they are
given the trust to be in the decision-making processes. On one hand we have
a group of people who can spend time following issues (or are even paid for
it), participating in committees, going to conferences, and building
in-person trust that later on they can capitalize with easier access to
power roles. And on the other hand we have people that, as Yaroslav said,
do not participate in real-life activities and therefore they are simply
ignored and not considered for relevant roles, because they didn't build
the in-person trust or the curriculum that people in the organized part of
the movement think that it is important.

I consider impossible for any organization to escape the "iron law of
oligarchy", and that in itself is liberating, because instead of wasting
time pretending "openness" and "inclusiveness" we can focus our energies in
having the best kind of oligarchy. To guarantee some renewal and to
safeguard the trust in the movement, an effort should be made to allow
rank-and-file members both to influence decision-making (as Franz
mentioned, by giving them support and by opening discussions), and to have
a path for them to join the "ruling class" if they have some basic skills
and they are inclined to it. The first point is easier to attain than the
second, because power is self-perpetuating and people tend to give
preference to those that think like them or have a particular background or
career.

There is an interesting anecdote that happened to the economist Kenneth E.
Boulding. After graduating in Oxford he applied for a fellowship for Christ
Church, and by mistake he received the recommendation letters that he asked
from several of his economy professors. They agreed that he was brilliant
and very intelligent, but all of them concluded that "he is not one of us".
Diversity of thought is not always appreciated.

A certain homogeneity of values is necessary, because that is the basic
tenet of a cultural identity, which is required to attract and retain
volunteers with belongingness, and to inspire others with our values. Of
course those values should be reflected in everything we do, not just in
writing, but having a code in writing about governance, decision-making
procedures, dissent, diversity, etc would help to know what to expect and
it would reduce the frustration.

Cheers,
Micru
___
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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I fail to understand why, among the dozens of people
> chosen to be part of the Working Groups, there's not a single one that can
> be identified as a representative of that community.
>

Well, you can slice the community in many ways. If you consider the number
of contributors to the Portuguese Wikipedia with more than 5 edits per
month, the number it is at about 1500 editors [1], however Wikidata is at
8200 editors [2] and it doesn't have representation either. I'm not trying
to belittle the issue of lack of representation that you brought forward, I
just want to illustrate that it is not an uncommon problem, perhaps because
never before it had to be addressed.


> My feeling, when I see those lists, is that we have been excluded from the
> WMF Strategy objectives for 2030.


I don't like to think in drastic terms like these because it fails to
recognize the amount of good will that has been poured into the process and
the selection of participants by the Strategy team. It is perhaps more
interesting to think in terms of opportunities. The issues have been
already pointed out, some possible solutions have been put forward, and
perhaps there are even more options for participation that we are not aware
of. I trust that the Strategy team will come up with ways to close the
gaps, and the best we can do is offer our assistance to make things better.
In the end this is a matter of work... work to have discussions, work to
make them productive, work to find consensuses, work to make the
consensuses legitimate, work to inform about it... so I see plenty of
opportunities to give a hand anywhere and make life easier to those
involved.

Enjoy your day,
Micru

[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm
[2] https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaWIKIDATA.htm
___
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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

[David Cuenca Tudela]

s that we ran in June were not
> distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
> was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
> Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would
> like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not
> interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I
> would be really interested in hearing them.
>
> The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of
> engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and
> collective process.
>
> >You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> know what the participants think of their assigned area?
>
> With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations
> are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in
> strategic discussions.
>
> We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
> communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps
> us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
>
> We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the
> Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling
> these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is
> also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
> thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your
> letter.
>
> >Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement
> a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> members?
>
> In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept
> further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we
> expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions
> will change
>
> Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a
> more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other
> interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to
> the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in the
> strategy process.
>
> Have a great weekend!
> Kaarel
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
> >
> > It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
> are
> > not directly represented.
> > Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
> like
> > Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have
> > members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by
> > those communities.
> > I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
> do
> > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> > discussions away from the volunteer community.
> >
> > You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> that
> > represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect
> is
> > lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> > know what the participants think of their assigned area?
> >
> > Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
> movement
> > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> > members?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nico

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

[David Cuenca Tudela]

 Dear Kaarel & Nicole,

It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
not directly represented.
Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have
members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by
those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
discussions away from the volunteer community.

You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that
represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is
lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
know what the participants think of their assigned area?

Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
members?

Cheers,
Micru


On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
> for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
> exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
> round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
> all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
>
> Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
> Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
> movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
> outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
>
> We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
> processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
> their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
> the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
> their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
> we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
>
> == Wikimania Strategy Space ==
> At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
> hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
> seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
> questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed
> schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
> forward to seeing many of you.
>
> Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as
> well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
> advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
> contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
> hearing from you during future consultations.
>
> In the name of the Core Team
> Kaarel & Nicole
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
> [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
>
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> 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 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] Wikimédia France Governance review

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Nadine,

Thanks for sharing the document with us. I read it and I found interesting
to see the different clashes:

- there is no awareness of the individual interpretations of our mission

- the community wants anarchism in order to feel free, however the
organization needs some kind of structure and specialization to be effective

- lobbing, advocacy, and governance are necessary for the community, but
since they are "invisible" activities, they are not valued by the community

- there is a big wish for openness in the community, however governance
requires some privacy as well

- employees can have too much influence in any organization if they
participate, but it is unfair to exclude them

- the WMF exercises power over the movement organizations, but the
organizations cannot exercise power over the WMF, creating a power
unbalance and mistrust

Besides of the recommendations on the document, it feels that there is the
need for more dialogue with involved parties to create a mutual
understanding. In the end it is a matter of trust, we can only trust
something if we know it, and if we understand the benefits that it creates
for us. I hope these topics are discussed in the Movement Strategy.

Regards,
Micru




On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:43 PM Nadine Le Lirzin 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As announced last month on this list[1], the Governance Assessment Report
> by external auditors "Associés en gouvernance" has been published, and we
> want to share it with you.
>
> The auditors did a great work, first in their rather good understanding of
> our movement complexity, and then in the numerous improvement suggestions
> they delivered.
>
> The consultation of our members – to fully associate them to the rebuilding
> – is still in progress. Main changes will be submitted to a vote at next
> General Assembly, by the end of the year.
>
> The document has been translated in English and is now available on
> Commons[2].
>
> May these suggestions be useful not only for Wikimédia France, but also for
> any other chapter or affiliate that would be in need of governance advice
> or ideas.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Nadine Le Lirzin
> *Wikimedia France Board Secretary*
>
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-June/090413.html
> [2]
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_France_-_Governance_Assessment_Report_-_2018.pdf
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Dear Katherine,

Members of INGOs can normally apply to special visas. Has such legal status
been considered for the Wikimedia movement as a whole?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_non-governmental_organization

Regards,
Micru

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:42 AM Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> *This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068
> *
> *Please consider supporting with translations. *
>
> Dear friends,
>
> On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
> ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
> travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
> found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
> the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
> comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis
> for some of these restrictions.
>
> Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia
> communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user
> group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our
> movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in
> these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
>
> To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in
> affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this
> outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone,
> everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We
> believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely
> collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free
> knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen
> when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is
> limited, the world is a poorer place.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier
> versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early
> 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a
> series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have
> posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most
> recent outcome of this case. [6]
>
> We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual
> staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The
> Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar
> restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than
> others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue
> to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the
> values that make our movement possible.
>
> Katherine
>
> [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780
> [2]
>
> https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim
> [3]
>
> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html
> [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/
> [5] See
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-restrictions/
> ,
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/
> ,
> and
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/
> [6]
>
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court-immigration-wikimedia-values/
>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Aubrey,

I promised you an answer, and here it comes finally. Sorry it took me a
while :)

Why do I want to be in this movement and not in another one?
Because I find the people here as crazy idealist as I am. Because the tasks
give us something to do that allows us to have something in common. Because
it satisfies this excessive (pathological?) curiosity I have for
everything. Because we have built something that the world admires, and we
are respected for that.

What could do everyone in this movement better to satisfy my sense of
purpose?
To be even more daringly idealist, to bring it to the extreme and beyond.
To be able to find things in common with other volunteers without having to
do anything. To go beyond curiosity for the world and have also curiosity
about one another. To use the respect that the world has for us to
effectively activate global changes.

What is the reward I expect from this movement?
To be transformed. To come here with a limited vision of reality and to
have it expanded. To be challenged, to challenge others, and to learn from
that.

Is it wrong to look for meaning/purpose in the Wikimedia movement?
As it is now, yes. The movement is not well equiped to provide meaning, but
with enough will and perseverance, everything can change.

Do you know what I really like about the people in this movement?
That they really care, about *everything*, and that when I care about
something in particular, they understand the feeling, and I don't have to
explain the burden that it is. And from this conversation and from the
messages that I received in private, I also can tell that there is care for
one another too. Sometimes I believe that we might not have the tools to
express this care. I know this because I wish the best for everyone and it
is hard to show, and since we are not that different, that must be the
situation of everyone, right? :)

If money is not the "silver bullet" to address the problems, what is it
then?
I think it is a combination. I'm too humble to say "give me money, give me
power, I am the right person to help you". No, I don't feel it works that
way. The only thing I can do is enable the structures that allow *anyone*
to step forward and start challenging our wrong ideas, but to do that I
strongly believe they need community support, material and immaterial. Not
to do whatever they want, nor to do whatever anyone else wants, but to
bring about at least personal growth and wisdom.

Wikimedia doesn't complete me either. I come here complete, yet I see in
here a window to the world. If the importance to listen deeply is
understood here, and its benefits felt, then it will be a matter of time
that it will spread everywhere. If the capacity to embody ideas, and bring
them forward, not with the intention to impose them, but with the will to
improve them and understand better how they fit into our lives, then that
also will spread. If all this spreads into the world, then no matter where
I am or with who, I will feel the effects of the Wikimedia community in my
life.

I also have experience with feeling alone with my crowd. And my realization
has been that no matter where I go I will feel alone unless I learn to be
*inquisitively* curious about the other, while encouraging them to do the
same with me (it has to go both ways). Only then true mutual understanding
is built, and then there is trust to share more, and to forget about all
judgments and misconceptions. And then through others you also learn to get
to know yourself better, and then you become your best friend, and then it
is awesome because that is the person you spent most of the time with. I
like others very much, and I like myself too :)
Of course this takes effort, and not everyone is ready or in the situation
to engage in this process, so I feel that to have a handful of people that
know you really well is already a lot.

Micru

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:06 PM Andrea Zanni 
wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:25 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> Dear David,
> your mail is very long and dense, I don't know where to start:
> so I'll start from a random point ;-)
>
>
> > You say that that WMF bears responsibility in the "failure" of our
> > Wikisource community project, and that it is not important now. I do not
> > agree about the timing, I find it is very relevant now, because the same
> > pattern that has happened before, it is happening again now. And the
> > pattern is that of the individual voice vs. the organization. We are like
> > ants next to a giant, we complain and say what we need, but we are so
> > little in comparison that our voice doesn't reach any ears.
>
>
> I don't agree with this, because I think that the WMF was the least of my
> problems with Wikimedia, when I decided to take my "wiki sabbatical".
> I actually have problems with 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Volunteering and Appreciation (was: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF)

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, 19:39 Gerard Meijssen, 
wrote:

>  When you add the animosity when you come with arguments that are not
> considered, it is too much.
>

Lack of mutual listening is a constant in our movement that I would like to
address one way or another. The animosity depends more on your own
animosity. You normally bring a high degree of animosity and inflexibility
into the conversations, so it's normal that you experience it back.

The notion that you get to cooperate and have mutual understanding is a
> myth.
>

In general I work towards mutual understanding. If more people would do the
same that reality would grow stronger.

So no, I disagree with you. Your premises are wrong. They do not even work
> for you.
>

Which premises? That participating in Meta is worthwhile? For me it works,
so please do not make judgements for me. If Meta is not for you it's fine,
I don't need to convince you of anything. However if you ever would need
global change, the tools available are not that many. You seem to dislike
Meta, but you don't offer any alternative.

Regards,
Micru

>
___
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] Volunteering and Appreciation (was: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF)

[David Cuenca Tudela]

@Richard:
Thanks for your words, they matter to me!
I took a look to the page that you linked and I did some changes (I
explained them on the talk page), I hope you are ok with them.
In principle it is a good idea, but as always a group of people is needed
to put it in practice, and it doesn't seem that there is enough social
capital to start that.

@Gerard:
It is true that Meta takes time, but it is the only place that can help us
coordinating a global movement so diverse as ours. It is also the only
neutral place where people from different projects can come and talk
without feeling that they are going to someone else's house (for instance
that is how it feels to go as a Wikidatan to Wikipedia and vice versa). And
without dialogue there cannot be real cooperation and mutual understanding.

Your private blog is fine, your work is fine, you can work your whole life
in isolation and be fine. However, if you want to listen to all the voices
and do something for them and for you, then you need some infrastructure,
social and technical. Meta is that place.

You seem to oppose volunteers receiving donations because of the overhead
that it will generate. I think that if that is the issue, then an effort
should be done to create shorter reports. Normally reports are long because
readers want them to be long, if there would be some understanding that
they take time from everyone, they could be shorter, or at least there
could be summaries.

Every person has a different situation and finds fulfillment in different
things, you cannot expect your situation to be universal, and if you are
fine with yours great for you. I am not so pleased with my situation, that
is why I want a change for myself, and of course for everyone that wants a
change too.

Regards,
Micru

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:14 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> One reason why you do not get much traction is because many people, myself
> included, found that there is little purpose in spending time on Meta. It
> is time spend in a frustrating way and it hardly ever results in the kind
> of results you hope for. The time necessary to keep up with what is written
> there robs you of the time for projects. Projects are practical and expand
> on the things you really care for. For me that is work on subjects that do
> not get the light of day from most others.
>
> My meta thoughts I publish on my blog [1], subjects are my projects and my
> thoughts as I progress .I write there and to be honest, I do not expect
> much of anyone; I am happy with a single person seeing the benefits and
> contributing in what I do. Currently I work on African politicians, my
> interest on Ottoman and Islamic history is on hold for the moment. I find
> that my thinking is often controversial.
>
> Currently there are some moves about paying admins, maybe others. I am
> strongly opposed because what you sponsor is not so much the work done but
> the ability to do the work *and *read Meta. Given reports of ninety pages,
> it is hardly feasible to keep up even with Wiki as a full time job. It is
> why we should not sponsor what are in effect policy tigers.
>
> When people talk about fulfilment and having a life, in my current job, I
> work 51 hours a week, I have plenty of slack time; a few minutes here and
> there. For that Wikidata is excellent. In addition I have to shop, cook,
> wash the dishes... and be loving to my wife.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> [1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/
>
> On 10 June 2018 at 02:08, Richard Ames  wrote:
>
> > Micru,
> >
> > I think a lot of us care.  I wish you well!
> >
> > Some time ago I tried to put some thoughts around volunteering at the
> WMF.
> > I thought it needed to be better planed / managed.
> >
> > I could not get enough interest to progress the conversation.
> >
> > You may wish to read
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Management
> > and the talk page thereof.
> >
> > Regards, Richard.
> >
> > On 10 June 2018 at 06:25, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> >
> > > Aubrey,
> > >
> > > You speak so much truth in your words that I'm feeling overwhelmed
> right
> > >
> >
> > 
> > ___
> > 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:/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Yaroslav,
what do you mean by people working at the front? Do you mean that you would
like some leadership in the movement?
(understanding leadership as the capacity to listen to many voices, and
challenge them)

I never heard of any company where there are rotations of people who
matter... in fact it is quite the opposite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_retention

Why do you feel that rotations are necessary? And wouldn't be the loss
greater than the gain?

Cheers,
Micru


On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:00 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Actually, concerning the group of people working "at the front" might work
> (as soon as it is not just about the support of the English Wikipedia), and
> I would not count sending them to Wikimania as a monetary reward - assuming
> this group undergoes regular rotations, and people who stop working leave
> the group.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> m...@anderswennersten.se
> > wrote:
>
> > James, I think you yourself earlier today put forwards a possible first
> > step in this direction.
> >
> > Support a group of people working "at the front" in neutralizing paid
> > editing and other bad editing, by giving them possiblity to meet IRL, and
> > why not at a session commited to this issue at WIkimania?
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> > Den 2018-06-10 kl. 20:09, skrev James Heilman:
> >
> >> There is a fair bit of literature on intrinsic versus extrinsic
> >> motivation.
> >> Wikipedia has been mostly built on the first. Introducing greater
> >> extrinsic
> >> motivation may decrease intrinsic motivation. Doing so should thus be
> done
> >> with great care, at a small scale that can be reversed, and be well
> >> studied
> >> to make sure the positive outweigh the negatives before being expanded.
> >> Not
> >> saying we should not look at this just that it may not result in the
> >> benefits we hope far. With respect to burn out, emergency physicians are
> >> generally paid well yet over half are experiencing burnout.
> >> https://wire.ama-assn.org/life-career/report-reveals-severit
> >> y-burnout-specialty
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi David,
> >>>
> >>> Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having
> long
> >>> arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to
> >>> agreement
> >>> and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up
> to
> >>> other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate
> this
> >>> "last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument
> >>> again,
> >>> I would not even respond.
> >>>
> >>> Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I
> >>> absolutely
> >>> agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can come
> >>> from
> >>> both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the
> external
> >>> parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary.
> >>> There
> >>> are many ways to reward people and at the same to avoid introducing
> >>> additional factors which I believe are harmful for the community.
> >>>
> >>> Concerning the premise that the existed model does not work anymore - I
> >>> just disagree with the premise. Indeed, we have for example burnout of
> >>> volunteers - I myself resigned the admin tools in the English Wikipedia
> >>> in
> >>> January, and stopped editing for a month in February, after the
> community
> >>> failed to do anything about long-term harassment of a certain user
> >>> directed
> >>> at me - but this unfortunately happened before and will happen later.
> >>> Specifically concerning the administrator issue, in the English
> >>> Wikipedia I
> >>> would still like to see any evidence that there is work which requires
> an
> >>> admin attention and does not get it. All backlogs I am aware of
> originate
> >>> not because administrators are lazy or there are too few of them, but
> >>> because things are being asked are not submitted to a right place -
> such
> >>> as
> >>> for example someone asking to resolve a long-standing content dispute
> >&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Yaroslav,

Thanks for explaining why you didn't answer. I agree with you, these kind
of conversations can be *very* exausting, but in this case I am not looking
for an argument, I am just trying to understand your position better. You
formulated your standing against "regular paid editors not listening", but
what about "people getting money to learn to listen"? Do you consider it to
be the same? If so, why? And if not, what is wrong about it?

To me if there is harassment, or if you have felt harassed, it is a clear
indication that we are not doing enough as a community to make feel
everybody welcome. There are things we can do as individuals, and others as
a community, but they require *a lot* of time and effort, and if admins
cannot spend time on that, then nobody else can.

@James, I agree with you that any change in the system should start at a
small scale and be studied. But as mentioned before, for me it is not only
about introducing money in the equation, it is about introducing it
together with wisdom, only then the extrinsic motivation will not take
over. To tackle burnout there is the idea of consultation teams from DBT
(basically support groups for professionals):
https://behavioraltech.org/resources/faqs/dbt-consultation-team/#team

@Anders, you seem pretty concerned about bad editing, but I think every
person should be free to decide where they want to put their effort. Some
might find your goal important, but not all. If you go to Cape Town, please
do discuss it there.

Regards,
Micru
___
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] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Yaroslav,

Yes, you already made your point earlier, and I addressed it here [1] and
also in the draft proposal to enable some volunteers to receive donations
for their work [2]. The fact that you neither commented on my reply to your
initial concern, nor on the proposal suggests me several possibilities. The
first one is that you are not listening to me [3], because you are not
interacting with the proposals that could counter your fears, and you are
not asking questions about them. The second one is that you don't trust
your own capacity to listen to other people even when money is involved.
That could also be, because people with the biggest fear that others do not
listen to them are indeed not well equiped to listen to other people. And
the third one could be that you are a victim of your own observations, you
might be so used to see white swans (people being paid not listening) in
your life that the mere idea that black swans (people being paid who
listen) exist might seem inconceibable for you. It could also be that you
find something wrong or that could be done better in my proposal or that
you have a better one, but since you haven't voiced your opinion, I don't
know what.

Concerning time and motivation, I consider that the people who are
contributing during their official working hours without explicit permision
to do so are effectively STEALING resources from their employer. This is of
course a partial view, because who owns actually the planetary resources?
And who is there to say that it is not reasonable to invest some in
Wikimedia projects? Although I understand and I feel empathy for the
volunteers that Bodhisattwa mentions, I feel that what Aubrey said before
holds true here: "You can't do good if there's no "you" in the first
place". So if I ever meet people like that I will tell them: you are not
doing any good here, because you are not putting yourself first.

You say that "we indeed have a lot of people who shout loud, do very
little, and get all kinds of credits for the work others have done". But we
also have many people who speak quietly, do very much, and get no credit
for what they are doing, and I do not see harm in recognizing their work
with donations, specially if they commit to improve themselves and to
listen. You don't explain why you don't like people who listen and who get
donations. Tbh, I do not like to have slaves in our movement, and I think
we should free them from this kind of ungrateful slavery that many seem to
be very happy about. At least slaves got some food, and a place to sleep.

And also listen to what Anders is saying, our model is not working any more
(it was not sustainable to start with), we have reached the limit, and now
it is time to reinvent ourselves. And as far as I know most of us here are
"bottom", so we are building "bottom-up".

@Aubrey: Thanks for your long answer :) I'll address it later on, to write
this email took me at least 5h of coming to the keyboard and leaving to
manage the stress. I hope a reply to your email takes me a bit less...

Regards,
Micru

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-May/090365.html
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Micru/Draft_RFC
[3]
https://www.csh.umn.edu/education/focus-areas/whole-systems-healing/leadership/deep-listening
___
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] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Aubrey,

You speak so much truth in your words that I'm feeling overwhelmed right
now. Because like a doctor who cares about his patient, you have just very
lovingly and figuratively told me, "you are deeply sick". It hurts, I
struggle accepting the truth, but deep inside I know that the only thing I
can do is to acknowledge your words, and as every human before of me ask
the perennial questions: "why me? what could have I done differently?"

You are right, I put my whole being into this project, I have seen it as a
way to find purpose, meaning, liberation, and instead what I have found is
the emptiness, my own and that of the people who are in the same situation
as me. Maybe they also need the same things as I do, but we never talked
about it so I don't know what they need, they never told me. Unlike other
people, however, I do know what I need to find purpose here.

To me purpose comes from the mutual acknowledgment with my peers that we
are here for something bigger than ourselves. We might never achieve those
dreams, but being next to someone who understands you because they are in
the same situation, makes life more bearable. But do we share the same
dream or aspiration at all? Has anyone ever take a collective vow to show
to themselves and to others that this is what matters in their life, and
that they are committing to it? I do not think anyone has ever done that.
You say that you have given up, but I do not want to reach that point. I
feel I want to try to build a real community environment and give everyone
a chance before giving up on them.

My desire as I was typing my email was to be seen, to be recognized by who
I am, to be understood even. That is something that only a true friend
could do for me, but as you say we are not good friends even if we did some
cool things together. We want to collect "all human knowledge", but what do
we actually know about each other? Is that not valid knowledge or what? In
my opinion the knowledge about the people in this movement, what they do,
who they are, what are their dreams, their aspirations, should be collected
with at least as much interest as we collect all other kind of knowledge.
Yet nobody does that.

If there is no collective information about who I am and what I have done
these years, how can I expect other people to value me as much as I want to
value them? I am as guilty as anyone else for not caring about my fellow
volunteers in this project, but that doesn't need to continue being that
way, it can change. I can commit to write a page on Meta about any
volunteer who wants their work on this project to be seen and recognized,
and of course anyone can do that for me to. We only need the will.

You say that that WMF bears responsibility in the "failure" of our
Wikisource community project, and that it is not important now. I do not
agree about the timing, I find it is very relevant now, because the same
pattern that has happened before, it is happening again now. And the
pattern is that of the individual voice vs. the organization. We are like
ants next to a giant, we complain and say what we need, but we are so
little in comparison that our voice doesn't reach any ears. For Wikisource
we thought, ok, if we are not being heard as individuals maybe we'll be
heard as an organization, but that didn't happen either! So now that I have
this issue about the Wikimedia Blog and I complain about it, I feel
helpless because it is again an individual standing up against a behemoth
that will not listen neither to myself as individual nor to myself as an
organization. What is there for me left to do?

The only thing it is left for me to do is to question the legitimacy of the
WMF as the leadership organization of the Wikimedia movement, understanding
leadership as the capacity to listen to many individual voices and act in a
way that is beneficial to all of them. If the WMF is incapable of listening
to my individual voice, then I want either a reform in the WMF to include
people who are able to listen at the top of the hierarchy, or a new
organization who can listen and create a common vision out of what it
hears. Things like the Strategy process are supposed to help with this
goal, however I feel it doesn't offer the space for day to day activities
or to challenge participants with new ideas, then it has no use for me.

So yes, I will follow your advice and I will pick my battles, putting
myself first. In this case my battle from this moment on is to recognize
the authority of the Wikimedia movement as a whole, and build leadership
legitimacy for me and all those in the movement who are able to listen. I
do believe that such people exist in our movement (I know a few), and that
they have a very high capacity for listening, but they themselves are not
being heard, and that is extremely unfair, and it is something I would like
to correct because me and the movement would benefit greatly. And as you
said money is necessary, so it has to be paid.

@SJ: as you c

[Wikimedia-l] Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Since Ed Erhart didn't honor my request of posting in this mailing lists to
discuss the plans to appropriate the Wikimedia Blog for the Wikimedia
Foundation [1] (although I would have preferred that he had done it himself
as he is the visible face behind this change, and therefore the burden of
proof is on him to prove to the community that this is the right change), I
am posting to this list with the hope that it can be discussed with people
for whom these things matter.

The Wikimedia Blog [2] has the title "News from Wikipedia and the Wikimedia
movement", and in case you don't know it it is run by the WMF [3]. This
blog has been operating under the existing URL for many years, and I
believe there was a general satisfaction with the way is run, the quality
of the stories, the amount, etc. However, as I mentioned in the Phabricator
ticket [1] I find the idea of moving the blog to the Wikimedia Foundation
site not adequate and not in the spirit of the Wikimedia movement.

I do not find the intention to move the blog to the WMF site to be in the
spirit of the Wikimedia movement because our movement is a diverse field
that is based on the idea of "commons" [4], and I feel that the Wikimedia
Blog is one of those commons. As I see it now the blog sits in the middle
of the community, and although it is run by the WMF, it can be seen as a
shared space between the WMF, the affiliates, and the community. By moving
the blog to the WMF site, the blog would lose its status as a commons and
it would become "the blog of the WMF". I think that if the WMF wants a
blog, they can create a new one, but they should leave the existing blog as
it is, as a shared space.

Intentions like this makes me think that in the WMF there is not enough
"wisdom", that strange quality that I am trying to make important in our
movement without much success [5]. This lack of wisdom is not only present
in the WMF, also in our movement I percieve, if not lack of wisdom, at
least lack of empathy [6]. It saddens me and it makes me stressed.

Issues like this one about the blog make me think that the movement needs
dedicated people that cultivate wisdom and encyclopedic knowledge about the
movement (I might have the former, but not the later), and that we put the
qualities of those people to the service of our community. I feel like a
little kid who wants to play a nice game with his friends, and then he sees
a big bulldozer coming to destroy his playing field. If it is not clear for
you, the "bulldozer" is how I see the "corporate WMF" coming to destroy the
soul of what I love most.

Tracking these kind of "behind the scenes" events takes me too much time. I
feel that I have reached more than the maximum of my capacity as a
"volunteer" (ha, what a joke of a word), and that I would risk losing my
current job if I am caught again participating in the Wikimedia projects
during my work hours, which I do without restrain. Not only that, it also
takes most of my waking time, specially because the movement has grown so
big that I feel overwhelmed in my capacity as metapedian [7]. I also feel
that it has started affecting my mental health. I do not know if I am the
only one, but as it is right now contributing to the Wikimedia projects is
*very* stressful, and since it is my main activity, I don't have time to
wind down, and since I do it as a "volunteer", I do not have free time to
recover. I also fear that if I would not do it myself nobody else would do
it, and if nobody would take their individual responsibility seriously,
then nobody would care for the good things in this world, and if nobody
would take care of the good things in this world, then we better start
saying goodbye to it RIGHT NOW, because the world is a fucking mess and
nobody is standing up to say the things as they are, or as they should be.

I spent 14 years of my life in the Wikimedia projects with various degrees
of involvement, working for free, and receiving compensation [8], and I
must say that the quality of my work has been exactly the same, my
responsability has been exactly the same, and it never mattered if I hold a
position of "power" or not, I always acted exactly the same, the only thing
that has changed is my "awareness", and my capacity to listen, which allows
me to have more effective conversations that build real consensus [9]. I
say all that because many people in this movement seem to have an issue
with money. Get over it guys. It is just a tool, like a computer, like a
hammer, like whatever tool you want to imagine. You take it, you use it,
and then you forget about it. That is the way it should be done. All the
rest is stories that people have in their heads that are totally wrong and
misinformed.

To go back to the topic of the Wikimedia Blog, I believe that, as one above
the average wise people said, "the best that can come from it is that
nothing happens".
I don't think it is done with bad intentions. I trust Ed as a reputable
member of the community, but I do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

During this weekend I've been preparing a draft for a Global RFC intended
for all admins of all Wikimedia projects. I would appreciate some
input/copy-editing.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru/Draft_RFC

And the same for the draft invitation:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru/Draft_RFC_message

After comments/modifications I would like to translate both pages to as
many languages as possible.

@Peter: I am aware that some members of every community might be resistant
to this idea, and it is thanks to those people that the idea will keep
evolving to address all concerns that may arise. Let's hope that many
people are interested in participating!

Cheers,
Micru

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Enwp may also be the most resistant project to having people paid to do
> admin work. Has the concept ever been discussed on enwp? If so, when and
> where, and what was the consensus if any?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Anders Wennersten
> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 1:36 PM
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?
>
> I fully support Micrus summary and comments, I see it them very up to
> the point I raised in my first input in this thread.
>
> And while I see this as a general problem for all versions/projects, I
> can see that a start on enwp would make sense. It has the biggest number
> of edits but also being the one where the "gains" to enter skewed info
> is very much the highest, making the pressure on admins when
> neutralizing being the toughest.
>
> For the model now being discussed I see it as comparable to "Wikipedian
> in Residence", perhaps like "Admins (patrollers) financially supported
> by a Community".
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 2018-06-01 kl. 10:51, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?
> > First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those
> > questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different
> > than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when
> more
> > questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I
> say
> > is being challenged.
> >
> > As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not
> > rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own
> > individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to
> feel
> > free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting
> individual
> > volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on
> > behalf of the WMF and other major donors.
> >
> > You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity
> > both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support
> > them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think
> that
> > we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built
> > progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is
> > important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the
> > condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to
> listen,
> > humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community
> and
> > their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that
> > needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal.
> >
> > Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the
> > moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy
> > and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that
> fulfill a
> > structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I
> > feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should
> > self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working
> > community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the
> > projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like
> > mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but
> of
> > course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered
> > carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and
> > would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:
> Just a question. When you pay volunteers, where does it stop?

First of all I must say that what I might say as an answer to those
questions reflects my understanding of this topic now, which is different
than when the conversation started, and that it will be different when more
questions like these arise, or when more input is given, or when what I say
is being challenged.

As I see it now, specially after the input by Pine, the system should not
rely on donations from the WMF only. Volunteers should have their own
individual way to develop a relationship with their donors in order to feel
free. The WMF might be part of this, either directly supporting individual
volunteers, or by supporting an affiliate that would administer funds on
behalf of the WMF and other major donors.

You ask "where does it stop?" and my interpretation is that the capacity
both to enable volunteers to accept donations, and to donors to support
them should be built organically over time. It is unrealistic to think that
we can suddenly open the system for everyone, it has to be built
progressively. Remember also that, from the input by Yaroslav, it is
important that volunteers are enabled to accept donations with the
condition that they develop personal faculties, like the ability to listen,
humbleness, and general understanding of the situation of the community and
their own. This takes time, and requires a kind of social structure that
needs to be built from scratch to facilitate the goal.

Regarding if it is only for admins or not, well, my understanding at the
moment is that there are tasks that require considerable personal energy
and dedication that is in short supply. There are also tasks that fulfill a
structural function in the community, and that are not valued as such. I
feel that for the first stage of this initiative volunteers should
self-assess how their work affects other members of the "working
community", that is the community of editors who perform tasks in the
projects. Be it in direct tasks like maintenance, or social tasks like
mediation. I consider that in general admins satisfy these criteria, but of
course, as always, there are many grey zones that should be considered
carefully on a case by case basis. If this initiative would progress and
would be successful, I imagine that volunteers that work for the broader
reading/data consuming community should also be considered eventually.
However, as said, I would prefer to start small to build understanding,
capacity, and empowerment where it has the biggest impact first, and expand
as conditions allow.

> is it only for English Wikipedia and if so why?

In my opinion, no. I consider myself a global volunteer of the Wikimedia
movement and as such I care for all volunteers in every project. I consider
that every Wikimedian deserves my attention, and my work to enable them to
be successful in whatever project they are working on (one of the reasons
why these days I am more involved in Wikidata). The reality is, however,
that en-wiki attracts the most attention from readers/donors because it has
established itself as a common ground for the whole planet. We could argue
if this is healthy or not, but it is the reality right now and we should
live with it while we find more inclusive approaches. Once said that, I do
consider that en-wiki should be given the attention that it deserves, while
considering smaller projects that also need this kind of approach.

Regards,
Micru
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Pine,

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:31 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> This sounds like another good question for Nicole.

Indeed, but she might be busy or in vacation. If she doesn't get involved
into this conversation in the next days I will open a new thread about it.

> * There are a number of people who are working on facilitating and
> improving the experience for new editors.

That is very nice, and it should happen (including the project you are
working on which seems very useful). Additionally to the experience of new
editors, one should consider the experience of old editors, because that
also reflects on the health of the community and the work atmosphere
created by them, which in the end also affects new editors. It's not the
same to work in an environment that is hostile and unfriendly, that in an
environment where people listen to each other, and try to find common
ground. As said before (I think), I believe this transformation has to
happen from initiative of the volunteers themselves. The WMF can help with
tools, employees, and resources if they are willing to, but if the
volunteers do not commit to change, nothing will be achieved.

> * I am very interested in non-WMF funding for affiliate and community
> projects.

You indeed make a good point about non-WMF funding. It's true that you are
very outspoken and I value what you do for the spirit of the community. I
think that is a value we should nurture in everybody, specially in
volunteers who accept donations, and that there should be a way for the
donations to flow directly to volunteers or to projects without passing
through the hands of the WMF. I do not know what would be the best approach
to materialize this in practice, either by using an external platform (like
Patreon) or building our own. However, it should be taken into account that
at the moment the main source of exposure, which are donation banners to
collect community money, are administered by the WMF, so that limits the
capacity to find donors for individuals or small organizations.

> If you or others would be interested, perhaps we could have a
> video-conference meeting at some point regarding ideas for non-WMF funding
> sources.

Excellent idea! I'll send you a private message with my availability/time
zone and when we find a suitable moment, maybe we could invite others to
join too. (If someone feels that they need to be in this conversation,
please do express your interest to me and I will take your request into
consideration when selecting a date)

Regards,
Micru
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Pine,
It is nice of you that you thought about including these topics in the WMF
strategy process, which I assume it is an ongoing process and not a one-off
event. However as the 2017 cycle ended, I am unable to find the way to
incorporate new ideas into the process. I would have expected to find a
discussion page where new input can be taken into consideration, but it
might not be the case.

I consider that the importance of admin decline in Wikipedias is really
high, and at the same time I understand why you or anybody else would not
like to do some tasks as volunteer. For this reason, while I do not like
the idea of employees doing project activities, I feel that by creating a
scheme where volunteers become empowered/liberated from work through direct
donations could be part of a practical way of addressing the issue. I'm
very sensitive to potential pitfalls and for this reason I consider that
the feedback given by Yaroslav is extremely important, and that any
donation to volunteers should happen only if they are committed to a
personal transformation, that involves developing the capacity for
listening, humility, and other values important for the project. I think
this is only part of the story so far, and at this point the only thing I
can do in my capacity as volunteer is to steward the conversation, and
bring it to an increasing number of people as the understanding on this
topic increases.

These are difficult topics indeed, but only by dealing with them we can
grow as a movement.

Regards,
Micru
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru )

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Based on the limited information that I have, it seems to me that there
> are already numerous contribtors who are paid to engage in promotional
> activity on Wikipedia, whether declared or undeclared, and the community
> does not have adequate human resources to patrol and investigate all of
> these. I expect that the problem will continue to get worse unless WMF gets
> more energetic about investigating TOS violations involving undeclared COI
> and WMF becomes predictable about extracting financial penalties that are
> severe enough to deter most of the undeclared COI contributors.
> Unfortunately, as far as I know, WMF has been largely passive about the
> problem of undeclared COI and has not announced any plans to become more
> aggressive.
> As nice as it would be if everyone could afford and was willing to work
> for free, this is not the case. If it was then we could safely eliminate
> the salaries of the entire WMF staff. However, I think that financial
> support makes sense for some paid staff to handle activities like network
> operations, interface design, legal defense, and responses to safety
> problems.
> Some types of Wikimedia activities are better suited to volunteer work
> than others. I encourage volunteers to avoid burning themselves out; there
> are some activities that I did in the past that I would not do again as a
> volunteer. Better to be an occasional and long-term contributor than to get
> burned out.
> I have some ideas about how to pay people to do certain types of work
> that, so far, WMF has not funded. Unfortunately these are merely ideas and
> not likely to become reality in the short term. Perhaps later this year or
> in the next few years I will have specific proposals with reasonable
> chances for sustainable success.
> I share the concern that paid participants in the Wikiverse, like staff of
> WMF and affiliates, WMF grantees, and potentially like the paid
> contributors that I have in mind, may become so numerous that they can
> drown out the consensus of the volunteers. Unfortunately I do not have easy
> solutions for this issue. We could prohibit all paid contributors from
> participating in  RFCs and related decision processes, but we would be
> largely relying on people to self-disclose their paid status, which seems
> unlikely to be adequate.
> Perhaps the issues that we are discussing in this conversation should be
> included in the Structures and Systems prong of the WMF strategy process. I
> am pinging Nicole to ask for her input about that idea. However, keep in
> mind that the strategy process is financially sponsored by WMF, and it is
> not free of potential conflicts with the interests of WMF.
> I wish that I could be more optimistic. These are difficult topics.
> Regards,
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> null
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hey Yaroslav, thanks for sharing your view. I find very interesting what
you mention, and if you have experienced yourself it must be a real effect
on people. Five years ago, when I was awarded an IEG grant, I didn't feel
the same effect on me. In fact it was quite the opposite, I felt under
pressure to be worthy of it, and I made an additional effort to make sure
that all people I talked to felt listened. This is not easy, because it
requires the will to understand what the other person is trying to say, and
admit that they have a point.
Of course this is just limited to my experience, but if there was a
requirement to commit to listen empathically before receiving any kind of
fund, perhaps the effect of feeling "superior" or "entitled" could be
neutered.

One of the things that I appreciate most about our movement is the capacity
to look deeply into potential pitfalls and to put safeguards against them.
I see this here too. That something seems risky doesn't mean that it
shouldn't be done, but it is necessary to discuss it thoroughly and see
under which conditions it would be safe(r). And still, the experience is
invaluable and can show whether the fears were justified or not, and from
there, iterate and improve.

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be wonderful if the incentive of the
donation could be used as a way to ensure that the recipients are commited
to train themselves in a set of values? For instance you mentioned one that
is extremely important, the ability to listen, to make space for what the
other person is saying, and to incorporate their view into the
conversation. I think that there are more values that would be very welcome
in our community, like easing the pressure on one another, calming
arguments instead of fueling them, and in general ensuring that civility
and harmony have priority above anything else.
There must have been initiatives before to introduce these kind of values,
but I am unable to find them. Any pointer would be appreciated.

You also mentioned "paid contributors, who would be defending their output
just because they need it to report for their salary". As said before, I do
not envision donations to volunteers as a "salary", but more as a token of
appreciation from the community, while keeping the independence to act
according to their will. I do not know which kind of mechanisms should be
put in place for the community to make sure that only the right people
would receive this kind of gratitude, however I doubt that they would be
"reporting for their salary" (another kind of slavery), but instead
interacting with the community normally and making sure that they behave
excellently.

Thank you for digging deeper into this topic.

Regards,
Micru
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community
and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless
hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been
and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as
me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged.
You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without
support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources
does not mean that other people might not need them.

Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs
are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own
devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In
that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of
what is common practice now.
In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community
(more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also
should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.

When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid
giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place
to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at
this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real
estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have
been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of
community.

I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think
that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect
of what they do"?

Regards,
Micru
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

> My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning)
> made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting
> providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution
> advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect.

I do not know enough about the bill to comment on this. I can say that even
if the Foundation was made legally responsible for the content, in general
the level of care and attention to detail seems to be quite high in most
Wikipedias.

> The Foundation has frequently tried a number of paid editing trials,

Can you please point to me where to find them?
Has been tried before donating directly to volunteers with no strings
attached?

> and I think that's a good thing because donors are likely to stabilize
> at paying enough to pay all the past, present, and future wikipedias a
> very comfortable hourly rate, plus interest, still have a large and
> swiftly endowment to figure out how to invest responsibly, and will be
> able to outfit offline applications such as space hotels with a new
> LCARS skin I am trying to get Mike Okuda to commission.

Realistically the money is always tight, however even with a limited amount
of money it is still possible to do nice things for volunteers or at least
for some of them.
The Star Trek aspect of this shouldn't be fancy ideas about the future, but
realistic ones like enabling volunteers to follow their passion, freeing
them from work whenever possible, supporting them in the mission, and
joining efforts with other non-profit organizations to create a favorable
social climate.

> I think the Foundation employees...

Here I was referring mainly to volunteers, specially those who take a heavy
burden on their shoulders individually. It can be argued whether WMF
employees are receiving enough generosity from the Foundation or not, what
is clear is that employees already receive *some* generosity. On the other
hand volunteers receive no direct generosity, unless they find other
activities that qualify to apply for a grant. That in my opinion conveys
the message that if you are a volunteer you don't deserve to be taken care
of by the community just by doing what you are doing, which in my opinion
is a very negative message that we are giving to volunteers, donors, and to
society in general.

Kind regards,
Micru
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

1) The donations from the Wikimedia supporters do not have any strings
attached, they are given in good faith with no expectations of anything
back. There are many charities that donate to the WMF without any fixed
metrics/kpi about what the WMF is doing with the money. Given these two
precedents it seems possible in my view to donate money either as an
individual or as an organization to another individual/organization without
expecting anything from them. And I do not have any information about that
fact having a negative impact on any charity organisation that has donated
to the WMF in the past. Can you please explain how it would affect
negatively the impact status of the WMF or any affiliate if they would
donate money with no conditions attached?

2) Can you cite any legal precedent where given donations was considered as
taking any kind of role?

3) How is that different from the risk that volunteers are already facing?
Do you have any example of a volunteer suffering consequences by receiving
a grant from the WMF?

Regards,
Micru

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> every grant from the WMF or affiliates have fixed metrics/kpi(key
> performance indicators) to ensure the grabt is doing what it set out to do,
> failing to do that would negatively impact its charity status.
>
> on the legal side the issue is centered around whether the wmf has any
> editorial oversight, even by giving grants or donations that specifically
> focus on the performance of admin/sysop functions of individuals  it could
> be consider as taking such a role.
>
> for the individuals sadly volunteers within the community have already
> experienced the dark side of what it is to be a wikimedian, to step that up
> to receiving some form of payment would potentially make people responsible
> for the content or seen as responsible putting them at greater risk.
>
>
>
> On 26 May 2018 at 22:49, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
>
> > I have the feeling that we need to clarify what it means to be a "paid
> > admin" vs a "community-supported volunteer".
> >
> > In my definition, a "paid admin" is a person who receives a salary to
> > perform a delimited function not necessarily aligned with his/her will.
> > There is a contractual obligation where a organization is paying the
> person
> > in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.
> >
> > On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer
> > who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while
> > doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of
> > the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled
> > up in a "project grant".
> >
> > Do these definitions make the distinction clear?
> >
> > Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a
> > grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being
> legally
> > responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a
> > donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might
> be
> > wrong.
> > And in which way would that expose them in their countries?
> >
> > I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in
> this
> > conversation with a simple thank you.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> > ___
> > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> Order
> here
> <https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
> .
> ___
> 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...@l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

I have the feeling that we need to clarify what it means to be a "paid
admin" vs a "community-supported volunteer".

In my definition, a "paid admin" is a person who receives a salary to
perform a delimited function not necessarily aligned with his/her will.
There is a contractual obligation where a organization is paying the person
in exchange of some tasks. Which is basically the definition of a job.

On the other hand I see a "community-supported volunteer" as a volunteer
who receives a grant/donation to be able to support himself/herself while
doing whatever he/she feels like doing in the project (with oversight of
the community), which normally are core activities that cannot be bundled
up in a "project grant".

Do these definitions make the distinction clear?

Gnangarra, given those definitions, could you please explain how giving a
grant/donation to a person shifts the WMF or an affiliate to being legally
responsible for the actions of this person? As I see it if I make a
donation to a person I am not responsible for their actions, but I might be
wrong.
And in which way would that expose them in their countries?

I would also like to express my gratitude to you for participating in this
conversation with a simple thank you.

Regards,
Micru
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

> it would be too controversial having paid administrators.

Controversial for who? So far nobody stepped into this conversation to say
that direct support of community members with community money is not ok for
whatever reason they might have.

Regards,
Micru

On Sat, 26 May 2018, 10:35 Anders Wennersten, 
wrote:

> My own reflection reading this discussion is that there is a difference
> between vandalism and POV pushing.
>
> For vandalism we have better routines in place and also tools like ORES,
> and also a system of steward who can acts in cases of crosswikivandals
>
> For Pov pushing and especially cross wiki POV pushing we have no
> routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for
> these cases.
>
> I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in
> their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone
> in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.
>
> And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open
> to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough
> POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things
> getting nasty
>
> I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too
> controversial having paid administrators.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or
> >> not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly
> >> established process.
> >>
> > That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to
> > perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It
> might
> > be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
> > "profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
> > becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
> > full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
> > professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
> > ethics regulation, and licensing.
> >
> > In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
> > based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
> > that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven
> > spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
> > changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
> > consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.
> >
> >  From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After
> > this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and
> > see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
> > community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it
> > happen.
> >
> > I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this
> mailing
> > list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
> > promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
> > there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading
> > this message to at least join this conversation.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> > ___
> > 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>
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or
> not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly
> established process.
>

That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to
perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It might
be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
"profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
ethics regulation, and licensing.

In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven
spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.

From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After
this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and
see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it
happen.

I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this mailing
list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading
this message to at least join this conversation.

Regards,
Micru
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:16 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Paid professionals work alongside volunteers in fire departments and
> hospitals throughout the world. Are there any essential
> characteristics which exclude such cooperation in Wikipedia?
>

There is a difference, and that is the degree of professionalization. The
role of admin is not a profession because there are no stablished bodies
that have defined who is a professional admin and who is not. And still it
would be difficult to professionalize since the distinction between
volunteer/paid professional could make some people feel excluded (as in,
"why is this person getting money for something I do for free?").


> > the will to cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the
> will to make a profit out of it
>
> Does that exclude the financially disadvantaged?


The wikimedia projects assume that you have time to spare without any
compensation and that everybody can do the same. That is not true. In my
view the wikimedia projects are already excluding the financially
disadvantaged, because the people who are part of this project do not have
the direct experience necessary to understand that their reality is not the
same as the reality out there, and as a result they might find difficult to
take the perspective of a person who needs the financial means in order to
be able to contribute.

However, if the doors of generosity were open towards volunteers and flocks
of people were attracted because of it, there wouldn't be enough resources
for everyone, then how could I tell who deserves it most? I would follow a
progressive approach by offering first little, and then more depending on
how much the community appreciates the skills and involvement of this
person in the mission. There are many ways to keep track of said
appreciation, but writing encyclopedic articles about each
community-supported volunteer (not on Wikipedia) could be very effective,
also to create community bonds and to understand better the person behind
the nickname.

If anything, we would remove the financial barrier that is keeping some
(many?) people from contributing in the first place.

The thing is that a project like this should start small in order to learn
from the experience what works socially/practically, and how it integrates
conceptually into our worldview. I believe that it should be totally in the
hands of the volunteer community, because appraisal of every day tasks can
only be done if you are involved in the project and understand the
challenges, the tasks, the pitfalls, and what it means to do a good job.
For instance I normally review property proposals for creation in Wikidata,
it requires a set of skills and dedication that only the handful of people
who understand the challenge could evaluate. And there is more, how do you
evaluate the time spent building community and creating a good atmosphere
unless you are part of it?

I appreciate your questions because they are very interesting to examine.
Regarding the reputation tracking system I assume that it would only work
for the restricted use-case of direct article editing (cf. exopedianism),
but not for the whole range of tasks that volunteers perform. In any case,
thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Regards,
Micru
___
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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Anders,

I hear your worries. Indeed it seems that resisting the push is taking more
effort than what the community can take under the current circumstances, or
at least it doesn't look sustainable (the RfA chart shown in the last
Signpost [1] is really clear on that regard).

However, by providing different circumstances it could be feasible to keep
the ground or even regain it. It seems to be the case that since people are
editing in their free time, they do not have time for themselves to recover
from the attrition and eventually they give up, or find something more
fulfilling to do. In my case it has been like that. I started as Wikipedia
editor, but over the years I have been changing roles, and now I do not
have so much contact with Wikipedia as I used to have in the past.

You mentioned that paid roles would be helpful. I am concerned about how
this would be implemented. If you were thinking about the classical
employer-employee relationship, I am totally against it. The reason is that
there is so much effort wasted tracking and keeping people accountable,
that in the end the only thing keeping the relationship alive is money and
statistics, and I feel that is not the basis for a healthy relationship for
a Wikimedia *volunteer* (I highlight that because I feel that the will to
cooperate in our mission should have precedence over the will to make a
profit out of it).

It is also realistic to think that if I want a volunteer dedicated 100% to
the mission, and I want to keep them on the project for their whole life,
then I will have to free him somehow from the duties of making a living.
Instead of paid roles, I would be more open to discussing the creation of a
common fund that volunteers could administer themselves to cover their
living expenses, partially or fully, depending on the resources.

In my opinion there should be options for everyone. Options for donating
free time without expecting anything in exchange (already exists), options
to be an employee for when it is difficult to find talent within the
community (already exists), and options to allow the community to take care
of the needs of volunteers (does not exist, grants are not given to a
person, but to a project).

I'm looking forward to hearing more views on the topic.

Regards,
Micru

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-05-24/Op-ed

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Anders Wennersten <
m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:

> My main worry, during my daily patrolling, is if we manage to neutralize
> the bad editing (vandalism, POV pushing) or if the destructive editing is
> slowly successfully degenerating the great content we have created in our
> projects.
>
> In todays Sign-post it indicates an accelerating rate of decrease of
> admins on enwp, and some likewise tendency on dewp. Is this a sign that the
> "good" powers are losing out to the "bad" ones?
>
> I also seen a very passive response to two massPOV editing . One, on 35
> versions, is related to Hans Asperger, to state he was a nazi doctor
> (false, even if he was somewhat passive in some cases). Here dewp reacted
> quickly and after a while enwp, so these articles are OK, but in most of
> the other 35 this false info lies unchanged. Also I react to the effort
> from GazProm promoting their  propaganda article /Football for Friendship /
> in up to 80 version, and where almost noone has neutralized it.
>
> Are  we  slowly losing the battle against the "evil" forces? And if so, is
> then our new strategy (being good in itself) and the plan to implement  it
> all too naive? For example I like very much the ambition to help out on
> areas in the world where Wikipedia etc is not established, but would it be
> more correct to put effort in regaining control of the very many Wikipedia
> versions, that is definitely degenerating and we are loosing what has been
> done on these. (as a test look at "latest changes" on some of the versions
> with low editing, it is depressing to see that there often are more vandal
> editing, not being undone, then proper new material)
>
> Would it be most appropriate if we all in a 2-3 years effort concentrated
> on getting (back) control on our material in our projects, before we start
> efforts in implementing the strategy we have agreed upon. Perhaps a number
> of paid admins, vandal/pov fighters, about as many as there are stewards
> today, would be necessary not to lose out.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> //
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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,
> 




-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recent statement on the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Thanks for the explanation, James!

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:06 AM, James Hare  wrote:

> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:55 AM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Eileen,
> >
> > Thanks for the follow up and for the nice letter that you wrote to the
> > Turkish Minister. There is something I do not understand about Turkey's
> > block and maybe you (or somebody else) could offer some insights about
> it.
> >
> > Apparently the ban was issued because it was felt that Turkey was
> > misrepresented in some articles. My question is, why didn't they block
> only
> > the offending articles (as they did in the past with other articles)
> > instead of the whole site?
> >
> > Regards,
> > David
>
>
>
> One of the effects of Wikipedia's HTTPS-only policy is that ISPs, the
> Turkish government, and other parties who may be monitoring traffic can't
> see the contents of the traffic – they can only see a connection between
> your machine and "wikipedia.org". The option to selectively block traffic
> doesn't exist because they can't see what that traffic even is.
>
> So why not allow HTTP-only connections if it gives the Turkish government
> the option to block the articles it wants and letting the others through?
> Political implications of that aside, the result is that a user couldn't
> really guarantee what they were reading was Wikipedia. Which is to say, the
> policy of only allowing access to Wikipedia over a secure connection is how
> Wikipedia guarantees that you are actually reading Wikipedia and not
> Wikipedia plus injected propaganda or injected advertisements or what have
> you.
>
>
> 
> James Hare
> Associate Product Manager
> Wikimedia Foundation
> https://wikimediafoundation.org
> ___
> 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>
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] Recent statement on the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Eileen,

Thanks for the follow up and for the nice letter that you wrote to the
Turkish Minister. There is something I do not understand about Turkey's
block and maybe you (or somebody else) could offer some insights about it.

Apparently the ban was issued because it was felt that Turkey was
misrepresented in some articles. My question is, why didn't they block only
the offending articles (as they did in the past with other articles)
instead of the whole site?

Regards,
David

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:22 AM, Eileen Hershenov  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thank you to everyone who participated and supported the #WeMissTurkey
> efforts marking the one-year anniversary of the block in Turkey of all
> language versions of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed
> to restoring access to Wikipedia in full, upholding our values and stance
> against censorship, and supporting the local Wikimedia community in Turkey.
>
> As part of our ongoing efforts, we have been monitoring discussions and
> mentions in the media around Wikipedia in Turkey. Last Friday, May 18, the
> Turkish Minister of Transport, Maritime, and Communications, Ahmet Arslan,
> made a number of incorrect comments[0] to the press in Turkey about
> Wikimedia and the block of Wikipedia. Minister Arslan’s position includes
> oversight of the BTK, the Internet Regulatory Agency that sought the block
> of Wikipedia.
>
> The Foundation has replied to the Minister’s statements with an open letter
> sent to the Minister and shared with the media who covered the Minister's
> statements. The statement has also been shared with the local Wikimedia
> community in Turkey, and we have posted it on the Wikimedia Blog in both
> English[1] and Turkish[2] to address any further public confusion.
>
> We will continue to keep you updated as we work with the local community to
> monitor the situation, and take appropriate actions to restore access to
> Wikipedia in Turkey.
>
> Thank you,
> Eileen
>
> [0] https://www.ntv.com.tr/teknoloji/bakan-ahmet-arslandan-wikipedia-
> aciklamasi,UaPHfIgSq0yDPoVfXo5SOw
> [1]  https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/05/22/a-letter-to-
> minister-ahmet-arslan/
> [2]  https://blog.wikimedia.org/tr/2018/05/22/bakan-ahmet-arslan-
> vikipedi-dunyadaki-herkes-tarafindan-gelistirilmeye-
> aciktir-ve-turkiyedeki-
> editorler-icin-de-acik-olmalidir/
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] [Wikidata] Knowledge Integrity: A proposed Wikimedia Foundation cross-departmental program for 2018-2019

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Dario&Jake,

Thanks for sharing the plan. Any possibility to include in the plan a
system to archive all reference URLs and external identifiers linked from
Wikidata?
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T143488

Additionally I think it would be interesting to have some research done on
which references are DISPLAYED or CLICKED the most on several Wikipedias.
We know already which sources are cited the most, but on which sources do
users hover their mouse the most? Can we also identify which statements are
involved? It could be used to expand them, improve them, or add more
context.

Finally I believe it would be that a tool to assess the
openness/accessibility of the sources of any given article could be really
interesting.

Regards,
Micru


On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> (apologies for cross-posting)
>
> We’re sharing a proposed program
> 
>  for the Wikimedia Foundation’s upcoming fiscal year
> 
>  (2018-19) and *would love to hear from you*. This plan builds
> extensively on projects and initiatives driven by volunteer contributors
> and organizations in the Wikimedia movement, so your input is critical.
>
> Why a “knowledge integrity” program?
>
> Increased global attention is directed at the problem of misinformation
> and how media consumers are struggling to distinguish fact from fiction.
> Meanwhile, thanks to the sources they cite, Wikimedia projects are uniquely
> positioned as a reliable gateway to accessing quality information in the
> broader knowledge ecosystem. How can we mobilize these citations as a
> resource and turn them into a broader, linked infrastructure of trust to
> serve the entire internet?  Free knowledge grounds itself in verifiability
> and transparent attribution policies. Let’s look at 4 data points as
> motivating stories:
>
>- Wikipedia sends tens of millions of people to external sources each
>year. We want to conduct research to understand why and how readers leave
>our site.
>- The Internet Archive has fixed over 4 million dead links on
>Wikipedia. We want to enable instantaneous archiving of every link on all
>Wikipedias to ensure the long-term preservation of the sources Wikipedians
>cite.
>- #1Lib1Ref reaches 6 million people on social media. We want to bring
>#1Lib1Ref to Wikidata and more languages, spreading the message that
>references improve quality.
>- 33% of Wikidata items represent sources (journals, books, works). We
>want to strengthen community efforts to build a high-quality, collaborative
>database of all cited and citable sources.
>
> A 5-year vision
>
> Our 5-year vision for the Knowledge Integrity program is to establish
> Wikimedia as the hub of a federated, trusted knowledge ecosystem. We plan
> to get there by creating:
>
>- A roadmap to a mature, technically and socially scalable, central
>repository of sources.
>- Developed network of partners and technical collaborators to
>contribute to and reuse data about citations.
>- Increased public awareness of Wikimedia’s vital role in information
>literacy and fact-checking.
>
>
> 5 directions for 2018-2019
>
> We have identified 5 levers of Knowledge Integrity: research,
> infrastructure and tooling, access and preservation, outreach, and
> awareness. Here’s what we want to do with each:
>
>
>1. Continue to conduct research to understand how readers access
>sources and how to help contributors improve citation quality.
>2. Improve tools for linking information to external sources,
>catalogs, and repositories.
>3. Ensure resources cited across Wikimedia projects are accessible in
>perpetuity.
>4. Grow outreach and partnerships to scale community and technical
>efforts to improve the structure and quality of citations.
>5. Increase public awareness of the processes Wikimedians follow to
>verify information and articulate a collective vision for a trustable web.
>
>
> Who is involved?
>
> The core teams involved in this proposal are:
>
>- Wikimedia Foundation Technology’s Research Team
>- Wikimedia Foundation Community Engagement’s Programs team (Wikipedia
>Library)
>- Wikimedia Deutschland Engineering’s Wikidata team
>
>
> The initiative also spans across an ecosystem of possible partners
> including the Internet Archive, ContentMine, Crossref, OCLC, OpenCitations,
> and Zotero. It is further made possible by funders including the Sloan,
> Gordon and Betty Moore, and Simons Foundations who have been supporting the
> WikiCite initiative to date.
>
> How you can participate
>
> You can read the fine details of our proposed year-1 plan, and provide
> your feedback, on mediawiki.org: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Social: non-profit social networking service ?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Unlike Erik, I don't think an open alternative to Facebook will emerge, the
inertia at this point is too big and you would need a huge critical mass of
people (and organizations) to make it useful. Hard to attain. The only
contender on the long run to FB could be reddit, because they seem to be
moving in that direction with the new profiles and so on. They have almost
all the features that make a (general purpose) social network attractive,
the amount of users, and the content.

Regarding the question if the WMF should build a social network for the
masses, I don't think it should. A general purpose social network is mainly
used for sharing personal events, viral stories, cat pictures, and so on.
It does not offer long-term cultural value. A more interesting approach
could be a niche social network, like a *social **learning network*. It is
related to open knowledge, it offers some cultural value and it doesn't
attract the same kind of idiocy that general networks attract.
A social learning network could be oriented to life-long self-learning
where users would share stories about what are they discovering each day,
groups, creation of materials, etc. It could be said that users are already
discovering new knowledge in our sites, but they have to go to other
websites to talk about it... (for instance /r/wikipedia)

Another possible kind of network, could be one geared towards *governance
and public oversight*. This is perhaps more interesting for governments,
institutions and organizations, but still in the realm of the Wikimedia
movement, because we also need some kind of social governance to build
understanding and consensus both ways bottom-up, and top-down, and
inter-organization. Not that we don't do it already, but perhaps with
specific tools it would be easier.


Regards,
Micru
___
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] What to do when the WMF is stingy with the community?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hola Ivan,

Así es, la idea es que la WMF pague las becas de viaje para la gente que no
se lo puede permitir, y el resto de la conferencia lo pagaría la WMDE.

En este caso la cantidad para la bolsa de viaje me parece demasiada baja
para hacer que este evento (la primera vez que se realiza) funcione
adecuadamente.

Saludos,
David

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Ivan Martínez  wrote:

> Hola David.
>
> Hasta donde entendí está escrito en la subvención solicitada un total de 36
> 000 euros, y el resto iba a ser cubierto por fondos que provienen de WMDE.
> ¿No es así?. Como voluntario del Comité de Subvenciones a Conferencias,
> quedo pendiente y en consideración de tú comentario.
>
> Saludos,
>
> 2017-06-28 13:02 GMT-05:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
>
> > hi David,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:52 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Recently the review for the Wikidata conference grant application has
> > > started, and I have complained that the funds allocated are insuficient
> > to
> > > cover the needs of the grants. The requested amount for the grants was
> > > 36,000 EUR, but in my opinion that should be at least 72,000 EUR.
> > >
> >
> > You realize that this is pretty much what an annual budget of a small
> > Wikimedia chapter is, right?
> >
> >
> > > I have the feeling that the WMF is sitting on a pile of money just
> giving
> > > breadcrumbs to the community, and the community has to suffer in
> silence
> > > about this stinginess.
> > >
> >
> > The WMF, just as the movement, has a responsibility to our donors, to
> spend
> > the money wisely and frugally. We surely do not always do so, but we try.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Why are there two standards? One standard seems to be that everything
> > that
> > >
> > the WMF needs to allocate can go unsupervised, whereas another standard
> > > seems to apply to community activities where every penny is so
> supervised
> > > that it becomes a pain in the ass to organize anything big.
> > >
> >
> > The WMF's spending is actually reviewed and commented on by the community
> > and the FDC.
> >
> >
> >
> > > The Wikidata Conference needs more funds to be a success and I think
> that
> > > in the grand scheme of things, the money requested is just peanuts
> > compared
> > > to the money that the WMF has collected from donors.
> > >
> >
> > I believe we have a responsibility to treat our donor's contributions
> with
> > respect and care. I don't think that 70k Euro is peanuts, and rarely you
> > will find any foundation or NGO considering such an amount to be
> > insignificant.
> >
> >  best,
> >
> > dariusz
> > ___
> > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Iván Martínez*
>
> *Presidente - Wikimedia México A.C.User:ProtoplasmaKid *
>
> // Mis comunicaciones respecto a Wikipedia/Wikimedia pueden tener una
> moratoria en su atención debido a que es un voluntariado.
> // Ayuda a proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora: https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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>
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] What to do when the WMF is stingy with the community?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Dariusz,

What is the point of spending the funds frugally if our mission is not
accomplished? Why do we need to compare an event of this magnitude to a
small chapter?

The money is there to be used, not to sit on top of it without knowing what
to do with it. If the WMF doesn't know what to do with it, at least it
should go back to the community in the form of grants like this one. And if
that is not feasible, then it should be given back to donnors. And if that
is not feasible, then we should stop taking so much money because it seems
that we don't need it. Or do we?

Cheers,
Micru

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> hi David,
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:52 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > Recently the review for the Wikidata conference grant application has
> > started, and I have complained that the funds allocated are insuficient
> to
> > cover the needs of the grants. The requested amount for the grants was
> > 36,000 EUR, but in my opinion that should be at least 72,000 EUR.
> >
>
> You realize that this is pretty much what an annual budget of a small
> Wikimedia chapter is, right?
>
>
> > I have the feeling that the WMF is sitting on a pile of money just giving
> > breadcrumbs to the community, and the community has to suffer in silence
> > about this stinginess.
> >
>
> The WMF, just as the movement, has a responsibility to our donors, to spend
> the money wisely and frugally. We surely do not always do so, but we try.
>
>
>
> > Why are there two standards? One standard seems to be that everything
> that
> >
> the WMF needs to allocate can go unsupervised, whereas another standard
> > seems to apply to community activities where every penny is so supervised
> > that it becomes a pain in the ass to organize anything big.
> >
>
> The WMF's spending is actually reviewed and commented on by the community
> and the FDC.
>
>
>
> > The Wikidata Conference needs more funds to be a success and I think that
> > in the grand scheme of things, the money requested is just peanuts
> compared
> > to the money that the WMF has collected from donors.
> >
>
> I believe we have a responsibility to treat our donor's contributions with
> respect and care. I don't think that 70k Euro is peanuts, and rarely you
> will find any foundation or NGO considering such an amount to be
> insignificant.
>
>  best,
>
> dariusz
> ___
> 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>




-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] What to do when the WMF is stingy with the community?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hello,

Recently the review for the Wikidata conference grant application has
started, and I have complained that the funds allocated are insuficient to
cover the needs of the grants. The requested amount for the grants was
36,000 EUR, but in my opinion that should be at least 72,000 EUR.

I have the feeling that the WMF is sitting on a pile of money just giving
breadcrumbs to the community, and the community has to suffer in silence
about this stinginess.
What can we do as a community to request with a clear voice the funds that
we need?

Why are there two standards? One standard seems to be that everything that
the WMF needs to allocate can go unsupervised, whereas another standard
seems to apply to community activities where every penny is so supervised
that it becomes a pain in the ass to organize anything big.

The Wikidata Conference needs more funds to be a success and I think that
in the grand scheme of things, the money requested is just peanuts compared
to the money that the WMF has collected from donors.

If things have to be done well, then the community has every right to claim
the money from the donors. The WMF has no right to appropriate that money
and use it as a hammer to sabotage events that could have a real impact
like the Wikidata Conference.

I request that the amount of funds allocated for grants to be increased
from 36,000 eur to 72,000 eur, and this is an informed request that I
perform both as a community member and as a member of the Wikidata
Conference Grants Committee.

The link to my complaint can be found here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Conference/WMDE/WikidataCon#Complaint_about_this_grant_application

The link to the Wikidata Conference Grants Commitee can be found here:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikidataCon_2017/Volunteer/Scholarships_committee

I hope to have some feedback about this complaint. Thank you,
Micru
___
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] Let's set up a Tor onion service for Wikipedia

[David Cuenca Tudela]

I think that's an excellent idea and very much aligned with our commitment
to provide free information also for those who are living under unfavorable
conditions.

I personally endorse it.

Thanks Cristian for suggesting it.

Regards,
Micru

On Jun 5, 2017 19:11, "Cristian Consonni"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have written a proposal about setting up an onion (hidden) service to
> serve Wikipedia over Tor:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/A_Tor_
> Onion_Service_for_Wikipedia
>
> I was thinking about this and I also discovered that the Internet
> Archive is experimenting with a very similar idea:
> www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/750-
> Freedom-of-Information.html
>
> I would like to have some feedback on this, I am also in contact with
> the author of the aforementioned proxy which could be able to give some
> help in setting it up.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cristian
>
> ___
> 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] Katherine Maher is making me happy this week

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for starting that initiative, it's really good!

I think that if you were able to come up with that, you would be able to
come up with even bigger things. I have faith in you :)

Regards,
Micru

On Jun 2, 2017 21:20, "Andrew Lih"  wrote:

> Thanks David.
>
> More than a year ago, I started a “What’s Making You Happy” prompt in the
> Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group as a weekly invitation for folks to share
> their stories, large and small. I’m glad to see it spreading to more
> corners of our community.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/
>
> -Andrew
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:00 AM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > Normally in our community we used to send angry emails when we were not
> > happy with how things are going, and we were not sending enough emails of
> > satisfaction and encouragement. I don't know who started it, but the
> "what
> > is making​ you happy this week" series might be one of the best social
> > achievements our movement has reached.
> >
> > To continue on that line I would like to tell you what made me happy this
> > week, but about Katherine Maher, our current leader. In particular about
> > this video:
> > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BuyKmjy7Rw
> >
> > If you haven't watched it, do it now and get to know Katherine. I think
> we
> > as a community don't deserve a leader like her, at least not yet. The
> > reason is because she's​ way more advanced than us at seeing how the
> world
> > is going and what is there to be done about it.
> >
> > We can have as many Strategy Talks as we want, but as long as we as a
> > community are not ready to rally to put ourselves behind Katherine and
> > fully support her with her mission, it will be all for nothing.
> >
> > The way I perceive Katherine is a charismatic leader full of light, but
> her
> > light is not reaching us fully because we are not giving her enough power
> > yet. I want to invite all of you as individuals to reflect upon this and
> > ask yourself if you are as ready as me to support Katherine for the
> > personal benefit and the whole movement benefit.
> >
> >
> > I have never done this before but allow me some tolerance to speak on
> > behalf of the community. Not because I have been elected but because I
> love
> > it so much and I want the best for it. So if I were to speak on behalf of
> > the community I would tell this to Katherine: stop having so much
> patience
> > with us.
> >
> > There was a time when patience was good and necessary, but not anymore.
> Set
> > yourself free and do as you please, because I see no possible harm in
> your
> > intentions. Don't be afraid about going too fast. The community needs
> > challenges to grow and if you don't bring them forward, we will not grow
> > enough to face the world of tomorrow, or today, or yesterday.
> >
> > We are behind in our progress because of you, Katherine. We need that you
> > bring to the table ALL what you can do, but you need to do it wisely, and
> > you lack a bit of that too.
> > So my advice is to challenge us, but ask first wise people in the
> movement
> > first. There are a few of them, but they do exist: Andrea Zanni, Asaf
> > Bartov, even Délphine (never meet her properly) are clear examples of
> wise
> > people. Over time and with practice you will be able to find more, and in
> > the end you will be wise enough to enlighten us all.
> >
> > In my more than 10 years in the movement and my particular involved in
> > leadership, I could have never imagined that we would be so lucky to
> find a
> > leader like Katherine. When by chance she was here in Belgium, I live in
> > Leuven, I asked to meet her. Of course it was not possible, but I use the
> > opportunity to tell her what I wanted to in that meeting: Katherine, I
> love
> > you, not in a romantic way, but the way you are as a person, don't be
> > afraid if others cannot see you for who you are, you are just great the
> way
> > you are.
> >
> > In a past Conference I brought some gifts to people I cared about, but I
> am
> > lucky that I won't be attending this Wikimania (only the Wikidata
> > conference this year). I feel lucky because I will not have to bring a
> gift
> > for Katherine, the only person who was deserved my admiration this year,
> > and it would be too hard to pick an appropriate gift for her... The Moon?
> > The stars? They are hard to transport, anyway.
> >
&

[Wikimedia-l] Katherine Maher is making me happy this week

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hello everybody,

Normally in our community we used to send angry emails when we were not
happy with how things are going, and we were not sending enough emails of
satisfaction and encouragement. I don't know who started it, but the "what
is making​ you happy this week" series might be one of the best social
achievements our movement has reached.

To continue on that line I would like to tell you what made me happy this
week, but about Katherine Maher, our current leader. In particular about
this video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BuyKmjy7Rw

If you haven't watched it, do it now and get to know Katherine. I think we
as a community don't deserve a leader like her, at least not yet. The
reason is because she's​ way more advanced than us at seeing how the world
is going and what is there to be done about it.

We can have as many Strategy Talks as we want, but as long as we as a
community are not ready to rally to put ourselves behind Katherine and
fully support her with her mission, it will be all for nothing.

The way I perceive Katherine is a charismatic leader full of light, but her
light is not reaching us fully because we are not giving her enough power
yet. I want to invite all of you as individuals to reflect upon this and
ask yourself if you are as ready as me to support Katherine for the
personal benefit and the whole movement benefit.


I have never done this before but allow me some tolerance to speak on
behalf of the community. Not because I have been elected but because I love
it so much and I want the best for it. So if I were to speak on behalf of
the community I would tell this to Katherine: stop having so much patience
with us.

There was a time when patience was good and necessary, but not anymore. Set
yourself free and do as you please, because I see no possible harm in your
intentions. Don't be afraid about going too fast. The community needs
challenges to grow and if you don't bring them forward, we will not grow
enough to face the world of tomorrow, or today, or yesterday.

We are behind in our progress because of you, Katherine. We need that you
bring to the table ALL what you can do, but you need to do it wisely, and
you lack a bit of that too.
So my advice is to challenge us, but ask first wise people in the movement
first. There are a few of them, but they do exist: Andrea Zanni, Asaf
Bartov, even Délphine (never meet her properly) are clear examples of wise
people. Over time and with practice you will be able to find more, and in
the end you will be wise enough to enlighten us all.

In my more than 10 years in the movement and my particular involved in
leadership, I could have never imagined that we would be so lucky to find a
leader like Katherine. When by chance she was here in Belgium, I live in
Leuven, I asked to meet her. Of course it was not possible, but I use the
opportunity to tell her what I wanted to in that meeting: Katherine, I love
you, not in a romantic way, but the way you are as a person, don't be
afraid if others cannot see you for who you are, you are just great the way
you are.

In a past Conference I brought some gifts to people I cared about, but I am
lucky that I won't be attending this Wikimania (only the Wikidata
conference this year). I feel lucky because I will not have to bring a gift
for Katherine, the only person who was deserved my admiration this year,
and it would be too hard to pick an appropriate gift for her... The Moon?
The stars? They are hard to transport, anyway.

Please forgive me for my ramblings. I just think that Katherine is great
and that she deserves more emails like this one.

Cheers,
Micru
___
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] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we ask
donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?

Do we have the guts to do so?

Do we have the organizational capital to handle it? Or can we get there
soon?

Do we have the moral right to take a lead in the world and ask for as much
resources as needed?

Is our leader and our members willing to take big undertakings?

Are most of us ready to live in fear while the values that we cherry most
would crumble under our own eyes?

Would it matter much if we as a movement would disappear? Or is it a
struggle always a positive answer against the shadows in the world?

Can we offer anything else in this world than truth, free knowledge, and an
open inclusive environment?

Would you take best wishes from a stranger like me?


Micru
___
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] machine translation

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to compare the translated text to the text
that the user wants to save.

If they are more than 95% the same, that means that the user didn't take
the effort to correct the text.

Cheers,
Micru

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Wojciech Pędzich 
wrote:

> It does depend a lot on the engagement level of the human behind the
> keyboard. When I deal with machine-translated text, I simply wonder whether
> the someone behind the keyboard took efforts to actually read the piece.
>
> Now whether this would work if limited to namespaces outside "main" - I do
> not want to demonise the issue, but if the person submitting the text for
> machine translation does not read it, what will stop them from a quick
> ctrl+c / ctrl+v? Just asking.
>
> Wojciech
>
> W dniu 2017-05-03 o 09:33, Yaroslav Blanter pisze:
>
> Creating machine translations only in the draft space (or in the user space
>> in the projects which do not have draft) could help.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Pharos 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think it all depends on the level of engagement of the human translator.
>>>
>>> When the tool is used in the right way, it is a fantastic tool.
>>>
>>> Maybe we can find better methods to nudge people toward taking their time
>>> and really doing work on their translations.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pharos
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
>>> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Content translation with Yandex is also a problem in Bengali Wikipedia.
 Some users have grown a tendency to create machine translated
 meaningless
 articles with this extension to increase edit count and article count.

>>> This
>>>
 has increased the workloads of admins to find and delete those articles.

 Yandex is not ready for many languages and it is better to shut it. We
 don't need it in Bengali.

 Regards
 On May 3, 2017 12:17 AM, "John Erling Blad"  wrote:

 Actually this _is_ about turning ContentTranslation off, that is what
> several users in the community want. They block people using the
>
 extension

> and delete the translated articles. Use of ContentTranslation has
>
 become
>>>
 a

>   rather contentious case.
>
> Yandex as a general translation engine to be able to read some alien
> language is quite good, but as an engine to produce written text it is
>
 not

> very good at all. In fact it often creates quite horrible Norwegian,
>
 even
>>>
 for closely related languages. One quite common problem is reordering
>
 of
>>>
 words into meaningless constructs, an other problem is reordering
>
 lexical
>>>
 gender in weird ways. The English preposition "a" is often translated
>
 as
>>>
 "en" in a propositional phrase, and then the gender is added to the
> following phrase. That gives a translation of  "Oppland is a county
>
 in…"
>>>
   into something like "Oppland er en fylket i…" This should be "Oppland
>
 er
>>>
 et fylke i…".
>
> (I just checked and it seems like Yandex messes up a lot less now than
> previously, but it is still pretty bad.)
>
> Apertium works because the language is closely related, Yandex does not
> work because it is used between very different languages. People try to
>
 use

> Yandex and gets disappointed, and falsely conclude that all language
> translations are equally weird. They are not, but Yandex translations
>
 are
>>>
 weird.
>
> The numerical threshold does not work. The reason is simple, the number
>
 of

> fixes depends on language constructs that fails, and that is simply
>
 not a
>>>
 constant for small text fragments. Perhaps if we could flag specific
> language constructs that is known to give a high percentage of
>
 failures,
>>>
 and if the translator must check those sentences. One such language
> construct is disappearances between the preposition and the gender of
>
 the
>>>
 following term in a prepositional phrase. If they are not similar, then
>
 the

> sentence must be checked. It is not always wrong to write "en jenta" in
> Norwegian, but it is likely to be wrong.
>
> A language model could be a statistical model for the language itself,
>
 not

> for the translation into that language. We don't want a perfect
>
 language
>>>
 model, but a sufficient language model to mark weird constructs. A very
> simple solution could simply be to mark tri-grams that does not
>
 already
>>>
 exist in the text base for the destination as possible errors. It is
>
 not
>>>
 necessary to do a live check, but  at least do it before the page can
>
 be
>>>
 saved.
>
> Note the difference in what Yand

[Wikimedia-l] Is there freedom to believe a lie? (it was: "Wikitribune!")

[David Cuenca Tudela]

The recent Wikitribune initiative seems to be based on the premise that the
antidote to fake news is a collaborative news outlet. According to this
premise, readers would confer authority to Wikitribune since they would be
able to participate in the reviewing/reporting process. As a result fake
news would be debunked. The end. Or is it?

In my opinion the problem runs deeper than that. In the Wikipedias there is
a tight control on which sources are given credibility. This
consensus-building is possible because the active community represents a
very particular subset of the general population, and as such it is
possible to create a cultural hegemony (cf. Gramsci). When smaller groups
have not been able to fit into that cultural hegemony they have created
their own projects where that is possible for them (for instance,
Conservapedia).

Rational beings tend to agree that it is in one's interest to follow the
same principles as the scientific thought (systematic observation,
measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification
of hypotheses). But what if a person chooses to step out of that framework?
What if a person chooses to believe a lie, or to believe another one
(person, newspaper) who tells a lie? This pattern of thought that seems so
alien to rational beings actually shouldn't come as a surprise when looking
at how lies (or "alternative facts/realities") have been used through all
human history to shape or challenge the distribution of power.

I think there is a deep philosophical issue that the Wikitribune initiative
failed to capture. And it is not just about fake news, it is also about
other topics like irrational anti-vax fears, climate change denial, etc.
If we want freedom of thought (and, as such, cannot be (en)forced), how
could we attract people "out of the cave into the light"? That the issue is
so old, suggests that there is no easy answer.

In general people tend to believe what benefits their perceived existential
image. If, for instance, that image is based on maintaining an
unsustainable lifestyle, that is problematic in the long run, specially
when reaching physical constraints (resource depletion, biosphere
destruction, etc). It is under those circumstances that anger is created
and directed to potential enemies of that self-created existential image.
"It must be the immigrants, or bad politicians, or stupid citizens, or a
previous generation". But few people would be ready to stop that train of
thought and ponder about it. In a way fake news are just a symptom of a
more serious disease.

Wikitribune is the right step in the direction of becoming more frustrated
with our fellow citizens. And even that might be a victory. Sometimes you
just need to fail in order to be able to go much deeper in understanding
the issue, and then change radically of approach.
I wish the initiative to be as successful as it can. And I also hope that
its participants do not lose sight of the end goal. It might be less about
the news themselves, and more about creating a better understanding between
human beings and how to enable them to make do without lies.

Cheers,
Micru
___
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] Wikimedia Deutschland: Abraham Taherivand appointed permanent Executive Director

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Congratulations Abraham! I wish you a good start in your new position!

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Tim Moritz Hector <
tim-moritz.hec...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> It is our great pleasure to announce that during last weekend’s Board
> retreat, we voted to appoint Abraham Taherivand as Executive Director of
> Wikimedia Deutschland with immediate effect.
>
> Abraham has joined Wikimedia Deutschland in 2012, has been the director of
> our Software Development department, and interim ED in the past two months.
> In all his roles he has shown vast experience and qualifications as well as
> the much needed, deep commitment for Free Knowledge. We are convinced that
> Abraham is the right person at the right time for Wikimedia Deutschland and
> have great confidence that the management of the office is in good hands
> with him. Abraham will continue to lead the Software Development department
> on an interim basis until we have been able to fill this position with a
> new permanent director.
>
> Together with Abraham, WMDE staff, our members and communities as well as
> other interested parties, the board will analyse and – where applicable –
> revise the composition of leadership and decision making structures at WMDE
> in 2017. Kurt Jansson, Sebastian Moleski and myself will be steering this
> process and are available for your questions and feedback via email (
> praesid...@wikimedia.de).
>
> We wish Abraham the very best in this role, and the Board looks forward to
> continuing to work with him. Please join us in congratulating Abraham!
>
> For the Supervisory Board
> Tim Moritz Hector
> Chair
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] English Fundraiser Update

[David Cuenca Tudela]

And here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/5ik9zc/wikimedia_has_more_money_than_it_knows_what_to_do/



On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 7:14 PM, carl hansen 
wrote:

> also being discussed at
> https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/12/16/1631223/
> wikipedia-exceeds-fundraising-target-but-continues-asking-for-more-money
>
> fyi
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Denny,

Thanks for explaining your reasoning, which hints towards a lack of
tolerance and understanding towards people wearing several hats. It doesn't
have an easy solution, as there is too much lack of trust.

The only thing I wish is that your decision enables you to participate in
the movement more effectively, and without any concern.

Looking forward to your new ideas!

Regards
Micru

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> Hi Denny
> Your email is very interesting to understand the conflict you were
> experimenting to introduce innovation and good ideas in Wikimedia projects.
>
> In my opinion the biggest problem is the overlapping between direction and
> execution. Do you think that your action would be less efficient operating
> outside the board of trustees?
>
> Your opinion would be very appreciated because you are a good example of a
> member who can really address the decisions in an innovative direction but
> blocked by a strict definition of COI.
>
> Kind regards
> Il 08 Apr 2016 20:17, "Denny Vrandecic"  ha
> scritto:
>
> > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.
> >
> > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
> > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
> > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being
> able
> > to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would
> align
> > very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
> > constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
> > openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests
> -
> > regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
> > employment.
> >
> > This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
> > with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
> > Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
> > decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
> > refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.
> >
> > This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
> > potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and
> even
> > though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had
> to
> > refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.
> >
> > There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
> > Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google.
> I
> > would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
> > feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
> > would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
> > of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
> > the case.
> >
> > I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not
> appropriate
> > to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
> > but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.
> >
> > As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
> > actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
> > could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
> > Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
> > "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler
> writing
> > that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.
> >
> > It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
> > with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
> > advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
> > you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
> > creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to
> do
> > myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough -
> someone
> > will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
> > smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was
> back
> > then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
> > wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
> > anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
> > realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in
> a
> > reasonable timeframe.
> >
> > And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I
> cannot
> > take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will
> be
> > regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
> > that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one
> deciding
> > on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Dan Garry  wrote:

> I assume you're looking for something like this
> ? That screenshot was taken the dialogue
> used to instead media in VisualEditor. Unfortunately, the search interface
> in MediaWiki does not offer this functionality right now.


Dan, thanks for your reply. Yes, that is it, actually I saw it on the VE,
shame that it is not available for Commons.
I guess for now I will use the FastCCI tool as Gnangarra suggested.

Cheers,
Micru
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

[David Cuenca Tudela]

I was looking for some lichen images on Commons and I was wondering how can
I show a grid of images. I tried several options but nothing, I think that
there was some hack to make the search results look more like Google
images, or maybe I am wrong?

Is this part of the Discovery team work?

Thanks and regards
Micru
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [FDC] Wikimédia France Annual Plan Grant - 2015-2016 R2

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Thanks Emeric,I will take a look.

Regards,
Micru

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> Thank you, Emeric. I appreciate the commitment for community engagement.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Sydney
> On Mar 25, 2016 9:44 AM, "Emeric Vallespi" 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > Since 2 years, Wikimédia France provides its "APG" proposal in advance on
> > meta, even if some parts are still in progress and other require
> > improvements.
> >
> > You'll find our proposal for the 2015-2016 Round 2 here:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round2/Wikimédia_France/Proposal_form
> >
> > Our staff and volunteers are still working on the document. However, we
> > publish it in advance to allow your feedback and proofread.
> > If you want to help on these topics: you can fix minor errors, let us
> know
> > if you noticed mistake(s), ask for clarification or suggest
> improvement(s).
> > We'll do our best to implement your feedbacks and improve the proposal
> > before the deadline, which is Friday 1st April.
> >
> > Moreover, if you have any questions about our programs for next year,
> > please, ask :)
> >
> > Thanks to anyone who will help us to improve our proposal.
> >
> > Warmest regards,
> > --
> > Emeric Vallespi
> > Vice President
> >
> > Wikimédia France
> > www.wikimedia.fr | Twitter: @Wikimedia_Fr
> >
> > Mob. +33 6 61 15 13 12 | emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr
> > Twitter: @evallespi
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cross-wiki notifications beta feature now available on all wikis

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Finally it is here! Now I don't miss conversations that are happening
elsewhere.
I know that many don't like it, but combined with Flow it works like a
charm :)

Thanks
Micru

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Biplab Anand  wrote:

> This is amazing.
> Thanks.
> On 13 Mar 2016 03:20, "Andy Mabbett"  wrote:
>
> > > Cross-wiki notifications
> >
> > This is great, thank you.
> >
> > Two requests:
> >
> > Please could we have two icons, one for local notifications, another for
> > those from elsewhere?
> >
> > And could we have some way to avoid mass notifications when we are
> > mentioned in a newsletter like The Signpost, This Week in GLAM, or the
> > Wikidata Weekly Summary, which are posted to many talk pages?
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Andreas,

Of course it is a Wikipedia-centric analysis, because citing the article
you provide (bold in the original):
*Wikidata presents Wikipedia as structured data*
Wikidata does not exist in isolation. In symbiosis with existing projects
it acts as a catalyst, or at least that is one of the goals.

I am aware of the risks of the CC0 license reuse, and of the possible
"garbage dump" effect, but so far the process of data import/correlation
has been highly human supervised, with initiatives like the Wikidata game:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/#
or Mix'n'match: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mix'n'match
There is also a process for approving data imports, it is not such a wild
place...

So far it is unclear how the relationship with external consumers will
evolve, maybe it is a new opportunity for them to participate in the data
curation process, either directly or through entirely new feedback loops
that are not possible in the traditional Wikipedia setting. For instance:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase_Quality_Extensions

All in all, I find very positive that you bring this issues into public
awareness, it gives a broader perspective of the limits of the platform,
both technical and social. I think there is still a lot to discuss about
it, and it is good to have the conversation rolling.

Cheers,
Micru

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Micru,
>
> That seems a very Wikipedia-centric analysis, as though Wikidata were only
> there to feed Wikipedia. I think most re-users of Wikidata will be
> elsewhere, and indeed be passive consumers and commercial rebranders whose
> audience is unlikely to feed back into Wikidata.
>
> The following article in The Register, which resulted from a conversation
> with Andy Mabbett, explains this quite well:
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/25/wikidata_turns_the_world_into_a_database/
>
>
> There was also another media story last week, about a project by Dutch firm
> Lab1100 (complete with some sceptical comments about data quality). It's a
> Wikidata-based map of historical military battles fought across the world:
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/12180516/Geography-of-violence-Map-records-every-battle-ever-fought.html
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35685889
>
> So the commercial potential is huge.
>
> I'm not blind to the argument that use will lead to correction, but it has
> to be balanced against the risks of "garbage in, garbage out", given the
> huge amount of data that will eventually accumulate and need to be curated
> by volunteers, and bearing in mind that the CC-0 licence has the potential
> of obscuring the origin of the data, cutting the very feedback loop your
> argument relies on for a substantial subset of end users.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Kolbe 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wikidata and Wikipedia have very different purposes: Wikipedia is an
> > > encyclopedia to be read; Wikidata is a database. No one reads a
> database.
> > > The whole purpose of a database is to have its content multiplied and
> > > surfaced elsewhere. Therefore it is even more essential that its
> content
> > > stand on solid ground.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree with that. In my opinion Wikipedia and Wikidata do not have
> > different purposes, they complement each other.
> > In an ideal world all the data present in Wikidata should surface in
> > Wikipedia, and be referenced from there.
> > However it is expected that the data comes already referenced at
> > *statement* level from Wikidata, when Wikipedia doesn't comply with those
> > standards either. This assumes that the Wikidata community is a generator
> > of perfectly referenced facts and that the Wikipedia communities are mere
> > consumers of data. This is a toxic view because it goes against the core
> > principle of wikis as a tool for taking ownership of the means of
> knowledge
> > aggregation and distribution.
> >
> > It has to be noted too, that in Wikidata many items have external
> > identifiers, references, and sources, and they apply to the whole
> > information contained, not just one single statement, that is something
> > that should be taken into account when speaking about reliability.
> >
> > Besides this discussion is trite. Quality comes from use, research and
> > oversight, and without tools for working with wikidata from wikipedia,
> like
> > connected infoboxes, there is no point in discussing about data quality,
> > because as you said "no one reads a database

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Wikidata and Wikipedia have very different purposes: Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia to be read; Wikidata is a database. No one reads a database.
> The whole purpose of a database is to have its content multiplied and
> surfaced elsewhere. Therefore it is even more essential that its content
> stand on solid ground.
>

I disagree with that. In my opinion Wikipedia and Wikidata do not have
different purposes, they complement each other.
In an ideal world all the data present in Wikidata should surface in
Wikipedia, and be referenced from there.
However it is expected that the data comes already referenced at
*statement* level from Wikidata, when Wikipedia doesn't comply with those
standards either. This assumes that the Wikidata community is a generator
of perfectly referenced facts and that the Wikipedia communities are mere
consumers of data. This is a toxic view because it goes against the core
principle of wikis as a tool for taking ownership of the means of knowledge
aggregation and distribution.

It has to be noted too, that in Wikidata many items have external
identifiers, references, and sources, and they apply to the whole
information contained, not just one single statement, that is something
that should be taken into account when speaking about reliability.

Besides this discussion is trite. Quality comes from use, research and
oversight, and without tools for working with wikidata from wikipedia, like
connected infoboxes, there is no point in discussing about data quality,
because as you said "no one reads a database"... except for a few people
like me I guess :)

Cheers,
Micru
___
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, 

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

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Congratulations, Katherine! I hope that you have a good start in your new
position, and that the challenges ahead don't overwhelm you.

Good luck,
Micru

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Steven Crossin  wrote:

> What Oliver said. Katherine was my pick for interim ED as well. Im sure she
> will do an amazing job
>
> Steve
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 2:10 pm Oliver Keyes  wrote:
>
> > \o/\o/\o/\o/
> >
> > So glad to see this wonderful choice!
> >
> > ...if we're gonna have Katherine as the interim...do we really need to
> > find someone permanent? ;)
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:05 PM, James Heilman 
> wrote:
> > > A very positive move. Thank you Katherine for agreeing to step up and
> > take
> > > on this role. You have my full confidence :-)
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Pharos 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Congratulations, Katherine!
> > >>
> > >> She is an excellent choice to navigate us through for this difficult
> > time.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Pharos
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Patricio Lorente <
> > >> patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hello all,
> > >> >
> > >> > I’m happy to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation leadership team
> > has
> > >> > proposed an interim Executive Director, and the Board has given our
> > full
> > >> > support. Starting on March 14th, current Chief Communications
> Officer
> > >> > Katherine Maher (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Katherine_(WMF)
> > )
> > >> > will
> > >> > step into the role of interim Executive Director. We thank the
> > C-levels
> > >> for
> > >> > their careful consideration in this process, and Katherine for
> > stepping
> > >> up
> > >> > during this period of transition.
> > >> >
> > >> > In choosing an interim ED, the C-levels started by identifying
> > immediate
> > >> > priorities for the coming months, including building trust,
> improving
> > >> > communications, and filling key leadership positions. They felt, and
> > we
> > >> > agree, that Katherine is the right person to lead the organization
> > while
> > >> it
> > >> > addresses these and other important issues. Additionally, this will
> > allow
> > >> > the rest of the executive team to focus on critical organizational
> > >> > functions, including community and engineering management,
> > fundraising,
> > >> and
> > >> > strengthening our human resources function. You can read more about
> > our
> > >> > process and thinking here:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/March_2016_-_Leadership_Team_transition_planning
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Katherine has been with the Foundation as Chief Communications
> Officer
> > >> for
> > >> > about two years now. During that time, she has developed a versatile
> > and
> > >> > effective team that serves the needs of the organization and
> movement,
> > >> > collaborating closely with other departments and the community. She
> > has
> > >> > thoughtfully introduced new capacities and led her team through
> > >> > transitions, and played a critical role in shepherding the strategy
> > >> process
> > >> > and the annual plan, in collaboration with other C-levels. She is
> > known
> > >> for
> > >> > listening to and empowering the people that she works with.
> > >> >
> > >> > For those who don’t know Katherine, she’s been a longtime advocate
> for
> > >> > global open communities, culture, and technology. She previously led
> > >> > advocacy for the international digital rights organization Access
> Now,
> > >> > where she worked on freedom of expression, access to information,
> and
> > >> > privacy. She has supported the efforts of citizens and governments
> > around
> > >> > the world to deepen transparency and participation in her roles at
> the
> > >> > World Bank, National Democratic Institute for International Affairs,
> > and
> > >> > UNICEF (where her team built wikis for youth participation in major
> > >> global
> > >> > issues). She is a member of the advisory board of the Open
> Technology
> > >> Fund.
> > >> >
> > >> > With interim leadership in place, our next step as the Board is to
> > move
> > >> > quickly to plan and implement the search for a permanent Executive
> > >> > Director. We will be working together over the coming weeks to
> clarify
> > >> > roles and responsibilities in this search, and identify the best way
> > for
> > >> > community and staff to participate.  We want this process to be
> > inclusive
> > >> > and incorporate many voices. We look forward to sharing an update on
> > our
> > >> > progress toward the end of next week.
> > >> >
> > >> > As interim Executive Director, Katherine will report to the Board.
> > Geoff
> > >> > Brigham will continue serving as Board Secretary, and Jaime
> > Villagomez as
> > >> > Board Treasurer, reporting to the Board in those capacities. As of
> > March
> > >> > 14, Katherine's reports include the C-team: Geoff Brigham, Jaime
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliate-selected Board seats] Kunal Mehta (Legoktm) candidacy

[David Cuenca Tudela]

"P.S. I plan to leave my job at the WMF if elected."

Then I hope you don't get elected, because it would be sad to see yet
another valuable staffer quit, regardless the noble reasons...

Regards,
Micru

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Legoktm 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have posted my nomination statement for the affiliate-selected board
> seats on Meta-Wiki:
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations/Kunal_Mehta
> >.
>
> Please take a look, and let me know if you have any questions on the
> talk page.
>
> Thanks,
> -- Kunal Mehta / Legoktm
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

David,

When I refer to the community I assume already that it has an intrinsic
imperfect representation and unclear boundaries, as it is characteristic to
open systems.

Given these blurry boundaries, at what point of the society does the asylum
begin or end? It is not enough with just "cleaning
of the stables" as you say, because the horses come and go freely and it is
an open question which degree of cleanliness they are more comfortable with.

You mention "fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency", but perhaps
they are also form part of the downsides of having an open community, and
every time it is an opportunity to do things better. There will be always
new enemies, and with an open attitude there will be also new friends.

The document you link seems to support "net neutrality", that concept that
sometimes we support, and sometimes we don't...

Cheers,
Micru

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:01 AM, David Emrany 
wrote:

> Dear David
>
> I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to
> is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and
> Africa are not properly represented here.
>
> The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a
> prominent WP criticism site) "the inmates are running the asylum". It
> needs an external / independent person (Lila ?) to begin the cleaning
> of the stables, but the task was beyond her.
>
> The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes
> rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies
> of the movement are being created daily.
>
> To cite 1 instance, very recently, a prominent organisation, highly
> critical of WMF in India, managed to get the Zeropaid initiative
> banned in that country. The organisation is banned on Wikipedia,
> including for severe off-wiki harassment of our users [1]
>
> " .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free
> speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in
> India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE
> DEVICES .. " [2]
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm
>
> [2]
> http://trai.gov.in/Comments_Data/Organisation/India_Against_Corruption.pdf
>
> David
>
> On 3/1/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
> > "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of
> administrators".
>
> > Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
> > suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
> > find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
> > dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
> > responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.
> >
> > However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors"
> and I
> > consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site.
> It
> > is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
> > it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
> > take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
> > https://xkcd.com/1217/
> >
> > I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
> > cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
> > themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with
> the
> > professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust
> to
> > take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what
> it
> > constitutes.
> >
> > When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like
> WOOF,
> > or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
> > work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
> > movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
> > goes.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
>
> ___
> 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>
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi David,

you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO
"consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators".
Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and
suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living, they
find a way to market their skills, sometimes honestly and other times
dishonestly. Not everybody can combine a job and take positions of
responsibility in the movement without burning out after a while.

However you come to say that the WMF should "purge all rogue editors" and I
consider that it is wrong to consider the WMF as the police of the site. It
is right to have assistance in legal matters when the community requests
it, but it would compromise the autonomy of the movement if the wmf would
take an interventionist role. It would do more damage than good >>
https://xkcd.com/1217/

I do advocate for an evolution in the culture of the community, but that
cannot come from external sources, it has to come from volunteers
themselves taking more responsibility, increasing the partnership with the
professional arm of the movement, and creating in the process more trust to
take appropriate action - and there is never a solid definition of what it
constitutes.

When I started the tread I mentioned other volunteership models (like WOOF,
or workaway) that could help create more trust. It is unclear if it could
work for us, or if it would be scalable, but given the state of the
movement perhaps it doesn't hurt so much to try new things and see how it
goes.

Cheers,
Micru

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:58 AM, David Emrany  wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> It would be even nicer if we have more editors editing voluntarily
> instead of driving them away.
>
> In the present scenario a University of Minnesota report by Aaron Halfaker
> says
> "The declining number of editors is not due to the site's inability to
> keep longtime editors contributing. Instead it can't keep new editors
> from sticking around, due to an abrasive collective of editors and a
> system that is crushingly bureaucratic." [1]
>
> English Wikipedia's biggest problem today is its established
> syndicates of 90% white male "content creators" and their
> self-protecting policies.  A large number of these persons are paid
> editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to
> positions of administrators, Arbs, and WMF Trustees and blatantly
> misused their positions and lied about their background / Conflicts of
> Interest.
>
> I suggest its high time now for the WMF to directly take legal
> responsibility for the actions and policies of their (mostly)
> anonymous users and what is "hosted" on WMF servers.
>
> I suggest the WMF should immediately institute a regime of verified
> identities for its users and administrators across all its projects,
> and purge all rogue editors (along with their self serving
> so-called""community" policies) who are damaging the credibility of
> its projects, including through paid editing.
>
> David
>
> [1]
> http://www.businessinsider.in/Wikipedia-Could-Degenerate-If-It-Cant-Fix-One-Big-Problem-CHART/articleshow/26238463.cms
>
> On 2/29/16, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> > James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but
> it
> > would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit
> > voluntarily...
> > There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that
> it
> > cannot be done.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> >> With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying
> to
> >> address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind
> Elance
> >> and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have
> been
> >> a
> >> little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or
> >> foundation support to move forwards.
> >>
> >> With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron
> >> Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets
> of
> >> confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If
> >> others
> >> have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very
> >> early
> >> stages from what I understand.
> >>
> >> --
> >> James Heilman
> >> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >>
> >> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> >> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> >> __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

James, I think it is very nice to put measures against paid editing, but it
would be nicer to put measures to get editors more free time to edit
voluntarily...
There are not that many suggestions on how to do it, so it could be that it
cannot be done.

Cheers,
Micru

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:14 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to
> address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance
> and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been a
> little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or
> foundation support to move forwards.
>
> With respect to using AI to detect paid editing, I spoke with Aaron
> Halfaker about the possibility in Nov 2015. What he needed was datasets of
> confirmed paid promotional editors. I have sent him some details. If others
> have details that would likely be useful. Things are in the very very early
> stages from what I understand.
>
> --
> 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Brion,
so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF as
a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other
roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making.
So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there should be more
power transferred to the communities and that there should be a greater
focus in empowering volunteers?
How would you increase the participation of volunteers in the direction of
the movement? And how to offer volunteers the opportunity to become more
dedicated without paying them directly?

Cheers
Micru

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :)
>
> -- brion
>
> On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
> > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
> > suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather
> and
> > process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
> > volunteership.
> >
> > Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be
> any
> > need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
> > for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
> > mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
> > but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
> > educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
> > seem to forget that.
> >
> > A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
> > important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
> > that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as
> any
> > software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
> > working with my fellows on a common mission?
> >
> > The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
> > organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
> > gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
> > look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
> > volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
> > volunteers.
> > Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns
> of
> > participation?
> >
> > It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without
> resorting
> > to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
> > organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.
> >
> > I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
> > possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
> > more information about the topic.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> > ___
> > 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>
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

[David Cuenca Tudela]

I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF
should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to
suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and
process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is
volunteership.

Without volunteers there wouldn't be any movement and there wouldn't be any
need for tools, or any donations whatsoever. It is the concept of working
for free for the common good that allows us to exist and fulfill our
mission. The WMF is instrumental in providing the tools for it to happen,
but those tools are not only technological, they are also legal,
educational, and social, however when talking through computer screens we
seem to forget that.

A hi-tech tool can work for a given task or not, but there are more
important topics like trust, commitment, empowerment, motivation, and joy
that cannot be assessed so easily, and that are at least as crucial as any
software. What is the point of having a perfect tool Z if I don't enjoy
working with my fellows on a common mission?

The role of nurturing volunteers is not exclusive of affiliate
organizations, the WMF offer grants to volunteers and organizes several
gatherings. Is that enough to strengthen the volunteer community? Then I
look at organizations like WOOF or workaway that thrive with full-time
volunteers and I wonder if more opportunities could be opened for our
volunteers.
Is there anything holding us back to try new things besides old patterns of
participation?

It is a challenge to do more for the volunteer community without resorting
to grants or payment, but that is the key to succeed as a volunteer
organization, to provide an ecosystem where personal growth is possible.

I am interested in hearing what others have to say about it. Maybe it is
possible to gather ideas or even a team of people who wants to research
more information about the topic.

Cheers,
Micru
___
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, 

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

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Actually I went last year to a winter retreat in Plum Village, a
mindfulness monastery in southern France, and the focus was cultivating
civility (loving-kindness they call it) and inner peace. I thought, well,
if besides of that one could contribute free knowledge here I would join
right away :)

I wonder if I would be the only one :P

Cheers,
Micru

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> With vows of civility and NPOV
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ed Saperia
> Sent: Friday, 26 February 2016 10:51 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization
>
> A Wikimedia monastery! ^_^
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 26 Feb 2016, at 08:39, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> >
> > I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying
> > them cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place
> > to stay, food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs
> > work, like workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
> >
> > Would it be an acceptable compromise?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Micru
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
> >> altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency.
> >> We're supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by
> >> letting itself be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes
> to achieve this by
> >> while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
> >>
> >> Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
> >> freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore
> >> hope to achieve the positive good of providing objective information
> >> on encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not
> >> information that other organizations want people to read.  We have no
> need to compromise.
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> >>>> - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates
> >>>> with WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because
> >>>> they were
> >>> paid
> >>>> arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give
> >>>> up,
> >>> and I
> >>>> was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also
> >>>> had
> >>> very
> >>>> unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose
> >>>> only
> >>> goal
> >>>> was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
> >>>> efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if
> >>>> somebody defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win,
> >>>> and the quality loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute
> >>>> between a user who is
> >> paid
> >>>> (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and
> >>>> have to
> >>> do
> >>>> the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> >>> Wikipedia.
> >>> Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded
> >>> as okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles
> >>> about the institution that employs them.
> >>>
> >>> But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
> >> because
> >>> of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
> >> being
> >>> more persistent).
> >>>
> >>> Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that
> >>> want articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all
> >>> the problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So
> >>> my
> >> thinking
> >>> was that it would be better than the current situation.
> 

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

[David Cuenca Tudela]

I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them
cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.

Would it be an acceptable compromise?

Regards,
Micru

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman  wrote:

> Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
> altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. We're
> supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting itself
> be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve this by
> while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
>
> Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
> freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore hope to
> achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
> encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that
> other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to compromise.
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
> > wrote:
> >
> > - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> > > - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with
> > > WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were
> > paid
> > > arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up,
> > and I
> > > was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had
> > very
> > > unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only
> > goal
> > > was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
> > > efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody
> > > defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the quality
> > > loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is
> paid
> > > (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have to
> > do
> > > the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
> > Wikipedia.
> > Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as
> > okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the
> > institution that employs them.
> >
> > But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
> because
> > of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
> being
> > more persistent).
> >
> > Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want
> > articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
> > problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my
> thinking
> > was that it would be better than the current situation.
> >
> > Sarah​
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of 2015 WMF Board elections

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Congratulations to the winners!
However I must say that the results of this election are hilarious. The
person with the most support votes doesn't win because of oppose votes :D

El sáb., 6 de jun. de 2015 3:22, Johan Jönsson 
escribió:

> Congratulations, Dariusz, James and Denny!
>
> And thanks, of course, to María, Phoebe and SJ for the time they've served
> on behalf of the community, as well as to all the other candidates, who
> were prepared to serve, and to the elections committee.
>
> //Johan Jönsson
> --
>
> 2015-06-06 1:14 GMT+02:00 Gregory Varnum :
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > The certified results of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > election are now available on Meta-Wiki:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Results
> >
> > Congratulations to Dariusz Jemielniak (User:pundit), James Heilman
> > (User:Doc James), and Denny Vrandečić (User:Denny), for receiving the
> most
> > community support. They will join the Wikimedia Foundation as Trustees,
> > after they are appointed by the Board at their July meeting at Wikimania.
> >
> > These results have been certified by the committee, the Wikimedia
> > Foundation's legal department, and the Board of Trustees.
> >
> > There were 5512 votes cast, with 5167 of those being valid. The 345-vote
> > difference comes from recast ballots, where eligible voters recast
> ballots
> > to change their votes, and struck votes, of which there were 4.
> >
> > Additional information is available on the Wikimedia Blog:
> > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/05/board-election-results
> >
> > More statistics on the elections, a post mortem from the committee, and a
> > blog post on the process behind the elections will be published  in the
> > coming days. In the meantime, we would appreciate your input—what went
> well
> > for you in this election?  What could we do better next time?  These
> > reports are crucial to helping future elections be even more successful,
> > and we hope that you will offer your feedback and ideas:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Post_mortem
> >
> > The committee thanks everyone that participated in this year’s election
> for
> > helping make it one of the most diverse and representative in the
> > movement’s history.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > – 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
> > Adrian, Anders Wennersten, Daniel, Gregory Varnum, Katie Chan,
> Mardetanha,
> > Ruslan, Savh, and Trijnstel
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is Phabricator appropriate for managing non-coding projects?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Quim Gil  wrote:

> I'll invite you to a great dinner if you miss MS Project after using
> Phabricator in a real Wikimedia activity for more than a month.  :)
>

 That is real project management :D
No, I don't think I'll miss it so much, perhaps the only thing I *really*
miss is the ability to add subprojects, but I saw that is already on the
Phabricator road map :)

Cheers,
Micru
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is Phabricator appropriate for managing non-coding projects?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

SJ, Neil and Quim,
thanks wholeheartedly for all your answers, I think that removes most of
the fears that I had. Although I must say it feels a bit unconventional
since I haven´t figured out yet how to do scheduling, process flow, and
other standard non-coding project management tasks in Phabricator. When
compared with standard tools like MS Project, on the Project Planning
Properties realm Phabricator seems to be lacking many features;
http://project-management.zone/system/microsoft-project,phabricator

I guess I will start trying and learning to see how far I can get with it.
It doesn´t need to be complex in order to be effective.

Cheers,
Micru

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Quim Gil  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:01 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I am looking for a space where I can set up projects like:
> >
> > - clean up a wiki category
> >
> > - set up book scanning tasks
> >
> > - track a survey stages (planning, translation, ad, analysis, etc)
> >
> > Is phabricator a good place for that?
>
>
> Since the very first day of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/, the blurb
> in the homepage reads
>
> "*Phabricator* is a collaboration platform open to all Wikimedia and
> MediaWiki contributors. We focus on bug reporting and software projects.
> Non-technical initiatives are welcome as well."
>
> That replies your question officially.  :)
>
>
> > I guess that with appropriate
> > project/subproject separation then the tasks wouldn't be mixed with
> coding
> > tasks.
> >
>
> Just like nobody wants all coding tasks mixed either.  :) Tasks get mixed
> or apart in the way you want with the use of projects/tags. Simple.
>
>
> > How is it being done at the WMF?
> >
>
> For instance, even if a hackathon is about code, *organizing* a hackathon
> is not. In fact Engineering Community doesn't write much code and we have
> 99% of our activity organized in Phabricator projects, tasks, and sprints.
>
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/?statuses=open()&projects=PHID-PROJ-2olj6ckxwlzq3akoznah#R
>
> Further reading:
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Creating_and_renaming_projects
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Project_management
> and of course https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Help, which is
> ready for all kinds of users, technical or not.
>
> See you all there! If you have questions, just ask at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Phabricator/Help or
> #wikimedia-devtools
> IRC
>
> --
> Quim Gil
> Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
> ___
> 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>
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] Involved people matter; and some hot topics (was: Community health (retitled thread))

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Milos, thanks for your long email because it highlights some problems I
mentioned already in another long email ("Building a we in the wikimedia
movement"). It is in fact hard to deal with social systems, but
nevertheless important if we want the movement to survive to itself. The
greatest enemy are the dynamics that neglect volunteers instead of
empowering them, that try to centralize the system to make it more
"efficient" around technological solutions, instead of making more
effective at building a togetherness, which is in the end the only thing
that can keep it alive.

The thing is that these kind of paradigm shifts only happen with the will
of personal transformation. I often hear "if only the wmf did this or
that", however I seldom read "if only I was able to be a more agreeable
volunteer to work with". Involvement comes from perceived benefit, and in
our case it seems that the metrics went wrong long ago, first in article
count, then in number of volunteers, then funds raised, KPIs, etc, etc, and
I say it is all useless metrics that don't reflect at all the health of the
movement.

I agree that number of healthy discussions might be a much better
indicator, and I also agree that the social aspects of the movement are the
key parameter, and for that reason I have joined your initiative. In
systems engineering the emergent properties of the whole depend on the
individual properties of the agents, so that should be the main focus, to
encourage growth of the volunteer community, to establish paths for them to
advance, and of course to let these advances to spread out to the whole
community.

The practical wisdom cultivated while attending conferences, reading lists,
establishing contacts, etc, is a rare quality and there are not enough
efforts to make it more prominent or appreciated. But again who should do
this effort? It is the task of each person to assume its own wished
responsibility to transform himself or herself for the benefit of all the
community.

Power exists in every organization, however "power-grabbing" should be
coupled with the path of personal transformation that allows to use this
power in a constructive way which makes people feel more motivated. In my
personal experience I have worked with managers that just by being
themselves were able to get more commitment from my side than others who
stick to the procedures. Why so? Because it is easily noticeable who is
using power to empower, or who is using it as an uncontrolled ak-47 to calm
their inner frustrations.

I sincerely hope that your initiative gains traction, together with others
we run a similar initiative on Wikidata for some time
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Lounge
From the experience I can say that it is not as easy to do it online as it
would have been in person. In the end what matters is the personal
commitment to other fellow wikimedians, and it is much easier to commit to
other people who you met in person before or had some contact.

Anyhow, if more people would join, it could lead to the formation of a user
group and as a group it is much easier to have a say in procedures and try
to make them more human. For me this is not just about complaining, but
about finding ways for effective action that leads to more people
interested to transcend their own limitations, just as I would like to
transcend mine.

Thanks again for your bravery, and I hope it leads to positive change.

Cheers,
Micru

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Looking into the numbers and having in mind events of those times, I
> don't think that the main reason for less traffic here is because of
> moderation for this particular drop, from April to May this year. Drop
> from quite regular ~300kB of gzipped file to ~160kB says that
> something extraordinary happened. And the main reason is likely about
> the Board elections themselves.
>
> However, there is the trend which lasts since April 2012 and it's not
> again about anything external to this list, but to the events internal
> to this list and "the core" of the community.
>
> For five or more previous years I hear the reasoning "let's new people
> talk". That's, of course, quite good idea and the vitality of the
> community depends on the influx of the new people.
>
> However, after a number of years I don't see that the discussion on
> this list is flourishing. Instead of heated but substantial
> discussions, the amount of discussions at all is very low. From the 50
> last threads (May 11-June 4), 20 didn't have any response and 11 have
> one response (one response doesn't create a discussion). That's 62% of
> all threads.
>
> Besides that, the main reason of why still have the editing community
> is the fact that natural systems usually have long tail, which means
> that there should happen something very bad to have sudden drop of
> participation in such large systems, like Wikimedia is.
>
> So, the strategy proved to be wrong. Except we want to wait the next
> dec

[Wikimedia-l] Is Phabricator appropriate for managing non-coding projects?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi,

I am looking for a space where I can set up projects like:

- clean up a wiki category

- set up book scanning tasks

- track a survey stages (planning, translation, ad, analysis, etc)

Is phabricator a good place for that? I guess that with appropriate
project/subproject separation then the tasks wouldn't be mixed with coding
tasks.

How is it being done at the WMF?

Cheers,

Micru
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmcon15] Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikisource UG report on the WMCON15

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hi Rodrigo,

I shared it on the meta page of the Wikisource Community User Group, 2015
update
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikisource_Community_User_Group#Updates

Is there any other place where you want me to share it?

Cheers,
Micru

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> could you pleas share that on Meta?
>
> On 30 May 2015 at 06:13, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
>
> > Dear Asaf and Juan Bautista,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your comments, I am glad to have some feedback on these
> > ideas that were discussed during the WMCON. They are not entirely mine,
> > they just popped up while discussing the topic and I think they might be
> > interesting to explore them.
> >
> > TBH, I think they need more discussion in person and see if there are any
> > takers. It is a big responsibility to start leading projects, specially
> now
> > that the (human) interfaces are not that clear.
> >
> > If the Wikisource conference does happen in the end, it will be the
> perfect
> > to advance on these discussions and start experimenting with
> organizational
> > structures. Better to experiment at little scale first and learn from it
> > than to expect global change without testing it first on the local level
> > first.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
> > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 7:30 AM Juan Bautista H. Alegre <
> > johnny.ale...@wikimedia.org.ph> wrote:
> >
> > >  I'm all for this.
> > >
> > > Juan Bautista Alegre
> > > Wikimedia Philippines
> > >
> > >
> > > —
> > > Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox>
> > >
> > >  On Saturday May 30, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Asaf Bartov <
> abar...@wikimedia.org
> > >,
> > > wrote:​
> > >
> > >  Thank you for sharing this.  I could not attend that session, and this
> > > was an interesting read.  I would be happy to advise on some of the
> > > proposed ideas if there are people interested in leading them.
> > >
> > >A.
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:04 AM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> dacu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > ​
> > >
> > >
> > >   Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> I have written a short piece on the WMCON and some interesting aspects
> > >> about the organizational future of User Groups.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ew8cVJhqqenGUAVVaTQqkisyPyd1tSX-zbVfi-Uuo8U/edit?usp=sharing
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Micru
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikisource-l mailing list
> > >> wikisourc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Asaf Bartov
> > > Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
> > >
> > >  Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
> > > in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > > https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > >  ___
> > > Wmcon15_wikimedia.de mailing list
> > > wmco...@wikimedia.de
> > > https://ml06.ispgateway.de/mailman/listinfo/wmcon15_wikimedia.de
> > >
> > ___
> > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
> +55 11 979 718 884
> ___
> 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>




-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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] [Wmcon15] Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikisource UG report on the WMCON15

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Dear Asaf and Juan Bautista,

Thanks a lot for your comments, I am glad to have some feedback on these
ideas that were discussed during the WMCON. They are not entirely mine,
they just popped up while discussing the topic and I think they might be
interesting to explore them.

TBH, I think they need more discussion in person and see if there are any
takers. It is a big responsibility to start leading projects, specially now
that the (human) interfaces are not that clear.

If the Wikisource conference does happen in the end, it will be the perfect
to advance on these discussions and start experimenting with organizational
structures. Better to experiment at little scale first and learn from it
than to expect global change without testing it first on the local level
first.

Cheers,
Micru

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 7:30 AM Juan Bautista H. Alegre <
johnny.ale...@wikimedia.org.ph> wrote:

>  I'm all for this.
>
> Juan Bautista Alegre
> Wikimedia Philippines
>
>
> —
> Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox>
>
>  On Saturday May 30, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Asaf Bartov ,
> wrote:​
>
>  Thank you for sharing this.  I could not attend that session, and this
> was an interesting read.  I would be happy to advise on some of the
> proposed ideas if there are people interested in leading them.
>
>A.
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:04 AM, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>
> ​
>
>
>   Dear all,
>>
>> I have written a short piece on the WMCON and some interesting aspects
>> about the organizational future of User Groups.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ew8cVJhqqenGUAVVaTQqkisyPyd1tSX-zbVfi-Uuo8U/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Micru
>>
>> ___
>> Wikisource-l mailing list
>> wikisourc...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
>
>  Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
> in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>
>  ___
> Wmcon15_wikimedia.de mailing list
> wmco...@wikimedia.de
> https://ml06.ispgateway.de/mailman/listinfo/wmcon15_wikimedia.de
>
___
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 Announcements] Survey: What do you think of our social media feeds?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Thanks for the initiative!

Micru

El vie., 29 de may. de 2015 8:53, Hasive Chowdhury 
escribió:

> Just complete the survey. Nice initiative.
>
>
> -Hasive
> WMBD
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On 28 May 2015 at 20:57, Fabrice Florin  wrote:
> >
> > > If so, we’d love to hear what you think of our social media feeds.
> >
> > I've completed the survey, but there was nowhere to give general
> feedback.
> >
> > I wanted to point out that the idea of "social media cards" presents
> > accessibility barriers to people with visual impairment (and to people
> > with images disabled, for example to conserve bandwidth).
> >
> > Please post text, not pictures of text.
> >
> > --
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Hasive **Chowdhury** :: **নুরুন্নবী চৌধুরী **হাছিব*
> Global User: Hasive 
> ​
> Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia <
> http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Hasive>
> Member | GAC Committee, Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> Director | Wikimedia Bangladesh Operations Committee
> 
> ​fb.com/Hasive  | @nhasive
>  | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.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,
> 
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikisource UG report on the WMCON15

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Dear all,

I have written a short piece on the WMCON and some interesting aspects
about the organizational future of User Groups.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ew8cVJhqqenGUAVVaTQqkisyPyd1tSX-zbVfi-Uuo8U/edit?usp=sharing

Cheers,
Micru
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians User Group

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Congratulations, new user group members!

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I am honored to announce the
> recognition [1] of a new User Group in the United States - the North
> Carolina Triangle Wikipedians. As their name implies, they are mostly
> active in the region known as the Research Triangle, or simply "The
> Triangle". They have already organized activities in the region, especially
> at Duke and UNC related to MediaWiki, edit-a-thons and the Education
> Program. We'll see more of that in the near future :-)
>
> So please, let's welcome the newest member of the family of affiliates!
> Congrats!
>
> Regards,
> Carlos
>
> 1:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/North_Carolina_Triangle_Wikipedians_User_Group_-_Liaison_approval,_May_2015
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
> 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Building a "we" in the wikimedia movement

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:22 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> I don't know how you're going to shoehorn "we" into "Wikimedia movement".
> I guess, similar to putting the "me" in "team", it will require
> transposing letters? Or perhaps dropping letters altogether (since we[!]
> already have a W and several Es)? Hmm, or I suppose a careful alignment of
> the two words might do it...
>

It is a matter of individual choice. I can choose to say that the wikimedia
movement is a matter of "we", you can choose to decide to hold the opposing
view, and it is fine like that. As long as more people decide that the
wikimedia movement is a matter of "we" then it *will* be a matter of "we"
and "team". It is the same magic as by the money works, people just decide
to give little paper pieces (now plastic, or just bits) value and they dare
to call it money! Even if the illusion is certified by a collective group
of people assigning them fancy names like "government" or "treasury", it is
not less of an illusion. There is no reason why each one of us couldn't
uphold the illusion that there is a "we" behind the wikimedia movement.


>
> Not to rain on your revelation, but I hardly think this is new or a
> paradigm shift. That said, I didn't attend Wikimedia Conference 2015.
>

It is the first time that I saw real intention behind those apparently
empty words, and that was new for me.


> Right now, the reality is that Wikipedia is massively popular without the
> help of nearly anyone at the upper level of the current Wikimedia
> Foundation management. In my mind, the new upper management of the
> Wikimedia Foundation has a lot more to learn from the Wikimedia movement
> than vice versa. Which one of them has over a decade of experience
> building Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia? :-)
>

Just because something has been true for the last ten years doesn't mean
that it couldn't change tomorrow, or the next ten years. I do not doubt the
usefulness of the WMF in performing tasks that allow the movement to be
more successful on the long run, even the record so far is not impressive,
the site works fine, and there have been changes and improvements, that are
indeed useful. It is however much easier to point out the faults than to
try to highlight what works.


>
> There's plenty of work to be done, to be sure, but I get annoyed when I
> read statements such as "decisions that must be taken to improve our
> sites" that created drama. Forcing software on a volunteer community is a
> bad idea and many of the recent dramas seem to involve some version of
> doing that. I think it says a lot that people at the Wikimedia Foundation
> have been so uncomfortable with the products they've created that the
> sheer awesomeness of the products alone can't attract people to want to
> use them. VisualEditor, ArticleFeedbackTool, MediaViewer, etc. are all
> examples of this. (VisualEditor, by the way, is a lot better now.)
>

Although the examples that you mention were considered failures, they were
done with the right intention of improving the movement. It is another
thing that should be recognized and accepted on a wider scale. The
possibility of making mistakes and failing big time. Without the
opportunity of failing there is no the opportunity of learning. In fact
what we call learning is just having the opportunity to do things were you
can fail until you master it. Since the community has let the wmf fail, now
that means that the gathered expertise should be put to good use, and
*keep* trusting the wmf. As you say the Visual Editor has gotten much
better, and that is thanks to people like Eric Moeller, who has been boo'ed
in the past for taking apparently bad decisions but which helped him (and
everybody else) to get more acquainted with the limits of our movement,
which limits and wishes, and expectations are not always clear-cut, they
are created on the go.


>
> It's not about open communication, exactly, it's about building products
> that people want and want to have enabled, instead of trying to force
> subpar products on volunteers, many of whom have limited time and patience.
> If you build great products, users will want to use them and have them
> enabled by default. If your users are all rejecting your product and your
> product is actively damaging the sites that these volunteers care for,
> your product sucks and you likely either don't understand your target
> audience or you don't understand the problems you're intending to solve.
>

You are not saying nothing new here, we are dealing with the unknown
constantly, and if it was known with exactly precision which products and
how they are integrated into the current ecosystem, then we wouldn't need
any discussion about this. Volunteers can help yes, but not any kind of
volunteers, you need volunteers with a great degree of involvement, the
same kind of volunteer that we are loosing more often because of burnout,
and of lack of understanding from the parties involved.

I very much doubt

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Building a "we" in the wikimedia movement

[David Cuenca Tudela]

I third that!

However we are entering the field of privacy, because as useful the virtual
meetings can be, they might be intrusive if you are in your home and you
show your whole house to the world. As long as people are happy about that,
then I do not see any problem in increasing the number of meetings having a
virtual component in Wikimania.

I wonder if it is possible to organize a virtual conference first using
something like Google Hangouts to test if it would work at a bigger scale
like wikimania.

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> How?
>
> Default to open meetings, not closed or invitation only.
>
> Default to open wikis and lists, not closed.
>
> Virtual attendance at meetings and conferences. Wikimania has always been
> an opportunity to showcase virtual meetings, and encourage those of us
> unable to fly (or not rich enough to pay) to feel part of the exclusive
> "we".
>
> Fae
> On 23 May 2015 17:19, "Andy Mabbett"  wrote:
>
> > On 23 May 2015 at 17:08, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > I like the idea of fostering more and friendlier connections among
> > > community member
> >
> > So do I.
> >
> > However, the coreallry to this is the firamtion of cliques, which can
> > be equally unwlecoming to new editors and can entrench systemic
> > biases. We see this, and "ownership", in some en.WP wikiprjcts, for
> > example.
> >
> > How can we itigate against this, while making our projects more social?
> >
> > --
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Building a "we" in the wikimedia movement

[David Cuenca Tudela]

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> How can we [l]itigate against this, while making our projects more social?
>
>
Hi Andy,
regarding your question I guess there is no definite answer, perhaps it is
something inherent to social systems, so in a way there is nothing to be
done, but instead accepted. If cliques appear naturally, then let them be,
let them manifest as user groups, or as sub-communities, or as wikiprojects
and give them the space to be born and to die. Through try-and-fail many
will appear, and only the most friendly ones should be left on the long
run. Perhaps a more interesting question is "what can I do as individual to
avoid creating damaging cliques or behaviors?"

Again, there is no definite answer, or if there is one, there is one answer
for each one of us. However it is healthy to increase user awareness, and
to use this awareness to engage people in a more constructive way. For
instance, I cannot choose how you are going to react to my words, but I can
choose how I react to your words, I can be calm to a great extent,
specially because I met you in person and I know who you are and what are
your circumstances.

If I hadn't met you in person and we had a difficult argument, perhaps my
patience would be less, because humans are just like that, we spend less
time dealing with the unknown (which might me worthless) than with the
known (which might be more appreciated).
So in a way it is a matter of finding that appreciation for other
contributors, which can only happen when knowledge is gathered about who
they are, which in turn makes it difficult to make it online because we
want to respect privacy, but it is very easy to apply it in real life
environments because each one is free to create their own story.

I hope that my little rant makes sense, and it conveys clearly the
importance of IRL meetings to foster a healthy communication in online
environments.

Cheers,
Micru
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Building a "we" in the wikimedia movement

[David Cuenca Tudela]

During this Wikimedia Conference 2015 there was a paradigm shift in the way
problems are expressed. It was highlighted that the wikimedia movement is
not only about gathering and sharing knowledge, but also about the people
behind it, about finding ways to enhance the togetherness that is created
by participating in our sites, no matter which ones they are in the
present, and no matter which they will be in the future.

There was a lot of blindness in the past from my side and from a lot of
people I met during the years. Our movement is not only a "knowledge
movement" or a "open movement", it is above a "social movement" which
depends very much on the strength of our social connections to advance and
thrive. The most obvious connection is between contributor and reader, it
is the most singular one which differentiates us from other platforms like
facebook, however it is far from being the only one.
Contributor-to-contributor is another key one which has been
underestimated, and it is the salt and pepper of the community.

There have been attempts to improve the atmosphere of those relationships,
however they have failed because humans are social creatures mostly in
person, and online relationships work best once you know the person you are
communicating with. With strangers it might work too, but there is a lot of
work to do at the personal level to improve the empathy, the goodwill, and
of course, to assume good faith.

I am not aware of any attempts to show contributors how they can be better
persons online with online strangers, perhaps it is something that can be
practiced and learned. There is the common tendency to think that the fault
is always in others, but very seldom one seeks to dig deep into oneself and
try to find inner peace. I believe that with a strong inner peace conflicts
would be less, the atmosphere would improve, and the so-called "editor
decline" would be a problem of the past.

That goodwill can be cultivated at upper levels too. Sometimes there are
decisions that must be taken to improve our sites, and some of them have
created a lot of drama which maybe could have been minimized by enabling
expression spaces, where there can be some real communication happening,
that is, bidirectional, and not to force any ideas, just to foster
understanding.

In the wikimedia movement there is a serious lack of said expression
spaces. For instance, during the WMCON 15, it was the first time that user
groups representatives seated down together, also with some WMF employees,
to discuss user groups in an open manner. I think it is a big step forward
which paves the way in other areas too.

Problems of the past like VE deployment schedule, and the upcoming Commons
reform could profit of the "sit-and-talk" approach. It is costly, it takes
time, however in the end there are more smiles, less drama, and the general
feeling that besides of the you and me, there is a we, which is created
together.

I would like to propose the creation of a user group for each area of
interest that we have problems with, so users can participate in the
problem solving approaches. That is of course only half the way, the other
half way is even more difficult which involves *using* those spaces
constructively, and also involving more and more users in this other kind
of "contribution" which is so radically different from the "click-and-type"
contribution.

There is for instance the need to create roads for users to progress in the
movement, to bring users from "casual reader" to a "wise wikimedian"
status. Such a wise people already exist in our movement, it is a pity that
we don't enable more knowledge transfer between the "elders" and newcomers,
because when one of our wise wikimedian (digitally) dies, it leaves behind
a big gap which is very big to fill up again.

I dream of a movement like that, wise, and which enables people to grow to
the very best of their abilities. And not only that, I dream of growing
myself with all of you together and finding countless friends along the
way. What a good way to finish one's life that to have been able to do
every day what one loves with people who does the same. This is pure joy
and I want more of it :)

Micru
___
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,