Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

2020-09-10 Thread
Hi Asaf,

Who are the list mods? Unfortunately, this is not made clear at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

In line with what you say here, a track record that, say, included
deliberately misusing administrator or checkuser tools on Wikimedia
projects, should certainly be considered a trust problem.

Thanks,
Fae

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 11:56, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>
> I would say first and foremost, good judgment. As measured by the person's
> track record on-wiki and on this list.
>
> Preferring to err on the side of caution, people under community sanctions,
> or who have themselves been moderated for on-list misconduct, need not
> apply.
>
>A.
>
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020, 12:58 Peter Southwood 
> wrote:
>
> > Asaf,
> > What are the criteria for eligibility as moderator for this list?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Asaf Bartov
> > Sent: 10 September 2020 11:07
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice
> >
> > Indeed, there is a potential conflict of interest here.  This is why I
> > strongly tend to leniency, *especially* when unacceptable discourse
> > coincides with criticism of the Foundation.  In this case, we received
> > requests from two list subscribers to moderate Dan.  We did so, while
> > underscoring that it was *not* for criticizing the Foundation.
> >
> > I think I have something of a track record of supporting open debate and of
> > encouraging and engaging with criticism of the Foundation.  I think there
> > is indeed plenty to criticize; the Foundation is far from flawless.
> >
> > But people don't have to endure coarse language and vitriol at the same
> > time.  By all means, express disappointment, lack of confidence, suspicion,
> > whatever, but do it in a civil manner.  Dan can continue to do as well, of
> > course. I have already let one message of this through moderation.
> >
> > All that said, it would of course have been better if we had a couple of
> > list-admins more, without ties to the Foundation, so perhaps it is time to
> > recruit them.  Is anyone interested?
> >
> >A.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:56 AM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > > Erm, wait. He said what, "fart"?
> > >
> > > It's not a particularly good look for a WMF employee to be moderating
> > > someone critiquing the WMF, especially when, while their statement may
> > have
> > > been strongly worded, it used pretty mild language. This should either be
> > > undone, or at least decided upon by someone who doesn't work for WMF.
> > > That's a substantial conflict of interest.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Asaf Bartov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > > >
> > > > List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due to
> > > > posts with unacceptable language.
> > > >
> > > > I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this
> > list,
> > > > so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.
> > > >
> > > >Asaf (volunteer capacity)
> > > >on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
> > > > --
> > > > Asaf Bartov 
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Asaf Bartov 
> > ___
> > 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

2020-09-10 Thread
I'd be happy to help out. I have set up and managed several lists
related to our Wikimedia LGBT+ community.

As a well-known commentator about the WMF and safe spaces, including
running a global RFC that held to account a WMF board member, it might
add a useful perceived balance to moderation rather than everyone
being "vanilla flavour".

Fae

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 10:08, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>
> Indeed, there is a potential conflict of interest here.  This is why I
> strongly tend to leniency, *especially* when unacceptable discourse
> coincides with criticism of the Foundation.  In this case, we received
> requests from two list subscribers to moderate Dan.  We did so, while
> underscoring that it was *not* for criticizing the Foundation.
>
> I think I have something of a track record of supporting open debate and of
> encouraging and engaging with criticism of the Foundation.  I think there
> is indeed plenty to criticize; the Foundation is far from flawless.
>
> But people don't have to endure coarse language and vitriol at the same
> time.  By all means, express disappointment, lack of confidence, suspicion,
> whatever, but do it in a civil manner.  Dan can continue to do as well, of
> course. I have already let one message of this through moderation.
>
> All that said, it would of course have been better if we had a couple of
> list-admins more, without ties to the Foundation, so perhaps it is time to
> recruit them.  Is anyone interested?
>
>A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:56 AM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > Erm, wait. He said what, "fart"?
> >
> > It's not a particularly good look for a WMF employee to be moderating
> > someone critiquing the WMF, especially when, while their statement may have
> > been strongly worded, it used pretty mild language. This should either be
> > undone, or at least decided upon by someone who doesn't work for WMF.
> > That's a substantial conflict of interest.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Asaf Bartov  wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due to
> > > posts with unacceptable language.
> > >
> > > I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this list,
> > > so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.
> > >
> > >Asaf (volunteer capacity)
> > >on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
> > > --
> > > Asaf Bartov 
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> 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] Sexual harassment

2020-08-24 Thread
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:47, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l
 wrote:
>
> I fail to understand how requiring public report of publicly-occurring
> harassment is a problem.

"Don't be a cunt"
"Fuck off"
"Stop being hysterical"
+ Far worse actually gets tolerated, and I'm not quoting any here, you
work out why

Anyone feeling they are targeted or harassed with unpleasant personal
comments, especially newer editors, would be INCREDIBLY STUPID to
attempt to complain about it on Wikipedia's ANI. It will boomerang,
and the history of that noticeboard shows that the complainant is
likely to be treated as a troublemaker by the admin corps, with a high
probability of reasons being found to sanction the troublemaker if
they try to answer questions in public.

There's plenty of "unfriendly space" to create a hostile environment
without crossing the boundaries of "free speech" tolerated for long
term contributors, but not newcomers.

My good advice to newer editors is always to discuss bad faith and
nasty aggressive behaviour off-wiki, as it's just not safe to do so
on-wiki, unless you are anonymous and happy to throw away your
account. These behaviours are normal, expected, and even championed
from the top as refreshing expressions of libertarianism.[1]

1. "utter fucking bullshit"
https://www.theregister.com/2016/01/27/trust_me_pleads_wikipedia_former_google_man

___
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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread
Agreed.

Gerard, WSC is a fantastic advocate for our projects, I recall us
working together on the first Commons based editathon many years ago,
it was a privilege to become friends with someone genuinely passionate
for public education and open knowledge.

These personal comments are misleading and hostile.

Fae

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 10:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the choices
> > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> > you make that plain in what you say.
> >
>
> This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.
>
> [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> ___
> 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, 
> 
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Scientific racism

2020-06-21 Thread
In line with Asaf's suggestion that discussion stays on-wiki, there
has been initial discussion based on unambiguous example cases of
scientific racism at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_Lives_Matter#Scientific_racism

As the incidents are on a large number of different non-English
Wikipedias, an English Wikipedia wikiproject or noticeboard would
probably be ineffective as a place to gain a consensus on actions or
cross-wiki policies.

Please join the discussion at meta, or suggest at the link above any
better venues to analyse and propose constructive ideas to ensure that
Wikipedia articles in all languages do not provide the public with
misinformation rather than current science fact or properly framed and
sourced historical accuracy.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Ombuds Commission - minor request for consistency in the name

2020-06-18 Thread
Thanks for taking this forward James.

It's reassuring to find out that at least the WMF board might take
this suggestion of a style preference for gender-neutral language
seriously.

Fae

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 01:19, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> Sounds perfectly reasonable in my opinion. Have started discussion here
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ombudsman_commission
>
> J
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:15 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Dear WMF Board members,
> >
> > The Ombuds Commission acts on your behalf as part of the movements
> > governance processes and it is, therefore, the WMF board that
> > authorizes Ombuds policies. The Wikimedia project systems and policies
> > for the commission were established many years ago with rare
> > amendments since, and are not harmonized on the use of the word
> > "ombuds". For example, though the email contact group uses "ombuds",
> > the detailed policy page on Meta uses "ombudsman" and refers to
> > members of the group as "ombudsmen". As a gender-neutral form is in
> > common International English and American English usage and is already
> > used in some places and not others, can the WMF board agree that the
> > gender-neutral term is desirable in line with the goals of the
> > Wikimedia Foundation strategy and should be applied systematically?
> >
> > With your agreement, this would then harmonize in the names of email
> > groups, the group name configured into the system on Meta and the
> > wording of policies, and help avoid an accidental bias towards
> > identifying ombuds members as men. As this is a question of
> > harmonization, rather than a change in process, policy or scope, this
> > is a style issue rather than a change that required a resolution or a
> > community RfC.
> >
> > For those unaware, the Ombuds Commission "investigates complaints
> > about infringements of the Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic
> > personal data policy, the CheckUser policy and the oversight policy on
> > any Wikimedia project for the Board of Trustees. They also investigate
> > for the Board the compliance of local CheckUser or Oversight policies
> > or guidelines with the global CheckUser and Oversight policies."[1]
> >
> > Links:
> > 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
> > 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsers/ombudsman
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Promotion of scientific racism in Wikipedia articles

2020-06-16 Thread
What, you are really using a Wikimedia funded email list to promote
biological racism? That's ... not acceptable behaviour.

Go read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism.

Fae

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 14:37, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> Feel free to explain how the appearance of race differences is not defined
> by genetics. I have absolutely no problem accepting that people are
> different, and that some people may even be better adapted to
> the environment than me. ;)
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:32 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > No, we do not call other Wikipedians "Negroid" because of their
> > appearance meeting a racist theory published in the 1930s.
> >
> > Or were you trying to say something else, other than defending
> > "scientific racism" on this public list?
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 14:25, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure it is wise to try to refute differences between humans,
> > > whether we call it race or something else, it is simply too easy to point
> > > out the differences. We should rather promote that differences are a
> > > GoodThing™
> > >
> > > Humans do exhibit racial differences, but those differences should not be
> > > used as an excuse for abusing other people.
> > >
> > > I'm a pink Norwegian, and I would probably die in the Kalahari desert,
> > > unless rescued by someone from the San people. They are so darn cool!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:57 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is remarkably easy to find various language Wikipedia articles that
> > > > actively promote scientific racism. The forthcoming WMF universal code
> > > > of conduct is unlikely to directly address this type of damaging
> > > > anti-educational content, or require projects to take action.
> > > >
> > > > This may surprise some, but here are two examples, and if you follow
> > > > the multiple language links in each, you will find many other language
> > > > examples:
> > > >
> > > > [1] Wikipedia article in Russian about "Negroid race" (Негроидная
> > > > раса) and associates Negroid as being defined by genetics. Nowhere in
> > > > the article is it explained that these are debunked racist theories.
> > > >
> > > > [2] Wikipedia article in Italian about "Mongoloid" (Mongoloide),
> > > > defines being Mongoloid by physical characteristics and presents it as
> > > > a scientific term with a section explaining how the Mogoloid race is
> > > > geographically spread.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, as these outdated racist theories are Wikipedia
> > > > articles, Wikimedia Commons still hosts multiple *user created*
> > > > "racial maps" of the human race as if this were a current scientific
> > > > race taxonomy for humans. These maps are not even required to have
> > > > warnings that their content is scientific racism or why that's a bad
> > > > thing.[3]
> > > >
> > > > At the current time, nobody is solving this problem with systemic
> > > > racism and I am unaware of the WMF funding a project that will take
> > > > action to fix it, nor even tracking this repugnant material. The idea
> > > > that we might still be vaguely talking about how bad it is that
> > > > Wikipedia is being used to promote "Negroid race" as science in
> > > > several years time, without any systematic action to get rid of it or
> > > > at least correctly reformat the article to describe it as debunked,
> > > > should alarm everyone concerned that donor's money is supporting this
> > > > content.
> > > >
> > > > Links
> > > > 1.
> > > >
> > https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0
> > > > 2. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloide
> > > > 3.
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Average_East-Eurasian_ancestry_(Mongoloid).png
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Fae
> > > > --
> > > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guideline

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Promotion of scientific racism in Wikipedia articles

2020-06-16 Thread
No, we do not call other Wikipedians "Negroid" because of their
appearance meeting a racist theory published in the 1930s.

Or were you trying to say something else, other than defending
"scientific racism" on this public list?

Fae

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 14:25, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> I'm not sure it is wise to try to refute differences between humans,
> whether we call it race or something else, it is simply too easy to point
> out the differences. We should rather promote that differences are a
> GoodThing™
>
> Humans do exhibit racial differences, but those differences should not be
> used as an excuse for abusing other people.
>
> I'm a pink Norwegian, and I would probably die in the Kalahari desert,
> unless rescued by someone from the San people. They are so darn cool!
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:57 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > It is remarkably easy to find various language Wikipedia articles that
> > actively promote scientific racism. The forthcoming WMF universal code
> > of conduct is unlikely to directly address this type of damaging
> > anti-educational content, or require projects to take action.
> >
> > This may surprise some, but here are two examples, and if you follow
> > the multiple language links in each, you will find many other language
> > examples:
> >
> > [1] Wikipedia article in Russian about "Negroid race" (Негроидная
> > раса) and associates Negroid as being defined by genetics. Nowhere in
> > the article is it explained that these are debunked racist theories.
> >
> > [2] Wikipedia article in Italian about "Mongoloid" (Mongoloide),
> > defines being Mongoloid by physical characteristics and presents it as
> > a scientific term with a section explaining how the Mogoloid race is
> > geographically spread.
> >
> > Unfortunately, as these outdated racist theories are Wikipedia
> > articles, Wikimedia Commons still hosts multiple *user created*
> > "racial maps" of the human race as if this were a current scientific
> > race taxonomy for humans. These maps are not even required to have
> > warnings that their content is scientific racism or why that's a bad
> > thing.[3]
> >
> > At the current time, nobody is solving this problem with systemic
> > racism and I am unaware of the WMF funding a project that will take
> > action to fix it, nor even tracking this repugnant material. The idea
> > that we might still be vaguely talking about how bad it is that
> > Wikipedia is being used to promote "Negroid race" as science in
> > several years time, without any systematic action to get rid of it or
> > at least correctly reformat the article to describe it as debunked,
> > should alarm everyone concerned that donor's money is supporting this
> > content.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> > https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0
> > 2. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloide
> > 3.
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Average_East-Eurasian_ancestry_(Mongoloid).png
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > 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>

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Promotion of scientific racism in Wikipedia articles

2020-06-16 Thread
It is remarkably easy to find various language Wikipedia articles that
actively promote scientific racism. The forthcoming WMF universal code
of conduct is unlikely to directly address this type of damaging
anti-educational content, or require projects to take action.

This may surprise some, but here are two examples, and if you follow
the multiple language links in each, you will find many other language
examples:

[1] Wikipedia article in Russian about "Negroid race" (Негроидная
раса) and associates Negroid as being defined by genetics. Nowhere in
the article is it explained that these are debunked racist theories.

[2] Wikipedia article in Italian about "Mongoloid" (Mongoloide),
defines being Mongoloid by physical characteristics and presents it as
a scientific term with a section explaining how the Mogoloid race is
geographically spread.

Unfortunately, as these outdated racist theories are Wikipedia
articles, Wikimedia Commons still hosts multiple *user created*
"racial maps" of the human race as if this were a current scientific
race taxonomy for humans. These maps are not even required to have
warnings that their content is scientific racism or why that's a bad
thing.[3]

At the current time, nobody is solving this problem with systemic
racism and I am unaware of the WMF funding a project that will take
action to fix it, nor even tracking this repugnant material. The idea
that we might still be vaguely talking about how bad it is that
Wikipedia is being used to promote "Negroid race" as science in
several years time, without any systematic action to get rid of it or
at least correctly reformat the article to describe it as debunked,
should alarm everyone concerned that donor's money is supporting this
content.

Links
1. 
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0
2. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloide
3. 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Average_East-Eurasian_ancestry_(Mongoloid).png

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Ombuds Commission - minor request for consistency in the name

2020-06-10 Thread
Dear WMF Board members,

The Ombuds Commission acts on your behalf as part of the movements
governance processes and it is, therefore, the WMF board that
authorizes Ombuds policies. The Wikimedia project systems and policies
for the commission were established many years ago with rare
amendments since, and are not harmonized on the use of the word
"ombuds". For example, though the email contact group uses "ombuds",
the detailed policy page on Meta uses "ombudsman" and refers to
members of the group as "ombudsmen". As a gender-neutral form is in
common International English and American English usage and is already
used in some places and not others, can the WMF board agree that the
gender-neutral term is desirable in line with the goals of the
Wikimedia Foundation strategy and should be applied systematically?

With your agreement, this would then harmonize in the names of email
groups, the group name configured into the system on Meta and the
wording of policies, and help avoid an accidental bias towards
identifying ombuds members as men. As this is a question of
harmonization, rather than a change in process, policy or scope, this
is a style issue rather than a change that required a resolution or a
community RfC.

For those unaware, the Ombuds Commission "investigates complaints
about infringements of the Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic
personal data policy, the CheckUser policy and the oversight policy on
any Wikimedia project for the Board of Trustees. They also investigate
for the Board the compliance of local CheckUser or Oversight policies
or guidelines with the global CheckUser and Oversight policies."[1]

Links:
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsers/ombudsman

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Preventing conflicts of interest in Wikimedia organizations' employment and financial relationships

2020-05-23 Thread
A valid question would be what has the Board Governance Committee been
working on in the last year?[1]

For all we know the sub-committee has already been actively addressing
COI reporting and the potential for kickbacks. The BGC is /required/
to have meetings at least twice a year, but appears to not publish any
reports or minutes for the wider community to see what progress has
been made.

It makes sense if anyone joining the board agrees that kickbacks
(including later sinecures) or non-financial rewards which could lead
to a conflict of loyalty, should be seen to be avoided for at least 12
or 24 months after being associated with the WMF Board, that this
should be in writing, and have legal weight so that the WMF could
claim damages against anyone acting so foolishly.

Perhaps this is a question one of the four BCG members, or one of
their four advisors, could respond to? Along with helping locate where
any non-confidential minutes or reports are published, such as process
improvement recommendations which by definition cannot contain
anything confidential?

Links
1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee

Fae

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 20:22, Pine W  wrote:
>
> Awhile back I saw a joke that when reading a newspaper someone had
> difficulty distinguishing between the business section and the crime
> section. These days, the politics section could cause similar
> confusion. Recently I have wondered about the extent to which WMF and
> the affiliates take steps to prevent conflicts of interest in
> financial decisions.
>
> I am not aware of any evidence of recent financial conflicts of
> interest, but I think that taking steps to prevent and detect any
> problems would be prudent.
>
> For example, is there any monitoring of the bank accounts of board
> members and executives to ensure that they are not receiving kickbacks
> from companies that have contracts with the organizations? Also, are
> there "cooling off periods" which contractually require that
> executives and board members of WMF and Wikimedia affiliates not
> become employees of companies that have had financial relationships
> with their organizations until at least a few years after their
> employment or board membership with the Wikimedia organization?
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
 wrote:
>
> There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to Commons.
>
> -
>  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We had to
> increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
> ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of Commons 
> is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can 
> improve its support for the sisters to attract new users for the movement.
>
> see: 
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> -
>  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is the 
> question why to
> publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or Pinterest?
>
> -
>  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians. Some 
> Wikipedians are
> living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> sisters.
> - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia projects. 
> They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly user interface 
> (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user 
> account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
>
> I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most problems 
> are known already now.
>
> I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all 
> Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer 
> at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because 
> of commercial-usage restrictions?
>
> Roland
>
>
>
>
> >>> Benjamin Ikuta  05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons 
> because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than 
> that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people 
> don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin

A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
actually attract a few high quality photographers.

A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
as part of increasing their own internet footprint.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] WMF political activism

2020-04-25 Thread
Thanks to Greg for the quick official response from the WMF which
includes the active recognition and acceptance of the problem.

The open letter was also published on meta at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_website#Website_full_page_banner_promoting_EarthdayLive2020.org
for anyone wishing to comment or add notes on wiki rather than using
email.

Noting "in the future we will do more thorough due diligence". It may
be of benefit for the WMF to respond on Meta with any details about
what will change to ensure preventative due diligence measures have
been put in place, such as the one suggested in this email thread of
early engagement with the community rather than a Phabricator task on
the day.

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 06:18, Gregory Varnum  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am responding on behalf of the Foundation in my capacity handling movement 
> communications, including managing any campaigns on wikimediafoundation.org.
>
> As others from the Foundation have stated on this mailing list in the past, 
> from time to time the Wikimedia Foundation engages in public policy matters 
> which are aligned with the advancement of the Wikimedia mission or our values 
> as an organization.
>
> Having said that, we agree with some of the criticisms you have raised. We 
> had understood the Earth Day Live campaign to be both global and apolitical. 
> However, we agree that the final campaign was both more US-centric and more 
> political than we had understood in advance. The banner is no longer running, 
> and in the future we will do more thorough due diligence.
>
> We remain strongly committed to climate sustainability as a value of the 
> Wikimedia Foundation. We will continue to advocate on behalf of it and other 
> values that uplift and advance free knowledge globally.
>
> I hope you all had a productive and safe Earth Day, and wish you all 
> continued health and safety.
>
> Yours,
> -greg
>
> ---
> Gregory Varnum
> Communications Strategist
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> gvar...@wikimedia.org
> Pronouns: He/Him/His
>
> > On Apr 23, 2020, at 3:07 AM, RhinosF1 -  wrote:
> >
> > Should this be posted on wiki for others to sign?
> >
> > Samuel
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 07:51, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> OPEN LETTER
> >>
> >> Dear Katherine Maher,
> >>
> >> The WMF home website landing page (https://wikimediafoundation.org)
> >> yesterday featured a full-page banner directing all visitors globally
> >> to https://www.earthdaylive2020.org. This is a site used for Americal
> >> political lobbying, refer to the email discussion attached.
> >>
> >> Could you, or the responsible member of your management team, please
> >> explain exactly how this happened?
> >>
> >> There is zero doubt that this was a serious operational error, misuse
> >> of WMF development time and a misuse of the Wikimedia brand. It is
> >> certain that you will agree that the buck stops with the CEO. The
> >> decision to use the Foundation's website for American lobbying is in
> >> conflict with your not for profit status and is in conflict with the
> >> charitable status promoted to donors worldwide.
> >>
> >> If the management team and yourself are going to continuing political
> >> lobbying and using WMF resources to raise funds for Americal political
> >> organizations which have no agreed relevance to the mission of the
> >> Foundation, there must be a published transparent governance review by
> >> the WMF board of trustees to examine and agree on this significant
> >> operational change to the public Foundation strategy and the terms for
> >> the CEO.
> >>
> >> Thank you in advance.
> >>
> >> Link to Phabricator task to implement the banner:
> >> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T250508
> >> CC: María Sefidari as WMF Chair.
> >>
> >> Fae
> >>
> >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 05:50, K. Peachey  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T250508
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 09:53, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems that they just gave a link to that website, which...eh...
> >>>> When I opened it, I heard one sentence of the stream before I stopped
> >> it
> >>>> and read the rest of the webpage: "and then we give thanks to spirit,
> >> for
> >>>

[Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism

2020-04-23 Thread
OPEN LETTER

Dear Katherine Maher,

The WMF home website landing page (https://wikimediafoundation.org)
yesterday featured a full-page banner directing all visitors globally
to https://www.earthdaylive2020.org. This is a site used for Americal
political lobbying, refer to the email discussion attached.

Could you, or the responsible member of your management team, please
explain exactly how this happened?

There is zero doubt that this was a serious operational error, misuse
of WMF development time and a misuse of the Wikimedia brand. It is
certain that you will agree that the buck stops with the CEO. The
decision to use the Foundation's website for American lobbying is in
conflict with your not for profit status and is in conflict with the
charitable status promoted to donors worldwide.

If the management team and yourself are going to continuing political
lobbying and using WMF resources to raise funds for Americal political
organizations which have no agreed relevance to the mission of the
Foundation, there must be a published transparent governance review by
the WMF board of trustees to examine and agree on this significant
operational change to the public Foundation strategy and the terms for
the CEO.

Thank you in advance.

Link to Phabricator task to implement the banner:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T250508
CC: María Sefidari as WMF Chair.

Fae

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 05:50, K. Peachey  wrote:
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T250508
>
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 09:53, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It seems that they just gave a link to that website, which...eh...
> > When I opened it, I heard one sentence of the stream before I stopped it
> > and read the rest of the webpage: "and then we give thanks to spirit, for
> > the air we breathe, for the earth..." After reading the rest of the
> > webpage, I un-paused it, and am currently listening to a bit of propaganda
> > promoting unions and more extensive labor laws.
> >
> > The linked website is explicitly political, explicitly  on the American
> > left, and explicitly in favor of certain highly contentious American
> > political proposals. I would like to hear the reasoning for why that link
> > has been shown, and it seems to me simply unjustifiable. The WMF is the
> > host of a series of community-built projects, not a political activism
> > organization.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vermont
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:12 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > I can confirm that I see the same also here in the Netherlands. Which is
> > > strange, there are no general elections here before 2021...
> > > An explanation about this link would be interesting.
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am Mi., 22. Apr. 2020 um 22:50 Uhr schrieb Yair Rand  > > >:
> > >
> > > > The WMF corporate site (wikimediafoundation.org) currently has a
> > > > full-page ad with the text "We are watching Earth Day Live today. Will
> > > > you?". This links to an external site with the text "Click here to sign
> > > on
> > > > to the US Youth Climate Strike Coalition Earth Day Demands - From
> > > congress
> > > > and the next president, we demand a People’s Bailout, a Green New Deal,
> > > and
> > > > Land Back for Indigenous Peoples", and prompting readers to "Pledge to
> > > vote
> > > > for our future" and to subscribe to "US Climate Strike".
> > > >
> > > > Everyone here already knows how unacceptable this is, and why, so I 
> > > > don't
> > > > think this requires any further explanation. The WMF should immediately
> > > > take this down, and make certain that this kind of thing can't happen
> > > > again. They've failed yet again at preventing inappropriate
> > > > political activism in WMF's communications, and must take serious action
> > > to
> > > > fix this constant stream of terrible failures.
> > > >
> > > > -- Yair Rand
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Summary of the Brand Project presentation

2020-04-18 Thread
Have now watched "interconnection". It did not seem to say anything
tangible apart from stuff like you find 'interconnection in nature' in
the 2 minutes. It was produced to a good standard.

Sorry, it was not encouraging. The question remains of how much this
is costing the movement in WMF funding and valuable Wikimedia
community time without any clear outcomes being defined that the
Wikimedia community wants or could use to benefit the core value of
adding to the sum of human knowledge. Why the "rebranding" project
continues at this time remains an enigma.

We have gone ahead and added the video to Commons. If superseded it
will remain useful as a snapshot as of 16 April.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Our_unified_concept_interconnection.webm

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 09:57, Samir Elsharbaty
 wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
> Yesterday, the 2030 Brand Movement Project presented the unified concept
> that will guide the upcoming branding proposals. Thanks to the 224
> attendees who watched the presentation live! Participants brought a great
> stream of comments and questions (averaging 8 per minute!) that helped
> clarify important points.
>
> The unified concept, “interconnection”, was arrived at after many community
> workshops, exercises, and conversations. “Interconnection” distills the 23
> distinct concepts generated in workshops into a single word that links
> together the insights and definitions from the participants, and at the
> same time adds more meaning to the answer to the question who are we? This
> concept will not be a public or visible part of branding, but rather a
> guiding idea.
>
> Take a look at the video explaining interconnection as a unified concept
> [1].
>
> You can watch the full presentation video, together with the lively
> discussion that accompanied it [2]. Most of the questions were answered
> during the presentation (including questions about the project scope, the
> upcoming naming convention proposals, and the RfC), but there wasn't enough
> time to answer them all. Questions are being compiled on the Brand Network
> talk page on Meta [3].
>
> The team will be hosting a follow-up office hour next week to answer the
> rest of the questions. Participation details will be shared on the Brand
> Network talk page. The session will be recorded and shared, and answers
> will be covered on the project pages. If you have a different question
> you’d like to ask, feel free to add it to the page or bring it to the
> office hour.
>
> PS: As soon as these videos are ready for Commons we will upload them
> there, and we will notify about this on the Brand Network talk page as well.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Samir & the Brand Project team
>
> [1]
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/04/16/our-unified-concept-interconnection/
>
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS72O6Si94Q
>
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brand_Network#Unified_concept:_Interconnection
>
> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> 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, 
> 

--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-04-13 Thread
A LOT of people worldwide are dying and have died today, some are
people we know or love, and this is the important and urgent
"community branding" project that WMF management wants to spend their
employee time and goodwill free volunteer effort on. Really?

It seems fair to repost my statement from a month ago, perhaps by
volunteers in the real "community" just keeping on repeating,
repeating and repeating how this is pointless and damaging, eventually
some of the management team might accidentally read some of the
negative feedback through their "supportive criticism" rose-tinted
jargon bubbles:

"WMF management, stop flushing away the donor's money on this, please.
It has already been overwhelmingly rejected, failed, and not firmly
ending it makes you appear unable to stop paying consultants to make
up more marketing jargon nonsense to justify their invoice." (14 March
2020)

How about you cancel the branding consultancy and direct 100% of that
pile of cash towards the range of Wikimedia Covid-19 projects to
create great factual content to combat commercial lobbying and fake
news, the type of fake news we see promoted by the President of the
United States every day in the global media?

Thanks!
Fae

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 09:49, Samir Elsharbaty
 wrote:
>
> Hi, the Brand team has been watching the RfC and has written a summary
> about it [1] that was shared both in the RfC [2] and the project page [3]
> in Meta. The team has integrated the feedback of the RfC in the development
> process, just as we did with the activities organized by the project
> itself.
...

> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
> Wikimedia Foundation 

___
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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-03-14 Thread
The movement has events a couple of magnitudes more important and
urgent to spend time on.

As for being invited to take part in a "brand network" discussion, of
all places on *Facebook*, this is so fundamentally wrong, I would
think it was a joke.

WMF management, stop flushing away the donor's money on this, please.
It has already been overwhelmingly rejected, failed, and not firmly
ending it makes you appear unable to stop paying consultants to make
up more marketing jargon nonsense to justify their invoice.

Fae

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 17:33, Essie Zar  wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> when your email went out.
>
> As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
> City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
> improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
> convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
> movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
> branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.
>
> In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
> Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
> been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement. The
> process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
> volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
> foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
> workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
> answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
> developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
> movement.
>
> Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
> the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
> you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
> concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
> built or selected by workshop participants.
>
> Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
>
> Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the project
> talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be
> available on Meta starting next month.
>
> Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single
> concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around naming
> (expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are
> scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can
> continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.
>
> We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in Snøhetta's
> open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of the
> channels mentioned.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various points
> in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas of
> the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe that we
> don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human being
> to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means billions of
> people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and
> include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals the
> movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us there.
>
> Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at brandingwikipedia.org and
> the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the project
> talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to drop us a
> note at brandproj...@wikimedia.org if you have questions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Essie Zar
>
> (from the movement brand identity project team)
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html
>
> [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
>
> [3] https://snohetta.com/
>
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
>
> [5]
> 

[Wikimedia-l] April could be our Wikimedia month of kindness

2020-03-12 Thread
Wikimedia Commons is proposing that April becomes a Month of Kindness.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Votes,_month_of_kindness

The pandemic is affecting everyone and is likely to be very stressful
for many. This proposal aims to remind everyone throughout April to
make extra efforts to be kinder in their interactions, making our
Wikimedia project a kinder and more supportive space as our default.

Do any other projects fancy joining this initiative?

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Practical implications of Coronavirus

2020-03-10 Thread
I encourage UK wikimedians to test out group meeting tools,
if only to be in a strong position to share experiences and
recommendations with other groups as to the practicalities of
substituting meet ups with virtual events. This is a subject that gets
discussed at *every* Wikimania but there is hardly any progress apart
from streaming videos with very limited virtual chat.

The WM-LGBT+ community has been using Zoom to coordinate the user
group and for the LGBT+ conference with participants using very varied
broadband access, hardware kit, and from many countries. Any
videoconference tool would struggle on a very old laptop, and my old
laptop could not handle it in real time, but modern tablets and mobile
phones can run the version of it quite successfully. We have had up to
8 people in a meeting and you share a text channel as well as having
options for seeing who is speaking or keeping a gallery view on your
screen. Keep in mind that smartphones are specially designed to handle
video conferencing, and normally do an excellent job of it.

Separately I prefer Google hangouts for a very bad internet connection
(under 10 mb/s) which is more forgiving than Zoom or Skype as it seems
to be better at brown-out conditions. Google hangouts is probably a
bit easier for the average volunteer to log in to or get running on
their kit, for example installing Zoom on Ubuntu meant setting things
up on the command line for me.

Fae

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 15:05, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> For a setting with a lot of presentations and questions Zoom should work
> fine
>
> https://zoom.us/?zcid=2314=359453254254=%2Bzoom%20online%20%2Bmeeting=b=g=c=EAIaIQobChMIsI2o0JaQ6AIVBc13Ch0VxwqZEAAYASAAEgJs0_D_BwE
>
> but of course it would not provide any interaction between participants.
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:59 PM WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > At last Sunday's London Meetup we discussed the situation and while not
> > wanting to seem over cautious (we were of course the dozen who'd decided to
> > attend). We realised that there was a good chance that the April and even
> > May meetings might need to go virtual.
> >
> > Is there a recommended software solution for video/audio conferencing a
> > dozen to twenty people?
> >
> > I took part in some not the wikipedia Weekly podcasts almost a decade ago,
> > but i'm assuming the technology has progressed since then.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_The_Wikipedia_Weekly
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > WSC
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 13:27, 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> > > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > >1. Re: 2020 Wikimania Scholarships now open (Dariusz Jemielniak)
> > >2. Re: 2020 Wikimania Scholarships now open (Gnangarra)
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 08:48:48 -0400
> > > From: Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2020 Wikimania Scholarships now open
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <
> > > cadespguuq96jzaylkajfipv-isfmqvcul8nhm+scbjxagfd...@mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I believe it likely is too early to make a decision. We have a
> > professional
> > > team at the WMF monitoring the situation, but the date is still 5 months
> > in
> > > the future.
> > >
> > > It is reasonable to expect that we may need to make adjustments to the
> > > situation as it develops and in 2-3 months it will be much clearer where
> > we
> > > stand.
> > >
> > > For now, I think it is already fair to say that the WMF leadership is not
> > > shying away from difficult decisions (the summit cancellation, closing
> > down
> > > the office, canceling international travel for staff) and clearly
> > > prioritizes our safety.
> > >
> > > I trust the judgment of our staff when they communicate clearly that they
> > > are considering all options and will.make a decision in due time.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Dj "pundit"
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 00:45 Rehman Abubakr 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I too have cancelled all personal/work/wiki travel plans. The risks are
> > > > far too great.
> > > >
> > > > A single infection at the conference, depending on who/where, has the
> > > > potential to cause significant damage 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-26 Thread
This is a slight tangent, but please let's be slightly more precise
with wording about what free media content Wikimedia Commons
legitimately hosts.

The scope of Wikimedia Commons is to host all free media with any
rationale for "reasonable educational reuse".[1] The vast majority of
content never will be used on any other sister Wikimedia project. This
means:
* "Reasonable" in a very wide sense, including cultural value,
historical value, illustrative use. So some random modern photograph
of a couple kissing in the street might be out of scope, but if the
photograph was taken 80 years ago, then it has historic value, or if
the photograph was at a pride march, then it probably has cultural and
illustrative value.
* "Reuse" is anywhere and "educational" is subject to generous and
very wide interpretations of potential value. This means media that
someone would find quite interesting for illustrating a school
project, or as a pretty screensaver on their phone, or because it's
something illustrative about cats to post on Twitter.

Consequently, Wikimedia Commons is *not* limited to what might be
"notable" for an encyclopaedia, so there is no automatic deletion for
yet another photograph of someone's breakfast, nor even for a selfie
photo, so long as there can be a case made by anyone for reasonable
reuse.

The only areas where additional guidelines often lead to deletions
(and difficult deletion discussion), is for media with demonstrated
issues of invasion of privacy or consent,[2] apparent harassment, or a
not very special photo of private parts[3] of a specific type for
which we happen to have plenty to choose from already. Lastly,
policies do evolve, albeit very slowly, and no local policy overrides
the WMF top-level policies such as on privacy or harassment.

This tangent was not about copyright, so before anyone points it out,
"free media" has a quite specific definition at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing. But that's a
rabbit-hole of its own.

Links
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity#New_uploads

Fae

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:56, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> Commons is a project with a specific purpose. It is to host all media that
> fits the use of any other project. As it is English Wikipedia notability
> standards are used to justify why files are not to be kept on Commons. This
> is contrary to its very purpose, it is not acceptable and it is not for the
> Commons community to decide otherwise.
>
> When at OTRS a license is given for the unfettered use of media respecting
> an approved license, there is no argument, no rule inside OTRS itself that
> is applicable particularly when that media is explicitly asked for on
> another project.
> Thanks,
>Gerard
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:39, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > Scope is a Commons community decision,
> > OTRS is solely about licensing
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:30, Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO
> > do
> > > what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is
> > NOT
> > > covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the
> > > notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the
> > original
> > > copyright holder is that as well.
> > >
> > > Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and
> > > consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order
> > > for OTRS to function for all of us.
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > to quote Gerard
> > > >
> > > > There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as
> > put
> > > > > forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
> > > >
> > > > for purpose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright
> > laws,
> > > > both in the US and in the country in which they reside.  Every
> > > > transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in
> > regards
> > > > to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the
> > > > consequences of that action.  OTRS holds an absolute record of that
> > > action
> > > > of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue
> > > in
> > > > the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved
> > in
> > > > the process.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
> > > > > understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a
> > > reference
> > > > > is made to "legal". There is no law that 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

2020-02-20 Thread
To help with overly "shouty" templates, I did create
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fae/talk_page_trimmer
 on
Commons which 'shrinks' long notices on the presumption that noting a
possible "copyright problem" does not need lots of threats because not
everyone is a vandal. The code is open source, it's very stable and anyone
on Commons can opt-in.

A system of "friendly notice alternative bots" which newbies could opt-in
to if they act in good faith and want to take policies seriously could help
to make any project seem less hostile. Anyone that does something like ask
for help at a noticeboard, does not need to be shouted at by torch-wielding
villagers. I recall several newbies fleeing the project after getting just
a couple of very shouty notices and presuming everyone thought they were a
crimmo.

Fae

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 01:50, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> It would be nice to have a tool for long standing editors to clean up a
> newbies talk page for them, leave messages for the overeager templaters,
> and help them out / welcome them in untemolsted language.
>
> Then a little ML could go a long way in guessing which newbies are in this
> situation and generating a queue for newbie-care. ~~~
>
> 
>
> On Wed., Feb. 19, 2020, 4:35 p.m. Andy Mabbett,  >
> wrote:
>
> > I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of
> > an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w
> > as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life.
> >
> > Her six sequential edits - her first and only contribution to
> > Wikipedia - totalled 1254 characters, and were conducted over the
> > space of 30 minutes. They were no the best quality, lacking sources,
> > but were benign, and exactly what one might expect an untutored novice
> > to do as a first change.
> >
> > As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk
> > page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a
> > discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094
> > characters or 665 words.
> >
> > How do other projects deal with such cases?
> >
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >


-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
___
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] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

2020-02-18 Thread
Thankyou Pharos for expressing the issue so clearly.

In the last 2 days, purely as part of our Wikimedia projects, I have felt
/obliged/ to contribute to discussions on Telegram, Twitter, Facebook, Zoom
and IRC (and at least 2 other platforms in a passive way). All of these
discussion spaces are used by our community to talk about our Wikimedia
community issues or to work together in parallel to the normal and more
permanent on-wiki talk pages of Wikipedia, Commons, Meta... Honestly, I do
not see the point of spinning off a fringe Wikimedia alternate that in
practice cannot be expected to match the well tested and well-understood
capabilities of the mainstream applications.

Fae

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 20:18, Michael Peel  wrote:

>
>
> > On 18 Feb 2020, at 19:53, Pharos  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 8:49 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> >> Phase V confirmed! -- I hope this means related features (a calendar +
> >> forum :) are getting included in mediawiki propre...
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >
> > Indeed, it has been a mistake to keep spinning off new discussion
> > platforms, in the hope that the next one will be different and
> controllable
> > and totally replace everything else. This has been an anti-pattern for a
> > decade. Far better to make a real investment (including both a social
> and a
> > technical investment) in the actual community platforms based on
> MediaWiki,
> > where many of the ideas that were developed for Space could be rather
> more
> > fruitfully applied, and the existing eforts by good people not be put to
> > waste.
>
> I completely agree - investing in the core platform the way to go. See you
> all on-wiki with everyone else?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
___
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] Cross-project promotion of Nordicism and white supremacist racial myths

2020-01-26 Thread
Update on the progress of how to handle "racial" and race theory
categories, tags and content cross-project:
* On Commons the village pump proposal[1] to ensure categories,
descriptions and filenames should be correct for the media content but
should not promote these debunked theories was passed, making it
easier to avoid having to prove a consensus before getting on with
fixing problems.
* On Wikidata the discussion petered out[2] but there seems a general
view that adding debunked human race entries to a parent like
"superseded scientific theory" could be done. However, there is no
agreed action to do something. This means that an entry like "Negroid"
(https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q338460) which disturbingly has been
attached to the Commons gallery "Black People" which includes many
notable black people like Kofi Annan, and the Commons category of the
same name[7] will continue to be subtly misused, and continue to be
applied in this way because blocking its misapplication is hard to do
within the current Wikidata project structure.
* On non-English Wikipedias there has been no change, and any change
is resisted. In the Italian Razza (categorizzazione umana) article[9]
is written to assert that the use of racial terms is a matter lacking
consensus or a matter where popularity votes are reposted as
encyclopaedic, and the recently renamed problematic "races" collage of
modern photographs of living people is still being used to illustrate
human racial types even while saying these are discredited and the
image having been removed twice because it is actively racist.

In general, there is no programme for fixing offensive use of
descriptions on Commons like "A scientific demonstration from 1868
that the Negro is as distinct from the Caucasian as the Chimpanzee",
which is a quote, but is presented without any qualification that
indicates to readers or reusers that this is not in 'Wikimedia's
voice' or is clearly debunked offensive "racial science". The further
one looks, the more we seem to require a systematic project to
identify cross-project misuse or bad framing of archaic racial
theories or terms and to set out a cross-project policy for ensuring
corrective and preventative actions are adopted even while we
correctly present the historical facts and evidence.

Though folks seem reluctant to adopt cross-wiki policies, in practice
I do not see this getting done and sticking without it, along with a
(funded?) project to pursue and analyse corrective action.

Thanks,
Fae

Links
1-6. previous message
7. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Black_people
8. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Races_and_skulls.png
9. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razza_(categorizzazione_umana)


On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 12:44, Fæ  wrote:
>
> This week the creation of racial categories like "Nordic race A" was 
> discussed on Commons. On digging further there is a fundamental problem with 
> the way modern portraits of living people are being misused to "illustrate" 
> these 1930s race myths. Rather than using available real archive material 
> from the 1930s, a user created collage of modern portraits being used to 
> illustrate these pseudo-scientific racial classes on Wikidata as well as 
> Wikipedia in German, Hebrew, Italian, Ukrainian, and the Tamil wiktionary.
>
> It is certain that if portraits of WMF board members were misused and 
> labelled "Nordic race" or "Negroid race", then WMF legal would be swept into 
> action in line with the terms of the website. However, as the modern portrait 
> photographs illustrating offensive 1930s racist terminology are not us 
> personally, apparently, we can wikilawyer this to one side rather than taking 
> action.
>
> The rationale on Wikimedia Commons will default to the faux anti-censorship 
> trope of "if there is one Wikipedia that uses it, we cannot delete it" even 
> though the use of modern photographs to illustrate racist theories of 
> Nordicism or Nazism are clearly anti-educational and so out of scope. 
> Consequently, this appears to need a cross-project consensus to not use our 
> Wikimedia websites to promote race hate or white supremacy, possibly with the 
> authority of WMF Legal to take action behind it.
>
> Feedback and pragmatic suggestions on how to move this forward would be 
> welcome.
>
> Links:
> 1. Commons VP discussion 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Correctly_representing,_but_not_promoting,_%22racial_theories%22_used_in_Nordicism_and_Nazism
> 2. Wikidata discussion 
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Correctly_representing_archaic_or_debunked_%22racial%22_term_entries
> 3. 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_races_according_to_Coon_(collage).jpg

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations released, join the conversation

2020-01-21 Thread
Best practices for a good consensus are not political games. However
dismissing the concerns of long term members of the community that the
strategy references in every recommendation, by extremely obvious tone
policing, is playing politics and marginalization.

Thanks for referencing my Commons work Aron.

Fae

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 20:24, Aron Manning  wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:50, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > The WMF board and their CEO know it is in their interest to take on any
> > firm community consensus rather than playing
> > political games to get around it.
> >
>
> Political games, like requesting supermajority
> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Partial_blocks#Supermajority_needed
> >
> would
> be best avoided, indeed.
>
>
> > As others have expressed, I am not in the least bit inclined to give any
> > feedback on meta. It's a waste of volunteer time, as effective as
> shouting
> > out of your office window expecting to make the weather change.
> >
>
> > Fae
> >
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Gergő Tisza  wrote:
>
> > having participated in writing some of these recommendations, I can tell
> > you from personal experience they have been massively shaped by feedback.
> > That included feedback on the talk pages, feedback at events and
> > conferences, feedback from strategy salons organized for that specific
> > purpose, feedback from all kinds of personal conversations... often
> > conflicting feedback, since, unsurprisingly, different people within the
> > movement often have opposing views.
>
>
>  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> ___
> 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>



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
___
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] Movement Strategy: Recommendations released, join the conversation

2020-01-21 Thread
Ziko, we can vote on whatever we want, whenever we want.

Us having a RFC on meta does not need the WMF to approve it or like it. An
openly run RFC could itself recommend a board resolution asking the
community appointed board members (you know, the legitimate ones that are
accountable to us) to reject or amend the 'recommendations' as the
community sees fit. The WMF board and their CEO know it is in their
interest to take on any firm community consensus rather than playing
political games to get around it.

I suggest folks take some time out to re-review the recommendations and
wait for the dust to settle before deciding if we want to start a correctly
community-led process for voting on it.

As others have expressed, I am not in the least bit inclined to give any
feedback on meta. It's a waste of volunteer time, as effective as shouting
out of your office window expecting to make the weather change.

Fae

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 09:54, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> We now have the confirmation on a Meta Wiki talk page: the WMF is not going
> to let the communities vote on the recommendations.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations#Community_consensus
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> Am Di., 21. Jan. 2020 um 09:39 Uhr schrieb Yaroslav Blanter <
> ymb...@gmail.com>:
>
> > We will be again talking to the wall. (Would be, I am not going to react
> > this time).
> >
> > Best
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:06 AM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > > Katherine,
> > >
> > > These are very disappointing. It does not seem like a bit of the
> feedback
> > > on earlier versions was taken into consideration at all. Can we expect
> > > anything we say to matter this time around, or will we once again be
> > > talking to the wall?
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 8:24 PM Katherine Maher 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to share some news with you: the first version of the
> movement
> > > > strategy recommendations document has been published on Meta [1]. On
> > > behalf
> > > > of the movement strategy working groups and recommendation writers, I
> > am
> > > > honored to present them to you. We ask you to please take a moment to
> > > read
> > > > through, review, and comment.
> > > >
> > > > In 2017, we set about building the future we want, together. In 2020,
> > > your
> > > > fellow Wikimedians have written and shared a framework for how we can
> > > bring
> > > > to life our vision of becoming the essential support system of the
> > > > ecosystem of free knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > == Review the recommendations ==
> > > >
> > > > These recommendations are the result of 18 months of in-depth
> > discussions
> > > > and consultation among global Wikimedia community members and
> research
> > > > into opportunities for our future. The volunteer working groups [2],
> > > > writing teams [3] and strategy liaisons [4] have all invested a
> > > significant
> > > > amount of energy into this, and I want to wholeheartedly thank each
> and
> > > > every person who contributed to creating this work.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to encourage everyone to read this work. There are 13
> > > > recommendations (condensed from 89), accompanied by an explanation of
> > the
> > > > principles [5] that underlie the recommendations, an outline of how
> > these
> > > > recommendations work together [6], as well as an overview of how the
> > > > recommendations were produced and next steps [7].
> > > >
> > > > The core of this material is online in Arabic, English, French,
> German,
> > > > Hindi, Portuguese, and Spanish. We also have an overview available in
> > > > Catalan, Dutch, Farsi, Hebrew, Polish, and Russian that offers a
> > > condensed
> > > > introduction to the recommendations material.
> > > >
> > > > == Share your feedback ==
> > > >
> > > > In order to produce a final document that is representative of and
> > > relevant
> > > > to the diverse project communities as well as groups and
> organizations
> > > that
> > > > make up our movement, we are calling on everyone to review the
> > > > recommendations and share their thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > Specifically, we ask you to look at what impact these recommendations
> > > might
> > > > have on you and your group or community’s context. Discussions are
> > > > happening on-wiki in many languages, as well as in discussion groups
> on
> > > > other, off0wiki platforms, and within movement groups and structures.
> > > >
> > > > This round of community conversations will run until the first week
> of
> > > > March [8]. After this five-week period, the Core Team will publish a
> > > > summary report of input from across affiliates, online communities,
> and
> > > > other stakeholders for public review. [9] Your input will play a role
> > as
> > > > the recommendation writers finalize the strategy document, and move
> us
> > > > towards discussions around implementation.

[Wikimedia-l] Cross-project promotion of Nordicism and white supremacist racial myths

2020-01-18 Thread
This week the creation of racial categories like "Nordic race A" was
discussed on Commons. On digging further there is a fundamental problem
with the way modern portraits of living people are being misused to
"illustrate" these 1930s race myths. Rather than using available real
archive material from the 1930s, a user created collage of modern portraits
being used to illustrate these pseudo-scientific racial classes on Wikidata
as well as Wikipedia in German, Hebrew, Italian, Ukrainian, and the Tamil
wiktionary.

It is certain that if portraits of WMF board members were misused and
labelled "Nordic race" or "Negroid race", then WMF legal would be swept
into action in line with the terms of the website. However, as the modern
portrait photographs illustrating offensive 1930s racist terminology are
not us personally, apparently, we can wikilawyer this to one side rather
than taking action.

The rationale on Wikimedia Commons will default to the faux anti-censorship
trope of "if there is one Wikipedia that uses it, we cannot delete it" even
though the use of modern photographs to illustrate racist theories of
Nordicism or Nazism are clearly anti-educational and so out of scope.
Consequently, this appears to need a cross-project consensus to not use our
Wikimedia websites to promote race hate or white supremacy, possibly with
the authority of WMF Legal to take action behind it.

Feedback and pragmatic suggestions on how to move this forward would be
welcome.

Links:
1. Commons VP discussion
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Correctly_representing,_but_not_promoting,_%22racial_theories%22_used_in_Nordicism_and_Nazism
2. Wikidata discussion
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Correctly_representing_archaic_or_debunked_%22racial%22_term_entries
3.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_races_according_to_Coon_(collage).jpg
4. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasse
5. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razza_(categorizzazione_umana) (where an
attempt to remove the problematic image has been reverted)
6.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Human_races_according_to_Coon_(collage).jpg
deletion
request for the modern collage of portraits used to promote 1930s racist
language

Thanks,
Fae
___
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] Donating to Wikipedia

2019-12-20 Thread
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 19:24, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
> ... but the
> movement has set itself some pretty significant goals for the next 10
> years.

Could you provide a link to where the movement, presumably not the
report published in February 2018 that was written by the
"Foundation’s staff and its consulting teams", has agreed and set the
specific measurable goals to be met over the next 10 years that
fundraising is aiming for?

Thanks in advance,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Donating to Wikipedia

2019-12-18 Thread
Sadly I had a similar experience only this weekend.

We were enjoying a going away lunch with friends who are out of the
country over Christmas, when one of them asked about Wikipedia's
problems, knowing that I often volunteer time to it. He claimed that
the site was spamming screen-sized pop-up banners trying to raise
money because they were going bust. I had to advise him how wealthy
the Foundation was, with hundreds of staff and extra cash in an
endowment fund.

Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that
/plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every
year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the
impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't
give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over
Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of
it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way
where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the
fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia is
about to vanish.

Thanks,
Fae

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 20:34, Jacob Jose  wrote:
>
> I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did..  If one is viewing using the
> mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to scroll
> down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need to be
> much less loud than it's now..
>
> Background: I have been an active Wiki contributor for over 10 years now.
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > My dad recently said to me:
> >
> > "I was solitated by them after looking something up.  I thought it strange
> > the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like they
> > might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
> >
> > Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to get the
> > wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
> >
> > I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think it's highly
> > antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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, 
> 

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
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] WikiDonne User Group - 2018/2019 Report

2019-12-05 Thread
I think you meant to link to:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne/Reports/Report_2018-2019

Fae

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 13:31, camelia boban  wrote:
>
> Dear wikimedians,
>
> at this link  you can find the
> WDG's last report with activities done from November 2018 to November 2019.
>
> Please feel free to ask any question and send your thoughts.
>
> Yours,
> Camelia Boban on behalf of WikiDonne User Group
>
> --
> *Camelia Boban*
>
> *| Java EE Developer |*
>
>
>
> *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation*
> Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> *Interwiki Women
>  | **Wiki
> Loves Sport  | Wiki Loves
> Fashion *
> WMIT  - WMSE
>  - WMAR
>  - WMCH
>  Member
>
> M. +39 3383385545
> camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
>  *|* *LinkedIn
> *
> *Wikipedia  **| 
> **WikiDonne
> UG * | *WikiDonne Project
>  *

___
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] Remember Wikipedia Zero.. Where is the research about the effects of its demise?

2019-12-01 Thread
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 11:09, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
...
> What I have noticed is that once consensus has been reached, we do not want
> to be confronted with the consequences of our actions. Wikipedia Zero has
> damaged our outreach and what the BBC info reminds us of is that Internet,
> the cost of Internet, is not comparable in Africa with what we are used to.
> It means that we no longer reach the girls and boys in Soweto as we showed
> in our film clip at the Erasmus award.
...

The disconnect between what matters and the different realities we
live in is easy to see when a fundraising appeal for the WMF was based
on virtual charity tin rattling to raise $3 being the "price of a
coffee".[1] For some, $3 pays for our Sunday lunch.

We should accept that it is impossibly hard for Wikimedia Foundation
employees to take to heart that San Francisco or the Trump dominated
America is not the "real world", and the ever thin rationales to keep
on funding the WMF head office there, rather than relocating to
anywhere else in the world that would in every practical way be run at
half the cost has been a jarring reminder. The "Wikimedia Community"
has never been the Wikimedia Foundation, and yet the Wikimedia
Community is failing when it leaves decisions like Wikipedia Zero to
be created and cancelled entirely under the authority of the Wikimedia
Foundation.

In the long term, the Foundation does not bear the responsibility for
these actions, it is us. It is up to us to find better and more
transparent ways to govern the operational business that acts in our
name and which left to its own devices will become less transparent
every year, and less accountable for why high budget and
staff/contractor growth is a "good" thing when money for volunteer
activities flatlines.

Link
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oversized_donation_notice.png

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] [GLAM] Free content by tv broadcaster ZDF

2019-10-23 Thread
The five available videos have been re-encoded to webm (mp4 is a
non-free format) and released on Wikimedia Commons.[1] Some are
already in use on the German Wikipedia.[2]

If ZDF copied their CC-BY videos to YouTube, there are several tools
available that can assist mass uploading and encoding from YouTube.

There is a convenient system for adding multiple language text
captions to videos on Commons, perhaps a volunteer might want to make
these more accessible this way?[3]

Links
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_by_Terra_X
2. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimamodell
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Timed_Text

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 11:50, Lilli Iliev  wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Germany's national public television broadcaster ZDF releases video clips and 
> photos on climate change and global warming under CC BY 4.0 for the first 
> time on this website: 
> https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/terra-x/terra-x-creative-commons-cc-100.html
>
> Though there are things to improve, like adding a CC-button with more info on 
> correct licensing in each video, this his can be seen as a milestone and a 
> role model for more content and public service broadcasters like ARD to open 
> up and share content especially in the fields of news and documentation.
>
> After all, media under public law are publicly financed and using free 
> licences would correspond to their mission since they'd make a significant 
> contribution to the reach of public content.
>
> Feel free to share the news and make them visible on twitter and other 
> channels.
>
> Tweet by WMDE (german):
> https://twitter.com/WikimediaDE/status/1186304730932355072
>
> Blogpost on netzpolitik.org (german):
> https://netzpolitik.org/2019/zdf-veroeffentlicht-terra-x-clips-unter-freier-lizenz/
>
> best
> Lilli
> --
> Lilli Iliev
>
> Projektmanagerin Politik
> project manager public policy
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit 
> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Greener travel and the ethics of carbon offset for Wikimedia community events

2019-10-14 Thread
Lots of good suggestions. Thanks for the feedback.

Calculating the amount of travel by flight and train for a conference
is not a lot of extra bureaucracy if the estimated distance made part
of documenting the grants and expense claims. Playing around with some
calculations of my own, it makes sense that rather than expecting
individual participants to add carbon offsetting to their personal
costs, we instead plan as a group to make a single donation to a
credible project. This might even be something that a large affiliate
like WMDE or the WMF might consider rolling up and managing.
Especially for shorter flights (like 500 km round trips), the
administrative cost as part of the donation works out as much as the
amount that would go to the end project, so a single large payment
would make far more sense than at the individual level.

Regardless of exactly how carbon offsetting might be arranged, it
would be great it the proposed LGBT+ conference in 2020  reports the
total travel figure, as part of the conference's aim to minimize our
carbon footprint. If a matching payment to a carbon offset project is
between 2% to 5% of the travel grants paid out, that seems entirely
manageable as part of being responsible global citizens (thanks for
that phrase!).

The separate issue of ensuring virtual engagement, such as catering
for remote presentations, is a critical way of both reducing carbon
footprint and allowing access for folks or organizations that have
difficulty travelling long distance, wish to minimize their personal
carbon footprint, or wish to participate but are unable to commit to
devoting several days full time. WM-LGBT+ has been successfully using
Zoom open source videoconferencing with participants in several
countries at the same time, and with the launch of Facebook Horizon in
2020, this particular conference might be a well timed opportunity to
set up a VR space to the benefit of the planned workshop discussions
in a far more engaging way than passive videocasting of presentations
allows. Who knows, maybe Facebook might loan us some headsets? ;-)

If folks want to continue to chip in with suggestions for the
conference, the WM-LGBT+ user group talk page on meta is worth
watching, and there are several other communication channels linked
there if you prefer direct messaging or tweets. See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+/Portal

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 16:53, Bence Damokos  wrote:
>
> The price really depends on the project selected and can vary from less
> than a dollar to close to $20 per tonne, and the cheaper projects do not
> necessarily have less of an impact (more likely they have fewer levels of
> independent verification).
>
> Do note that apart from the company recommended on the Wikimania wiki,
> there are other options out there. For example, on the UNFCCC portal you
> will find many in even under the $1/tonne range:
> https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/allprojects if you check the
> individual projects, there is quite a lot of detail and documentation
> included to be able to have confidence that the money goes to the correct
> place.
> The ones that come with further certification can cost more of course, with
> the projects on the Gold Standard website being on the $10-15/tonne price
> range (they have a "basket" of projects option at $11[1]), and Terrapass
> chosen by the organisers of Wikmania also seem to be around the $9 mark
> (they count in pounds for some reason on their website).
>
> For personal offsetting I am quite happy to go by the UN site and I think
> that is a good start to starting offsetting if one did not do it before. If
> one has more resources or time, they can spend it on selecting projects
> that meet their specific criteria (for example, social impacts beyond
> climate impacts, projects in specific geographic regions, or an extra level
> of certification) taking into account the extra cost.
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
>
> [1] https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/offset-your-emissions,
> https://www.goldstandard.org/projects/climate-portfolio-variety-projects
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 17:24, Osmar Valdebenito 
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's cheap... for European participants in a conference.
> > People coming from developing nations tend to live further and require
> > longer trips to participate in events and conference, mostly hosted in
> > Europe or the US.
> > So, not only you are asking us to spend larger hours on flights but also
> > pay (or make someone else pay more) for it.
> > I calculated how much carbon offset costed for my Wikimania travel, using
> > the websites offered at the WM wiki, and it wasn't 1 or 2 usd. It was 107
> > euros, around 10% or more of the cost of the trip.
> > I'm all for making a greener Wikimedia movement, but we should do it not
> > affecting those that, supposedly, we want to include more in our movement.
> >
> > El sáb., 12 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Greener travel and the ethics of carbon offset for Wikimedia community events

2019-10-11 Thread
Any general questions like catering for virtual attendees can be
raised at the talk page for the 2020 LGBT+ conference.[1] The
conference is at the proposal stage with funding yet to be agreed with
the WMF. The proposers will be happy to receive feedback and respond
to questions.

If no previous conference within our wider Wikimedia movement has used
carbon offset projects to benefit its green footprint, that's an
interesting fact to confirm as this may well be a great opportunity to
try this out.

Links
1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Conference/Kawayashu/Queering_Wikipedia

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 20:47, Chris Keating  wrote:
>
> >
> > This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has
> > to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/
> > conferences.
> >
>
> Since a fortnight ago you were haranguing* the WMF for using too much air
> travel and lacking "any actual measurable commitment to picking up a
> telephone, holding a video conference, or holding a VR conference session",
> it will be interesting to see what solutions you can come up with for this
> conference you're organising. Did you consider the options other than an
> in-person conference that you recommended the WMF adopt, out of interest?
>
>
>
>
> *
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/News_from_the_WMF
> ___
> 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, 
> 

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Greener travel and the ethics of carbon offset for Wikimedia community events

2019-10-11 Thread
To clarify, the topic was "planning a conference for next year, we
could ask or require participants to factor in payments for carbon
offset"

This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has
to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/
conferences.

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 14:33, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> When the WMF wants to "green" itself, the most effective way is to make its
> software and operations greener. The software will reduce the need for
> energy, the operations ensure that green energy is used. Reducing the need
> for energy is an investment that will reduce the overall cost and has an
> effect not only in the datacentres of the WMF but also in the transport of
> data all over the world. It is only an investment in the time of engineers,
> there are no other downsides.
>
> In addition you may consider our travels because we want to be green. The
> biggest problem is that as an organisation that NEEDS to bring our
> community together, such an aim is like digging a hole we are bound to be
> unable to climb out of.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 13:16, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > In the discussion about the report from the WMF relating to
> > sustainability, mention was made of the potential use of carbon
> > offset. As part of planning a conference for next year, we could ask
> > or require participants to factor in payments for carbon offset. With
> > no experience in examining carbon offset projects, we are cautious
> > about making any policy to do this, in particular it would be a bad
> > blunder if we start paying in to a carbon offset project that turns
> > out to be a bad or controversial choice later on.
> >
> > Has the WMF or Affiliates made any prior choices for carbon offset
> > projects, or could the community work out which of the many projects
> > might be the most ethically responsible and well governed to choose
> > from?
> >
> > An a bonus to tack on, we have used phrases like ''encouraging greener
> > travel options'', which one might interpret as doing things like
> > preferring train travel rather than using flights within the same
> > country. However if, say, a participant can fly within the country at
> > half the cost and get to an event in a couple of hours rather than
> > spending several times longer travelling, is it a reasonable/ethical
> > approach to just fly for convenience and buy some carbon offset
> > "points" (and so flying may well still be significantly cheaper than
> > going by train).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > 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>



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Greener travel and the ethics of carbon offset for Wikimedia community events

2019-10-11 Thread
In the discussion about the report from the WMF relating to
sustainability, mention was made of the potential use of carbon
offset. As part of planning a conference for next year, we could ask
or require participants to factor in payments for carbon offset. With
no experience in examining carbon offset projects, we are cautious
about making any policy to do this, in particular it would be a bad
blunder if we start paying in to a carbon offset project that turns
out to be a bad or controversial choice later on.

Has the WMF or Affiliates made any prior choices for carbon offset
projects, or could the community work out which of the many projects
might be the most ethically responsible and well governed to choose
from?

An a bonus to tack on, we have used phrases like ''encouraging greener
travel options'', which one might interpret as doing things like
preferring train travel rather than using flights within the same
country. However if, say, a participant can fly within the country at
half the cost and get to an event in a couple of hours rather than
spending several times longer travelling, is it a reasonable/ethical
approach to just fly for convenience and buy some carbon offset
"points" (and so flying may well still be significantly cheaper than
going by train).

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] [LGBT] Best practices for awarding scholarships

2019-10-08 Thread
The Wikidata profiles is a bit of a tangent, here's another nudge that
the thread is really about best practices for managing scholarships
for volunteers.

Now indulging the tangent myself :-), care will be taken for all
attendees for this planned LGBT+ conference to feel safe and welcome
by participating. Though some participants may have public profiles
and be published, most will not, and it's likely that even some with
profiles will prefer to take part without it being an issue. The
conference will be transparently governed and the outcomes will be
public and of public benefit, but there are jolly good reasons not to
have participants feeling that they are being live streamed and any
video frame might be used out of context in trollish commentary about
them or to out them.

We regularly, and have recently seen, minority groups targeted with
harassment, threats, abuse and other unwelcoming hounding just for
being visible participants on related Wikipedia topics. It's the
reality of our public space and there is no easy fix for it, but we
can be honest about it, and do more to act on it in a timely way.

Thanks,
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 09:53, Matej Grochal  wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> interesting idea with Wikidata. However, especially in the LGBT+
> community there might be a disharmony in what is online and what is
> offline. Would we require people to out themselves? What about
> countries where it is safer to assume an identity?
>
> Matej

___
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] Best practices for awarding scholarships

2019-10-07 Thread
Plans for a Wikimedia LGBT+ conference and workshops in 2020 are
moving forward. We would very much like to learn and borrow successful
experiences from other conferences. This conference is expected to be
relatively modest in size, around 50 attendees, and is to be hosted in
Linz, Austria.

We are planning on opening up applications for scholarships very soon,
to allow several months for early booking of travel tickets and visa
applications where needed. Naturally this means we have to create a
process for assessing applications to a hopefully short and
non-subjective checklist (we are all volunteers after all!).

Can anyone recommend documented good practices for assessing
applications for travel grants and expenses for similar sized events?
Some issues we have discussed that need to be addressed before
finalizing our policies are:
* Creating a fair assessment process that balances the diversity of
attendees against other metrics like on-project experience, for
example ensuring that we have a healthy gender balance and a wide
geographic representation
* Whether it may be better to prefer the simplicity of assessing for
full scholarships, or whether partial payments are a good way of
ensuring wider access
* How to draw up rules for travel and partial scholarships for folks
planning on making this part of a holiday, as often happens for those
travelling long distances
* When to recommend that specific Wikimedia Affiliates should provide
grants and expenses, which may have additional requirements for
applications and reporting
* How to build in incentives for greener travel options, even where
this may not be the cheapest option

You can read the conference proposal at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/Kawayashu/Queering_Wikipedia
and everyone is welcome to provide suggestions and feedback on the
discussion page there, if on-wiki editing works better for you than
email. :-)

Thanks
Fae
-- 
Wikimedia LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Persistence of old vandalized Wikipedia articles in Google search, especially for zombie attacks

2019-10-06 Thread
Can someone explain how a vandalized version of the Wikipedia article
about Henry Kissinger that was only visible for a rather short time
several days ago, is still being promoted in Google searches
today?[1][2]

The "zombie sex" vandalism was only visible for a few minutes, quickly
fixed by admin El C and the page indefinitely protected. Yet it is
this four day old version that Google searches were using in
preference to either the current version or older versions with more
long term public visibility. In the age of real smart Google AI and
active mirrors of Wikipedia, how is this still our reality? It does
not give me confidence that politically vandalized articles
potentially for the benefit of state sponsored agents are not also
being promoted in searches for several days, regardless of how
fleetingly they are visible on Wikipedia and speedily corrected by
volunteers.

It would be good to have a simple explanation of any improvements to
how this works, and our Wikimedia projects pragmatic relationship with
Google and other search engines.

Thanks!

Links
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger=history
2. https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1180847863854706689/photo/1

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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: Outcomes of the Harmonization Sprint in Tunis

2019-10-02 Thread
That's helpful.

Volunteers are repeatedly shut down asking questions on this list and on
wiki project noticeboards, by being told they should ask questions on
these more
obscure and hard to find meta talk pages. So it's good to know that when we
are redirected this way, it's fair to say that those meta pages are not the
right places to expect answers either, just to have some third party
summarize and presumably sanitize comments as part of some non-public and
non-transparent process.

Thanks for the clarification.

Fae

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, 10:48 Nicole Ebber,  wrote:

> Dear Paulo and Ziko,
>
> Thanks for your interest and your questions.
>
> Regarding the second iteration of the recommendations: We posted them
> for your information, to provide insights into how different strands
> of input have been progressed so far. We are not in a structured open
> consultation phase at the moment, but comments are of course always
> welcome on the talk pages, will be monitored, summarized and fed back
> to the Working Groups.
>
> Ziko, yes, as we wrote on the meta page, an extended report will be shared
> soon.
>
> Regards,
> Nicole
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 23:40, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Nicole,
> > Thank you for the explanation. Maybe some more context on Meta Wiki might
> > make sense?
> > I am looking forward to see the final results.
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> > Am Di., 1. Okt. 2019 um 19:08 Uhr schrieb Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > " A second iteration of draft recommendations [4] was published on Meta
> > > just before the sprint for
> > > the communities’ information." - It's quite unclear what are we
> supposed to
> > > do with this, since those recommendations most probably became
> outdated in
> > > the course of the Tunis meetings in the days following their
> publication.
> > > Are we supposed to do anything at all with them?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia segunda,
> > > 30/09/2019 à(s) 17:27:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > We recently held the harmonization sprint in Tunis [1], where
> > > > representatives from each working group met in person to continue
> > > bringing
> > > > nine separate sets of draft recommendations into one set. The event
> also
> > > > brought together staff members from the Wikimedia Foundation and
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > Deutschland, the WMF Chair of the Board of Trustees, and members of
> the
> > > > core team. A longer narrative report will be published in the coming
> > > weeks;
> > > > in the meantime, see a short day-by-day report on Meta, photos on
> commons
> > > > [2], and check out the hashtag #hs2030 on Twitter [3].
> > > >
> > > > In the lead up to the meeting, the working groups were busy refining
> > > their
> > > > draft recommendations based on feedback received at in person events
> from
> > > > Wikimedians across the movement as well as on wiki, via email, and on
> > > > social media since March of this year. They had also begun
> identifying
> > > > overlaps in each other’s recommendations and content. A second
> iteration
> > > of
> > > > draft recommendations [4] was published on Meta just before the
> sprint
> > > for
> > > > the communities’ information.
> > > >
> > > > At the sprint, we continued to group recommendations based on
> > > > commonalities. From there, we looked at what kinds of structures
> would
> > > need
> > > > to be in place to deliver the Wikimedia 2030 vision. A first, rough
> > > > grouping of recommendations came together at the sprint. But what
> became
> > > > clear during the event was that before it’s possible to create a
> coherent
> > > > and actionable set of recommendations, fundamental principles that
> > > underpin
> > > > the path towards 2030 need to be formalized.
> > > >
> > > > The core team is currently processing the discussion materials and
> > > > outcomes. Analysis of the current draft recommendations will
> continue so
> > > as
> > > > to create one unified set. The timeline will shift and we are looking
> > > into
> > > > options for another round of community input.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to make clear that the reason we were not able to
> achieve
> > > our
> > > > initial goal in Tunis was due to a lack of clarity and guidance on
> the
> > > core
> > > > team’s part. Still, the time was not wasted and important, honest
> > > > conversations were had. The working group members, as ever, devoted
> an
> > > > enormous amount of energy and care in the lead up to and during the
> > > event,
> > > > and demonstrated their deep understanding of the challenges and
> > > > opportunities in our movement. We are extremely grateful for all
> their
> > > > effort. In short, the harmonization sprint underlined the high level
> of
> > > > work and dedication every single working group member has put into
> > > getting
> > > > the movement strategy to its current point, and the passion to shape
> the
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

2019-09-23 Thread
Imagine a world where instead of going through security for 2 or 3
hours, flying for 4 hours and travelling by train and bus to get to
and from airports in order to enjoy a physical meeting with fellow
Wikimedians, you simply got a bus or train and travelled for an hour
to a fun meeting place where you met several fellow Wikimedians in
your country, and together spend the day playing around with immersive
conferencing to workshop, discuss and learn from fellow Wikimedians in
other countries. All this and still get home to spend the night in
your own bed, feed your cat, or meet your kids coming back from
school.

That's "making time and space for both" while taking real measurable
action for climate change by reducing our entirely avoidable numbers
of international flights.

The truth is, that despite discussing this since Wikimania events
started, and in that time technology making doing this is almost as
simple as an Affiliate hiring headsets for mobile phones, we have
never even trialled decent immersive virtual conferencing spaces for
productive conferencing.

Fae

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 12:57, Rebecca O'Neill  wrote:
>
> Is it, perhaps, that the value a lot of people derive from these events is
> not just the conference itself, but the ability to meet fellow Wikimedians
> face-to-face and make meaningful contacts and even friendships that may
> never otherwise have come about? I'm all about virtual, but there is value
> in physical events, and I would say that we should make time and space for
> both.
>
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 12:54, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
>
> > Yes
> >
> > We dont give all scholarships for that reason while for regional Wikicon we
> > receive more requests and we fill the amount immediately.
> >
> > It's not an opinion that in our events people prefer to arrive by train and
> > not by flight. We see it as soon we receive the expenses report and when we
> > ask the reason the answer is the climate change.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2019, 13:25 Gabriel Thullen,  wrote:
> >
> > > I am a Swiss member, and I did go to Wikimania (and did a small
> > > presentation).
> > >
> > > I think that you need to clarify you statement:
> > > "In Wikimedia CH we cannot give scholarships for Wikimania because people
> > > would not do long trips."
> > >
> > > When looking up what was sais for Wikimania 2019 I read:
> > > "Wikimedia CH offers scholarships for active Wikimedians. They cover
> > > transportation, hotel (max 3 nights) from the 16th to the 18th, and
> > > registration fees. To check your eligibility, you can consult conditions
> > of
> > > eligibility on this page
> > > ."
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Gabe
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:14 PM Ilario Valdelli 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyways this is perceived by the community.
> > > >
> > > > In Wikimedia CH we cannot give scholarships for Wikimania because
> > people
> > > > would not do long trips.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO the problem is these big events.
> > > >
> > > > For this reason we prefer to give more scholarships for regional
> > wikicon
> > > > than to Wikimania.
> > > >
> > > > This is the reason why you dont see more Swiss people at Wikimania.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, 00:51 Samuel Klein,  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 4:00 PM Robert Fernandez <
> > > wikigamal...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think we could drastically lower our carbon footprint by not
> > using
> > > > > > community digital resources to beat the same dead horse for a
> > > billionth
> > > > > > time.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I laughed out loud.
> > > > >
> > > > > AND.   I love that the WMF joined the strike, and have some practical
> > > > > thoughts.
> > > > >
> > > > > a) Reach out to Stripe
> > > > > , which
> > has
> > > a
> > > > > through self-assessment and a negative-emissions program, and the
> > Long
> > > > Now,
> > > > > to coordinate efforts.
> > > > > b) Evaluate the community-wide carbon footprint, which is dominated
> > by
> > > > >   b.1) How we run conferences [*mostly in person*]
> > > > >   b.2) How we choose partners, communicate climate imformation, and
> > > > > prioritize related policies [*fairly ad-hoc*]
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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:
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

2019-09-23 Thread
We used to regularly raise the issue of a lack of active
videoconferencing at Wikimania. Though we (Wikimedians) are highly
technically literate, we still do not host virtual attendees, such as
3D virtual conferencing and claim it a win if we release video streams
of some of the presentations.

Both to reduce our community's carbon footprint, and to encourage
access for those that find air travel challenging or impossible, it
would be great to see the Wikimedia Foundation being active in
trialing and funding virtual environments for our events. 25 years ago
I worked for a global bank and had regular virtual meetings in a video
room where you physically sat at a conference table where the other
half telemagically was in other headquarters in other cities with
shared (physical) whiteboards to help workshopping. These days it's
relatively easy to videoconference, but we should do more to
experiment with whether booking video suites in different cities might
also be a good way of encouraging Wikimedians to default to local
travel and still be active in our multi-national or global events and
workshops. At the end of the day, paying a few hundred dollars for
several conference suites or higher end conference kit hire hosted by
local Wikimedia Chapters, is a fraction the cost of paying for a far
smaller number of lucky applicants to get their flights and
accommodation paid for.

This type of high quality conferencing initiative would perfectly fit
the non-specific high level aims mentioned in the WMF sustainability
documents. It's weird to me that this is still a debate, and folks are
defending continued air travel at the current consumption levels,
rather than even trialling all the virtual alternatives.

Fae

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 12:14, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
>
> Anyways this is perceived by the community.
>
> In Wikimedia CH we cannot give scholarships for Wikimania because people
> would not do long trips.
>
> IMHO the problem is these big events.
>
> For this reason we prefer to give more scholarships for regional wikicon
> than to Wikimania.
>
> This is the reason why you dont see more Swiss people at Wikimania.
>
> Kind regards

___
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 Foundation joins the global climate strike

2019-09-22 Thread
A screenshot has been uploaded to
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_global_climate_strike_banner_2019.png.

Unfortunately, though web.archive.org has snapshots of the website,
these do not appear to render the banner as it displayed in a browser
on the day.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 at 09:30, Alexander N Krassotkin
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>   Does anyone have a screenshot of the page with this banner? Or a
> link to an online archive? Or at least the banner itself?
>
> sasha.
>
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:54 PM Dennis During  wrote:
> >
> > I couldn't get onto WP or en.wikt shortly after I had heard about the MW
> > participation in the strike. I jumped to an apparently wrong conclusion.
> > Sorry.
> >
> > I am glad that the availability of free knowledge for all was not disrupted.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 3:19 AM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I can tell, only the Foundation wiki is showing the strike
> > > message. That particular one is pretty much theirs to do as they like 
> > > with.
> > >
> > > If they started doing that to any other wikis without their agreement,
> > > well, then we'd have a problem. But so long as it's only the WMF wiki
> > > itself, I don't see the issue.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Dennis During  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am profoundly disappointed that WMF employees don't value the mission.
> > > > Instead they seem to simply follow fashion and force users and 
> > > > volunteers
> > > > to follow their fashionable methods of advocacy.  They use their 
> > > > monopoly
> > > > power to deny free access to the world's knowledge that many thousands 
> > > > of
> > > > volunteers have diligently assembled. This time it is to show solidarity
> > > > with environmental advocates. What will it be next time?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 15:35 Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have a few comments.
> > > > >
> > > > > While I appreciate the sentiment, I wouldn't have put the
> > > > > wikimediafoundation.org domain "on strike", just as I wouldn't have
> > > put
> > > > a
> > > > > government agency's website "on strike". I think that some discussion
> > > of
> > > > > climate change would be fine, but I think that WMF's action here is
> > > > > somewhat strange.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that asking about the climate impact of staff travel is fine.
> > > > > However, I would also include questions about travel for Wikimedia
> > > events
> > > > > more broadly. I believe that the WMF Board has indicated support for
> > > > trying
> > > > > to reduce the Wikiverse's contributions to climate change. As has been
> > > > > mentioned in this thread, WMF released a report yesterday
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093519.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > on the subject of sustainability. While I have not read it, I think
> > > that
> > > > > measuring and attempting to reduce reduce negative environmental
> > > impacts
> > > > > from Wikimedia activities is good, including negative environmental
> > > > impacts
> > > > > from travel. However, I also think that there are some benefits to
> > > morale
> > > > > and communications from in person meetings, so I would be reluctant to
> > > > > eliminate travel and conferences entirely.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that it's fine to ask whether WMF senior management is
> > > practicing
> > > > > what they preach. However, Fae, I feel that your tone in this thread 
> > > > > is
> > > > > excessively harsh on this point. I think that you could ask very
> > > similar
> > > > > questions with a tone that is calmer.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the subject of environmental sustainability, my main concern at 
> > > > > this
> > > > > time is the banner on the WMF website which I feel is somewhat weird
> > > and
> > > > is
> > > > > inconsistent with WMF's goal of being "essential infrastructure". Do 
> > > > > we
> > > > > want "essential infrastructure" to go on strike, particularly when 
> > > > > that
> > > > > infrastructure is supposed to be for an organization that provides
> > > public
> > > > > service and supports the community in publishing reliable scientific
> > > > > information? I think not. However, I think that the banner is
> > > regrettably
> > > > > consistent with the series of surprising decisions from WMF in the 
> > > > > past
> > > > few
> > > > > months. That is, to me, the most concerning element in all of this. If
> > > > WMF
> > > > > wants to be a public service infrastructure provider then I think that
> > > it
> > > > > should act like one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pine
> > > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

2019-09-20 Thread
Sure, but it seems more realistic than calculating the CO2
contributions from the management team compared to all the other
employees.

At the end of the day, how many flights the executive team take as
part of their jobs, and working out whether they are flying less or
more in 2019 compared to 2018, is an very simple and useful fact to be
open and transparent about. Doing so gives everyone a great incentive
to do better.

Considering the WMF is getting ethical gold stars by putting a Climate
Change banner over the entirety of its website landing page, it is
reasonable to expect that the organization starts by changing itself
and turn the non-committal statements in the WMF presentation from "we
will consider" and "we will seek" in to a meaningful and measurable
"we will act".

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 17:58, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
> Because # of flights is not a useful metric for assessing environmental
> impact.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 3:23 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Those publications are where my numbers came from. There is no useful
> > transparency to explain how many actual flights are taken, why or by whom.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, 15:17 Lucas Werkmeister, 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Did you see the sustainability report that was published yesterday [1]
> > > [2]? Page 30 of the PDF has some numbers on business travel by air –
> > > some 5.6 million km in total, by the looks of it. Page 32 also shows
> > > that the carbon footprint of air travel is about half that of the
> > > electricity used by the Foundation’s data centers.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Lucas
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > >
> > >
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/19/how-the-wikimedia-foundation-is-making-efforts-to-go-green
> > > [2]:
> > >
> > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Sustainability_Assessment_and_Carbon_Footprint.pdf
> > >
> > > On 20.09.19 15:23, Fæ wrote:
> > > > Nice to see that https://wikimediafoundation.org has a banner linking
> > > > to the global climate strike today.
> > > >
> > > > Can anyone produce some verifiable metrics that the WMF has taken
> > > > significant action to reduce the total number of aircraft flights the
> > > > WMF uses?
> > > >
> > > > I am asking as though there are no transparently published figures for
> > > > how much the WMF spends on air travel, I recall that the Katherine
> > > > Mahler was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, where is was part
> > > > of her impressive executive profile to be "on the road" for 200 days
> > > > of the year. This probably puts Katherine in the very top numbers for
> > > > CEOs with damaging carbon footprints resulting from travelling so
> > > > often by flying.[1] If the WMF wants to be seen as an ethical company
> > > > when it comes to reducing their organizational impact on climate
> > > > change, perhaps this could start with publishing travel figures for
> > > > the CEO and the rest of the management team, so that everyone can see
> > > > whether there is year on year improvement, or none.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again for the banner, it does help increase the sense of
> > urgency.
> > > >
> > > > Links:
> > > > 1.
> > >
> > https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-35-year-old-executive-director-of-wikimedia-travels-1529588701
> > > >
> > > > Fae
> > > >

___
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] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

2019-09-20 Thread
Those publications are where my numbers came from. There is no useful
transparency to explain how many actual flights are taken, why or by whom.

Fae

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, 15:17 Lucas Werkmeister, 
wrote:

> Did you see the sustainability report that was published yesterday [1]
> [2]? Page 30 of the PDF has some numbers on business travel by air –
> some 5.6 million km in total, by the looks of it. Page 32 also shows
> that the carbon footprint of air travel is about half that of the
> electricity used by the Foundation’s data centers.
>
> Cheers,
> Lucas
>
> [1]:
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/19/how-the-wikimedia-foundation-is-making-efforts-to-go-green
> [2]:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Sustainability_Assessment_and_Carbon_Footprint.pdf
>
> On 20.09.19 15:23, Fæ wrote:
> > Nice to see that https://wikimediafoundation.org has a banner linking
> > to the global climate strike today.
> >
> > Can anyone produce some verifiable metrics that the WMF has taken
> > significant action to reduce the total number of aircraft flights the
> > WMF uses?
> >
> > I am asking as though there are no transparently published figures for
> > how much the WMF spends on air travel, I recall that the Katherine
> > Mahler was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, where is was part
> > of her impressive executive profile to be "on the road" for 200 days
> > of the year. This probably puts Katherine in the very top numbers for
> > CEOs with damaging carbon footprints resulting from travelling so
> > often by flying.[1] If the WMF wants to be seen as an ethical company
> > when it comes to reducing their organizational impact on climate
> > change, perhaps this could start with publishing travel figures for
> > the CEO and the rest of the management team, so that everyone can see
> > whether there is year on year improvement, or none.
> >
> > Thanks again for the banner, it does help increase the sense of urgency.
> >
> > Links:
> > 1.
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-35-year-old-executive-director-of-wikimedia-travels-1529588701
> >
> > Fae
> >
>
> ___
> 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] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

2019-09-20 Thread
Except, that's probably not statistically true.

If the management team is responsible for 50% of air travel, then the
figures from the environmental impact survey indicate that amounts to
15% of the entire contribution to CO2 emissions for the WMF. However
you reframe or spin the WSJ article, the CEO spending 200 days on the
road last year, rather than, say, cutting that number in half by using
the telephone or other virtual conferencing technology, must be a
significant factor in those numbers.

The contribution actually is higher than that, as the impact made from
the published impact from WMF use of hotels, probably pushes that 15%
figure to over 20%.

It's simple maths, not rocket science. Of course if real firm figures
about air travel by the management team were published by the WMF,
rather than estimates, we could start calculating the impact of
specific year on year improvement, rather than relying on high level
statements about the aims for the current year and end of year "good
news" selective summaries of how well everyone has done. Facts and
measurable commitments would be super useful, rather than
sensationalism, as you agree.

Thanks
Fae

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 14:28, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
>
> I'm more interested in the numbers for the WMF as a whole. One CEO does not
> make an emissions problem, and in a global-reaching organization I'd hope
> that the CEO would be flying around a bit. Focusing on the ten or so
> executives at the Foundation seems like a sensational approach rather than
> a useful one.
>
> Adrian
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 9:24 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Nice to see that https://wikimediafoundation.org has a banner linking
> > to the global climate strike today.
> >
> > Can anyone produce some verifiable metrics that the WMF has taken
> > significant action to reduce the total number of aircraft flights the
> > WMF uses?
> >
> > I am asking as though there are no transparently published figures for
> > how much the WMF spends on air travel, I recall that the Katherine
> > Mahler was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, where is was part
> > of her impressive executive profile to be "on the road" for 200 days
> > of the year. This probably puts Katherine in the very top numbers for
> > CEOs with damaging carbon footprints resulting from travelling so
> > often by flying.[1] If the WMF wants to be seen as an ethical company
> > when it comes to reducing their organizational impact on climate
> > change, perhaps this could start with publishing travel figures for
> > the CEO and the rest of the management team, so that everyone can see
> > whether there is year on year improvement, or none.
> >
> > Thanks again for the banner, it does help increase the sense of urgency.
> >
> > Links:
> > 1.
> > https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-35-year-old-executive-director-of-wikimedia-travels-1529588701
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > 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>


Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

2019-09-20 Thread
Nice to see that https://wikimediafoundation.org has a banner linking
to the global climate strike today.

Can anyone produce some verifiable metrics that the WMF has taken
significant action to reduce the total number of aircraft flights the
WMF uses?

I am asking as though there are no transparently published figures for
how much the WMF spends on air travel, I recall that the Katherine
Mahler was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, where is was part
of her impressive executive profile to be "on the road" for 200 days
of the year. This probably puts Katherine in the very top numbers for
CEOs with damaging carbon footprints resulting from travelling so
often by flying.[1] If the WMF wants to be seen as an ethical company
when it comes to reducing their organizational impact on climate
change, perhaps this could start with publishing travel figures for
the CEO and the rest of the management team, so that everyone can see
whether there is year on year improvement, or none.

Thanks again for the banner, it does help increase the sense of urgency.

Links:
1. 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-35-year-old-executive-director-of-wikimedia-travels-1529588701

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Wiki loves SDGs

2019-09-18 Thread
Gerard, your comments are flippant and deflect from the serious risk
that our volunteers and employees are being subject to.

Tunis is unsafe for LGBT+ people. None of our LGBT+ volunteers or
employees should travel to tunis.

LGBT+ travellers risk 3 years in prison, not in theory, in practice
foreign tourists are being held in prison. The police are actively
setting up sting operations, having used Grindr to entrap gay men,
search their phones to discover who their friends are and any LGBT+
material, then prosecute them for being homosexuals. Again not theory,
this is evidence presented in the Tunis courts during prosecution. I
and other Wikimedians at events have used Grindr and other LGBT+
social networks during Wikimedia conferences to talk to each other. I
and other Wikimedians have openly discussed LGBT+ topics on Wikimedia
public projects, this material is hardly secret from the Tunis police,
neither should the WMF or any other Affiliate ever put LGBT+
volunteers in a position where we have to pretend not to be LGBT+.

The USA is unwelcoming, with trans people likely to be abused or
humiliated during immigration and having their digital data stolen by
the NSA, but they are not subject to the threat of a 3 year prison
sentence solely for being LGBT+.

Thanks,
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
WM-LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 06:42, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> To be honest, there are great reasons not to having meetings in the United
> States for similar reasons. The notion of conversion of homosexuality is
> alive and well, even though people who care to look at the science know
> that it does not work. The murder rate among LGBTI people is sky high. The
> country is highly discriminatory, not only because of race. The USA is a
> country at war, the numbers show why; more USA civilians die because of gun
> violence than do USA military personnel. The ease whereby the murder on
> women is explained away with arguments like "she was at the wrong time at
> the wrong place" and "boys will be boys".
>
> The point, when you advocate against countries, there is hardly anywhere
> where your arguments don't hold. The objective is to educate and where we
> stay away our message will not be heard. The Dutch "Zwarte Piet" will no
> longer be black because of the foreign imposition of what is the
> discriminatory practice "blackface" in the USA. But I digress. We should
> engage all over the world particularly when the SDG are topical because
> what global effect will it have when we ostracise countries like Tunesia or
> the USA?
>
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 23:33, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > It astonishing that the WMF and affiliates are supporting a conference
> > in Tunis. The country is not safe for LGBT+ people, including
> > tourists, despite what promotional holiday and travel websites imply.
> >
> > I urge anyone who is LGBT+ and booked to go to this conference,
> > including WMF employees, please reconsider and cancel your attendance.
> > You will be putting yourself at unnecessary risk.
> >
> > It speaks volumes that on the one hand the WMF wishes to fund travel
> > and accommodation for a diversity working group, but then chooses to
> > hold the meetings in a country where this year there are cases of the
> > courts officially forcing anal examinations on suspected homosexuals
> > to "prove" they are homosexuals, deny the existence of trans people,
> > and where there has been a case of a foreign tourist going to prison
> > for their homosexuality.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > WM-LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 20:26, Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:
> > >
> > > tl;dr Wikipedia can engage millions, billions of people to achieve the
> > > Sustainable Development Goals by 2030
> > >
> > > Wikimedians and Wikipedians around the world have been involved with
> > > Wikimedia 2030 since 2015. The strategic direction is to build the
> > > essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge. Back in
> > 2015 a
> > > total of 193 members of the United Nations agreed to the 17 Sustainable
> > > Developments Goals to be reached by the year 2030. Last August many of
> > you
> > > were in Stockholm, Sweden for Wikimania. The theme this year was
> > “Stronger
> > > Together: Wikimedia, Free Knowledge and the Sustainable Development
> > > Goals”.[1]
> > >
> > > Michael Edson, founder and director of UN Live, the Muse

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wiki loves SDGs

2019-09-17 Thread
It astonishing that the WMF and affiliates are supporting a conference
in Tunis. The country is not safe for LGBT+ people, including
tourists, despite what promotional holiday and travel websites imply.

I urge anyone who is LGBT+ and booked to go to this conference,
including WMF employees, please reconsider and cancel your attendance.
You will be putting yourself at unnecessary risk.

It speaks volumes that on the one hand the WMF wishes to fund travel
and accommodation for a diversity working group, but then chooses to
hold the meetings in a country where this year there are cases of the
courts officially forcing anal examinations on suspected homosexuals
to "prove" they are homosexuals, deny the existence of trans people,
and where there has been a case of a foreign tourist going to prison
for their homosexuality.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
WM-LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 20:26, Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:
>
> tl;dr Wikipedia can engage millions, billions of people to achieve the
> Sustainable Development Goals by 2030
>
> Wikimedians and Wikipedians around the world have been involved with
> Wikimedia 2030 since 2015. The strategic direction is to build the
> essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge. Back in 2015 a
> total of 193 members of the United Nations agreed to the 17 Sustainable
> Developments Goals to be reached by the year 2030. Last August many of you
> were in Stockholm, Sweden for Wikimania. The theme this year was “Stronger
> Together: Wikimedia, Free Knowledge and the Sustainable Development
> Goals”.[1]
>
> Michael Edson, founder and director of UN Live, the Museum of the UN in
> Kopenhagen, Denmark held a keynote and asked Wikipedia for help. The UN
> isn’t able to reach millions, billions of people on its own to have them
> work on achieving the SDGs.[2] Wikipedia reaches half a billion people each
> month. Millions of people have contributed to Wikipedia.
>
> Of course Wikipedia can spread the knowledge about the SDGs and how to
> solve them in each country, and in each language. We can make a very good
> case for an “open access knowledge sharing project related to the
> Sustainable Development Goals that uses Wikipedia as a tool”. A lot of
> knowledge will have to be gathered locally about local solutions to local
> problems. We as a free knowledge movement have done so succesfully in the
> past. We can do succesfully now.
>
> The one big reason to step upto the challenge is in the vision of the
> movement: “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely
> share in the sum of all knowledge.” Imagine every single human having
> access to how to solve each of the Sustainable Development Goals in their
> locality, in their language.[3]
>
> Another reason is part of our mission: to empower and engage people around
> the world to collect and develop educational content.[4] Might people
> involved with the movement be able to educate people why and how to solve
> global goals locally?
>
> Knowledge about SDGs is just a small subset of all knowledge. It would be a
> big step for mankind to have exactly that knowledge available well before
> the year 2030.[5] It won’t impede anyone to collect and share knowledge
> outside that subset, however.
>
> To make it happen imagine having a small office with a handful dedicated
> people in each country. People with the capacity to build partnerships with
> NGO’s, universities, research institutions, government agencies, groups of
> citizens who are already involved with the SDGs.[6] People with the
> capacity to organize SDG themed writing contests and SDG themed
> edit-a-thons with participants from interested parties.[7]
>
> As written above, it has been agreed to build the essential infrastructure
> of the ecosystem of free knowledge. Why would it be worthwhile to invest 50
> million dollar a year to build such an infrastructure?[8] With those tiny
> offices in each country we it can exactly be done what Michael Edson begged
> us to do: get millions (or billions) of people working together on global
> goals and share the knowledge they gathered. To connect people everywhere
> and catalyze global effort toward accomplishing the Sustainable Development
> Goals.
>
> The Wikimedia movement has the capacity to raise the necessary funds
> through banners on Wikipedia on top of what is now already collected, and
> alreadt spent each year.[9] After a long period - over four years - of
> mainly inward looking activities of board and working groups, the time has
> come to look outwards. The works of our movement have influence globally
> and can have global impact. Not impact measured as number of articles, or
> number of editors retained, but impact on the real social life of seven
> billion people, by sharing knowledge how to end poverty, how to end hunger
> and so on.[11]
>
> Imagine a world where there is no poverty and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

2019-09-06 Thread
If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?

Something along the lines of:
"The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"

With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There
is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
spent money had impact and "value".

P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when
communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators
rather than holding open collegial discussion.

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Pine.
> There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> proposition.
> I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it is
> difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is
> sometimes necessary).
> Have other options even been considered?
>
> -speaking in my own name here-
>
> Diane
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hello Zack,
> >
> > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> >
> > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is considerable
> > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
> > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is that,
> > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition to
> > the rebranding proposal.
> >
> >
> > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having "considerable
> > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be
> > considerable opposition?
> >
> >
> > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
> > measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
> > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of the
> > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
> > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the RfC,
> > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune  wrote:
> >
> > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process for
> > > movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group, or watch
> > for
> > > updates on Meta-Wiki.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of affiliates,
> > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am pleased
> > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
> > strategy
> > > [1].
> > >
> > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
> > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
> > >
> > >1.
> > >
> > >Reducing confusion
> > >2.
> > >
> > >Protecting reputation
> > >3.
> > >
> > >Supporting sister projects
> > >4.
> > >
> > >Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
> > >5.
> > >
> > >Supporting movement growth
> > >6.
> > >
> > >The process of change
> > >
> > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You will see
> > > examples of comments within each section, along with a rough indication
> > of
> > > how many of the comments that we received were related to each theme.
> > >
> > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that across our
> > wide
> > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common (and a sign of
> > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created “polarity maps”
> > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments coexist in
> > tension
> > > with each other.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very thoughtful and
> > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s branding
> > > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for assessing
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-20 Thread
Many Wikimedians have left detailed and logical feedback on the Meta
talk pages, as per the request for feedback by Nicole Ebber.

No doubt there is no requirement to keep on making this same feedback
in other places, especially where not part of the planned feedback
process, or where the rationale includes presuming a commonly
understood "current governance model" which is not, apparently,
defined. Neither is it realistic to expect volunteers like Wikipedians
to want to research and critique governance models such as "Buurtzorg"
which is designed for healthcare, and as far as anyone can tell have
never been applied for open knowledge projects entirely underpinned by
unpaid volunteers, especially when there is an absence of context,
such as the "Charter" which is supposed to drive the entire model.

The specific feedback already given on Meta, cannot be reproduced in
the highly hypothetical survey, it's like trying to write on a
blackboard with cheese straws.

Thanks

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 18:01, Chris Keating  wrote:
>
> Just to follow this up, we in the Roles and Responsibilities working group
> have now supplemented our recommendations with three potential future
> structural models for the Wikimedia movement. (These have were being worked
> on still on in the light of other feedback on Thursday, hence them not
> being published at the same time as our recommendations.)
>
> While comments and questions are welcome on Meta, we have created a survey
> for each model to help gather granular feedback on the strengths and
> weaknesses of each and that is our preferred method of getting detailed
> comments.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/Recommendations
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris Keating
> User:The Land
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:37 PM Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> >
> > They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of
> > draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have
> > been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine
> > Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the
> > future of our movement.
> >
> > Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to
> > research the movement, analyze community input shared via community
> > conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you
> > to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
> >
> > The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our
> > movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction.
> > They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of
> > future we want to create together.
> >
> > The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage,
> > your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these
> > changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do
> > you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And
> > of course, always critically question whether these recommendations
> > support the strategic direction.
> >
> > There are a few ways to do this:
> > * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
> > directly on Meta. [2]
> > * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
> > * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
> > * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
> > or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
> >
> > Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive
> > into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and
> > use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape
> > what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
> >
> > If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Nicole
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> > [2]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> > [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030
> > [4]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Strategy_Salons
> > [5]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Community_Strategy_Liaisons
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Adviser International Relations
> > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> > Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
> > dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > V. Eingetragen im 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-12 Thread
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 12:47, Philip Kopetzky  wrote:
>
> Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list. You're
> the only one telling people to shut up here.

I have told nobody to shut up. This is a continuation of the use of
character assignation to shut up points of view you do not like. Lay
off, it's creating a hostile environment.

> And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate
> indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> licensing scheme?

3rd time: Commons case book. Please make one. The community on Commons
can assist you with previous examples that have successfully been used
to change policy using evidence, not just rhetoric.


Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-12 Thread
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:53, Philip Kopetzky  wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure that that licensing recommendation is still
> work-in-progress and the legal implications haven't been analysed yet.

Huh. Nobody has mentioned legal implications. Not sure there are any
that would be especially different to the challenges that Commons
volunteers handle every day with the current available licenses.

> I guess that assuming good faith is not your strong suit, Fae? Be part of
> the solution, for once.

Maybe you can focus on the points being raised, like how a case book
would actually help make a case for change, rather than hostile
character assassination against folks writing to this list? That would
be super, and show that you are also part of a "solution", though in
this case an actual verifiable "problem" has yet to be identified that
this particular recommendation might fix.

Thanks,
Fae

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > I agree that the official announcement on Commons is worse than
> > unfortunate.
> >
> > The announcement by the Diversity Working Group on a sub-page of the
> > VP of their recommendation to permit NC and ND license restrictions on
> > Commons, comes after no attempt in advance to discuss the
> > recommendation or its wording with Wikimedia Commons community *on
> > Commons*. It is not helped by the poster being a volunteer with barely
> > any activity on Commons, so not the best person to discuss the future
> > of Commons with.
> > Link:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump%2FCopyright=revision=361624891=361607626
> >
> > The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In
> > particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND
> > material that may be important to minority communities, such as
> > traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about
> > those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its
> > tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The
> > change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to
> > educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials,
> > academic papers, academic books etc.
> >
> > The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to
> > the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
> > * Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
> > * (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
> > community.
> > This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.
> >
> > If the WMF sponsored recommendation is hostile up front, I do not see
> > much point in the community discussing the change, it may as well just
> > be mass voted down. Discussion when the team recommending the strategy
> > is openly hostile to "some members of the community" on its own
> > recommendations page, will only lead to more polarization of the WMF
> > versus everyone else type.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 02:11, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > >
> > > (Response apparently wasn't sent to list previously.)
> > >
> > > Yes, I think there ought to be a place to discuss the whole thing, as
> > > several share a fatal flaw in that they advocate dictating to local
> > > communities from above.
> > >
> > > Is this getting announced anywhere other than on the mailing list? There
> > is
> > > a proposal in these to literally undermine Wikipedia's free content
> > mission
> > > by allowing nonfree licenses. (
> > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9
> > )
> > > Do you think, maybe, we shouldn't attempt to slip that through unnoticed
> > > and uncommented?
> > >
> > > For example, here's the notice that was left on Commons:
> > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump=revision=360549650=360506118
> > > .
> > > It's totally anodyne, and gives absolutely no indication that such
> > massive
> > > changes, which would entirely strip the communities of autonomy, are
> > > proposed there. For example, I suspect Commons might be just a bit
> > > interested to know these proposals would force them to accept nonfree
> > > content. If this is in any way an honest process, make sure the
> > > announcements indicate how breathtaki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-12 Thread
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 10:24, Fæ  wrote:
>
> I agree that the official announcement on Commons is worse than unfortunate.
>
> The announcement by the Diversity Working Group on a sub-page of the
> VP of their recommendation to permit NC and ND license restrictions on
> Commons, comes after no attempt in advance to discuss the
> recommendation or its wording with Wikimedia Commons community *on
> Commons*.[...]
> Link: 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump%2FCopyright=revision=361624891=361607626

Correction: The note on VP/C was a volunteer's note, there was no
announcement by the Working Group.

To correct the absence of a Wikimedia Commons discussion about
recommendation to fundamentally change what Wikimedia Commons exists
for, the following proposal has been raised on Wikimedia Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_introduce_Non-Commercial_media_on_Wikimedia_Commons

Everyone is free to add to discussion there, especially if there is
any verifiable evidence that allowing Non Commercial or No Derivatives
license constraints would enhance the mission of Wikimedia Commons
rather than hamper it.

I would be particularly interested to read the evidence and see a
(Wikimedia Commons) case book supporting the claim in the WG
recommendations that "Multiple studies have determined that extant
movement policies don’t just reflect the systemic biases, they make
biases against marginalized communities worse, in effect,
re-colonizing and oppressing diverse knowledge(ibid)" as the four
references given provide /no evidence/ about Wikimedia projects or
Wikimedia Commons in particular "re-colonizing", apart from
tangentially using a similar word and so is misrepresenting the
researchers and academics that wrote the referenced papers. Though I
would be sympathetic to the proper review of evidence when it comes to
decolonizing educational material, and taking action such as better
application of curation methods, this statement as written appears
unsourced political spin and is highly inappropriate from a WMF
sponsored working group.

Thanks,
Fae

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-12 Thread
I agree that the official announcement on Commons is worse than unfortunate.

The announcement by the Diversity Working Group on a sub-page of the
VP of their recommendation to permit NC and ND license restrictions on
Commons, comes after no attempt in advance to discuss the
recommendation or its wording with Wikimedia Commons community *on
Commons*. It is not helped by the poster being a volunteer with barely
any activity on Commons, so not the best person to discuss the future
of Commons with.
Link: 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump%2FCopyright=revision=361624891=361607626

The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In
particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND
material that may be important to minority communities, such as
traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about
those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its
tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The
change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to
educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials,
academic papers, academic books etc.

The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to
the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
* Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
* (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
community.
This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.

If the WMF sponsored recommendation is hostile up front, I do not see
much point in the community discussing the change, it may as well just
be mass voted down. Discussion when the team recommending the strategy
is openly hostile to "some members of the community" on its own
recommendations page, will only lead to more polarization of the WMF
versus everyone else type.

Fae

--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 02:11, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> (Response apparently wasn't sent to list previously.)
>
> Yes, I think there ought to be a place to discuss the whole thing, as
> several share a fatal flaw in that they advocate dictating to local
> communities from above.
>
> Is this getting announced anywhere other than on the mailing list? There is
> a proposal in these to literally undermine Wikipedia's free content mission
> by allowing nonfree licenses. (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9)
> Do you think, maybe, we shouldn't attempt to slip that through unnoticed
> and uncommented?
>
> For example, here's the notice that was left on Commons:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump=revision=360549650=360506118
> .
> It's totally anodyne, and gives absolutely no indication that such massive
> changes, which would entirely strip the communities of autonomy, are
> proposed there. For example, I suspect Commons might be just a bit
> interested to know these proposals would force them to accept nonfree
> content. If this is in any way an honest process, make sure the
> announcements indicate how breathtakingly broad and destructive these
> proposals are.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 7:35 AM Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > I believe there are related discussion pages, Todd. Do you think there
> > should have been separate pages for discussion aside the talk pages?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Isaac.
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:29 PM Szymon Grabarczuk  > wrote:
> >
> >> How about talk pages?
> >>
> >> Z poważaniem / Kind regards
> >>
> >> *Szymon Grabarczuk*
> >> userpage: pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
> >> 
> >> 
> >>
> >> ᐧ
> >>
> >> On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 14:28, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>
> >> > There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there
> >> should
> >> > be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I would
> >> like
> >> > to object to.
> >> >
> >> > Todd
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber  >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> >> > >
> >> > > They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of
> >> > > draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have
> >> > > been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine
> >> > > Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the
> >> > > future of our movement.
> >> > >
> >> > > Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to
> >> > > research the movement, analyze community input shared via community
> >> > > conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you
> >> > > to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
> >> > >
> >> > > The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Wikimedia Space: A space for movement news and conversations

2019-06-25 Thread
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Maria Cruz  wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Today, the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Engagement department is
> launching Wikimedia Space *[1]*, a platform for movement *[2]* organizers,
> affiliates, contributors, partners, and the Foundation to share news,
> questions, and conversations.
>
> Learning from others has been the bedrock for development and growth in our
> movement. With this platform, we want to promote these sorts of enriching
> exchanges by welcoming people from every background to build strong and
> diverse communities, breaking down the barriers for entry to our movement,
> and focusing our efforts on facilitating collaboration, including from
> communities that are new to our movement.
>
> Wikimedia Space is a single place for collaboration, comprising Blog *[1]*
> and Discuss *[3]* hubs. The Blog section provides a movement-wide platform
> for project updates, recent events, and shared learnings. We have designed
> editorial guidelines that allow everyone to share their news with others.
> Wikimedia Space also allows anybody to add an event, which can be
> discovered in a calendar *[4]* or a map *[5] *of the movement. We want this
> new space to be safe and welcoming, especially for newcomers, and this is
> why it is governed by a code of conduct *[6]*, and relies on active
> community moderation.
>
> Wikimedia Space is currently a prototype, built on WordPress *[7]* and
> Discourse *[8]*. While at present it only operates in English, it will
> evolve to include multiple languages in the near future. This project is
> only possible with your participation. Spread the news and join Wikimedia
> Space *[9]*!
>
> Read more about the features you’ll find on our blog post. We have also
> published posts on how to make this space yours, so it can best serve your
> needs. You can find all the documentation for this project on its page on
> Meta.
>
> See you at Wikimedia Space!
>
>
> *María Cruz * \\  Communications and Outreach Manager, Community Engagement
> \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> mc...@wikimedia.org  |  Twitter:  @marianarra_
> 
>
>
> [1] https://space.wmflabs.org
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement
>
> [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/
>
> [4] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/calendar
>
> [5] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
>
> [6] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/guidelines
>
> [7] https://wordpress.org/
>
> [8] https://discourse.org/
> [9] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/how-to-join-wikimedia-space/113
> ___
> 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, 
> 

Does this mean we should plan to stop using https://outreach.wikimedia.org?

The two appear to serve the same purpose and are governed by the same
codes of conduct.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

2019-06-21 Thread
Thank you for a sensible response.

Hopefully Wikimedia Belgium will be able later to publish some agreed
recommendations or conclusions, both for how this case could have been
handled more appropriately, and how the WMF procedures or policies
should improve better to protect the interests of all those involved
in allegations of harassment or similar at our events.

As for others making stereotypical statements about "victims" and
"perpetrators", just shut up please. This was not a criminal case, the
police were not called, and this is not about you and your need for
virtue signalling. There are real people involved and the only thing
on the table has been an allegation which should have been resolved at
the time, not left with toxic fallout that appears to have now damaged
the reputations of both parties, along with Wikimedia organizations.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
Wikimedia LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 09:48, Geert Van Pamel  wrote:
>
> The initial message was a private message from Romaine (WMBE Board member)
> on his own initiative; not verified, nor approved by (the Board of)
> Wikimedia Belgium. Please read this reply carefully in order to try to bring
> more clarity.
>
> I have immediately notified Romaine that he abused his function in the WMBE
> Board to communicate private matters on the general mailinglist.
>
> Since Monday I am in private contact, both with T and the management of
> Wikimedia Nederland to follow-up this dispute. This caused delay in replying
> to this message. The Wikimedia Belgium Board will continue to evaluate the
> situation and take further measures.
>
> Wikimedia Belgium wants to apologize for any moral damage that the initial
> message provoked.
>
> What one member of the general assembly did propose is that an internal
> audit could be requested to investigate the general behavior, the working,
> the completeness of procedures, and the treatment of cases by the Trust and
> Safety (T), and the grants team.
>
> Specifically, we have encountered as a chapter repeatedly during the last
> several years a lack of appeal, both in the T complaints handling, and in
> the grants team handling sAPG requests.
>
> Specifically in the T handling procedures, the rights of the alleged
> offender are not sufficiently guaranteed. There is a possibility that rumors
> are invoking a punishment without careful verification of the facts, without
> the defendants being sanctioned in a neutral way, and without taking into
> account certain handicaps like hard-hearing, or autism.
>
> That being said, please stop discussing this specific conflict publicly,
> because a lot of important details are missing, are single-sided
> interpretations, or even completely wrong.
>
>
>
> -- Geert Van Pamel, chair of Wikimedia Belgium
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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


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

2019-06-14 Thread
WMF T will not do anything about off-wiki harassment either, apart
from banning on-wiki users or offering to block your account as the
target of harassment.

There's a lot that can be improved around harassment and civility, but
honestly, the WMF has no special answers or powers, they do not claim
to be experts. As someone who has had blackmail and death threats,
advice from the WMF was a lot worse than advice I had from the either
the police or victim support.

Though my experience is mostly dated, the WMF gave me bad advice which
significantly delayed me from contacting the police, and I cannot
recommend that a target of harassment put their faith in the WMF if
they are targeted with harassment. The only reason I reported some
nasty transphobic threats targeting me earlier this year was to ensure
that the WMF had them logged, in case there was a wider pattern of
abuse against other LGBT+ Wikipedians. WMF T have given me no useful
feedback or updates on my own case in the months since.

I am very sorry to say this so bluntly, but from personal experience
though WMF senior management write a lot of nice soft words about
harassment and safe spaces, in practice a user being targeted is
better off having private chats on IRC with volunteer stewards and
checkusers that they trust, rather than WMF employees.

P.S. I encourage the use of the words "target of harassment". Being
labelled as a "victim" which puts the focus on you just because you
made a complaint, rather than the troll harassing others, is not
helpful.

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 13:29, Isaac Olatunde  wrote:
>
> I have seen a known user attacking me on one of Wikipedia's criticism site
> during my ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia but when it was report, they
> said there is nothing they can do about off-wiki attacks/harassment. That
> event alone gives me an impression that the English Wikipedia community
> cannot protect anyone from off-wiki harassment. Why would people feel
> comfortable to report a case of harassment to a community or group that can
> not protect them?
>
> Isaac
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 8:33 AM Pine W 
> > I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of
> > harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I
> > haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being
> > hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a
> > way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same
> > hounding was happening on ENWP.
> >
> > Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
> >
> > On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make
> > politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has
> > been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including
> > administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of
> > competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of
> > misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels
> > of local political support.
> >
> > Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which
> > do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this
> > problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want
> > governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress
> > Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
> >
> > I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than
> > a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central
> > authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not
> > acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe
> > spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to
> > participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions
> > regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not
> > offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that
> > I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I
> > think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can
> > come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression,
> > and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab
> > calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia
> > communities.
> >
> > This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK
> > with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or
> > off wiki.
> >
> > I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be
> > regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the
> > integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is
> > sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this
> 

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

2019-06-13 Thread
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.

The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
stuff.

The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?

If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
Wikimedia projects.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, consequences.
> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever
> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic when
> consequences happen.
>
> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that did
> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is like
> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly overly
> sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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


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

2019-06-12 Thread
There are some non-controversial facts that apply:
* The WMF was created to operationally support the projects, by design
it is not a police force for social conduct, even though it may have a
duty to remove unlawful content
* There is no consensus with the English Wikipedia community for WMF
employees to use role accounts for social conduct issues that might be
otherwise handled by other administrators, oversight or Arbcom
requests
* Policies developed away from the English Wikipedia community such as
for Safe Spaces and the Technical Code of Conduct would require
consensus on the English Wikipedia to become applicable on that
project

The one year WMF Office English Wikipedia ban of Fram overturns these
prior understandings of how our community works collegially with the
WMF. It is hard to conceive of any eventuality where Fram's months in
advance WMF warnings could not have been reviewed with Arbcom, and if
WMF T then thought action was needed, that there was some new legal
or confidential issue that stopped them choosing to escalate as a
confidential request to Arbcom. Any Arbcom approved sanction against
Fram based on the evidence would not be controversial for anyone.

The fundamental difference between an Arbcom sanction and a WMF Office
ban, is that:
1. Fram would have the opportunity to contribute to the review of evidence
2. Fram would be able to follow a well defined appeal procedure
3. The English Wikipedia community elected Arbcom for this specific
role, and consequently actions taken via Arbcom motion have automatic
community support
4. If the English Wikipedia's policies are inadequate or not being
implemented correctly, including administrator conduct, Arbcom can and
does recommend improvement to the community

Peter's comments below are just factually correct. For sanctions to be
considered "justice", there has to be governing processes that ensure
all evidence which can be safely published is published and subject to
public scrutiny and all sanctions must have a process for appeal. As
the Wikipedia article on natural justice puts it "The right to a fair
hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions
affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have
been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it,
and the opportunity to present their own case." The current and
significantly extended use of the secretive WMF Office role account,
fails to meet those basic expectations.

After the dramah dies down, let's hope that meaningful lessons are
learned and the WMF takes the opportunity to revisit whether they want
to pay employees to act as social police officers with ban hammers, or
instead solve these problems by working with the community to improve
local policies to make the projects more welcoming and more civil
places to volunteer our time.

Links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 12:13, Peter Southwood
 wrote:
>
> I don’t think that is the point at all.
> For justice to be accepted as justice, it must be comprehensible. The process 
> was badly flawed, and instead of sending a message that  T was looking 
> after our trust and safety, it sent a message that anyone could be blocked 
> without reference to our internal processes and without explanation of the 
> reasons. The notification supplied after the fact was by an unidentified 
> functionary  and consisted of a boilerplate non-explanation. Not helping 
> either.
> This could reasonably be described as a PR blunder. An exercise in opacity. A 
> failure to communicate of noteworthy proportions. Another brick in the wall 
> between the enwiki community and WMF. Maybe WMF just don’t care, and consider 
> us all expendable. It certainly looks like it. That is kind of worrying to 
> those of us actually trying to build an encyclopaedia. In spite of all his 
> alleged defects, I see Fram as one of those.
> Anyone reasonably familiar with the dramaboards will recognise that not 
> everyone taking exception to this action are friends of Fram. Several would 
> probably have supported a desysopping and/or a block, but never without due 
> and visible process and not without talk page access or no right to appeal.
> Your mileage may differ. I judge on what information is available to me. I do 
> not just accept what someone tells me, I try to check. One gets that way 
> after working on Wikipedia for a while. One gets to know what a reliable 
> source is likely to look like, and keeps a lookout for disinformation and 
> non-answers. Read what is available before passing judgement on those who 
> have taken that step.
> Cheers,
> Peter
<><>

___
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AI Image Restoration

2019-05-28 Thread
For Wikimedia Commons the issue of how to handle digital restorations
has been discussed several times, there are no single solutions. The
general position is that original images, such as very old glass plate
prints from archives, should be preserved and displayed in their
original state, but there is no harm in making available restorations
as separate files that fairly and accurately represent the photograph
and remove damage or flaws. The reuser or reader should never be in
doubt that they are looking at a restoration rather than the original,
and we have to keep in mind that we do not always know whether the
reader's monitor, display device or printer may also adapt the
saturation and brightness of the image.

Though it is possible to do large batch changes for light levels,
sharpening, colour correction and so on, these remain controversial if
the original file is overwritten. This is especially true when an
artwork has been photographed or scanned.

Among recent on-wiki controversy is colorization of photographs,
especially old black and white photographs. These may be interesting,
and at times useful for illustration, but again the reader should be
in no doubt that they are not looking at "reality" and as good
practice it should always be easy for the reader to navigate to the
unenhanced original.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 02:23, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> A quite common problem at all Wikimedia sites; we have a photo but the
> quality is poor. An example is the old photo from the cabins at
> Mørkedalen where a group of fighters hid out during the invasion of
> Norway.[1]
>
> I've been using some manual tools to restore images, but it is very
> slow and the result is often not very good. What if we could automate
> the process? The work "Deep Image Prior"[2] could be a solution, it is
> quite awesome, but it is a bit too difficult to configure for most
> users.
>
> There are several such automated tools, or algorithms that can be
> turned into automated tools, but the question is; do we want an
> automated tool set, or do we want to keep on doing things manually?
>
> [1] https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skil%C3%B8perpatruljen_i_M%C3%B8rkedalen
> [2] https://dmitryulyanov.github.io/deep_image_prior
>

___
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] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

2019-05-14 Thread
Thanks for the reply! Especially from an official WMF Community and
Audience Engagement Associate.

Can we take it from your defensive email it is a fact that the WMF has
no known long term archive strategy?

By the way, in your apparent opinion we may be unimportant people on
an email list, but we have a long history of taking the initiative to
fundamentally shape the WMF, and not that long ago took action that
ensured a board member resigned and the WMF establish radically
different good governance practices. Not a bad record for loner unpaid
volunteers.

Thanks in advance,
Fae

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:38, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>
> Because the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make long term strategic decisions
> based off of a 4 person discussion on a mailing list.
>
> I really don't know why people keep being surprised by this.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:11 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons of just over 200 TB.
> > That's large but not astronomical.
> >
> > With a bit of guesstimation, the hardware only cost of creating a
> > Wikimedia projects digital tape archive might be around $2,000 per
> > archive set, a cost that probably would only be once a year. Using
> > off-the-shelf kit, a similar archive on a set of 10 TB hard disks
> > might end up being double that cost. Archives like this are good for a
> > few years, but in practice a plan would have them periodically tested
> > and refreshed, unless they are being replaced every year with the
> > latest archive.
> >
> > It is unclear to me why the WMF would not want to make a hearty
> > transparent and public commitment to off-site archives. At least with
> > an independently managed archive in another country, that at least
> > makes it possible that in some bizarre scenario where an extremist US
> > government makes it a federal crime to fail to either 'amend' the
> > Wikimedia database against the values of the WMF, or legally orders
> > the WMF to take down its websites in order to control certain
> > publications, videos or photographs, that WMF employees can
> > appropriately comply with US federal law, but are not be required to
> > do anything about the public archive hosted by a different
> > organization in another country. If such an unlikely scenario came to
> > pass (and the unexpected seems to becoming something to realistically
> > plan for these days), at least the archive could be resurrected for
> > public access within a few weeks by open knowledge organizations who
> > have staff that would never be subject to federal law in the US.
> >
> > If the WMF honestly does not already do something like this already,
> > and wanted to earmark the relatively trivial sum of $10,000/year for
> > remote archives, us volunteers would be happy to approach a couple of
> > suitable national-level partners in Europe that could easily
> > physically host the archives each year and would probably like the
> > idea of blogging about it, as protecting open knowledge fits their
> > values and commitments.
> >
> > Any WMF board members interested in asking some questions internally,
> > if the WMF senior management are unwilling to answer this rather
> > simple question publicly?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 14:36, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that raising the question here is fine. I also think that it is
> > > more WMF's responsibility to be responsive than community members'
> > > responsibility to guess where and how to ask questions.
> > >
> > > In general (this is not intended as a criticism of you, Dan) my view is
> > > that WMF has a very mixed record on responsiveness. Some employees and
> > > board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while
> > other
> > > employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people
> > are
> > > in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while
> > > second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have
> > > previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple
> > > managers in WMF,  and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread
> > > improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more
> > > to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of
> > > capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with
> > > everyone in WMF, but I think tha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

2019-05-14 Thread
I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons of just over 200 TB.
That's large but not astronomical.

With a bit of guesstimation, the hardware only cost of creating a
Wikimedia projects digital tape archive might be around $2,000 per
archive set, a cost that probably would only be once a year. Using
off-the-shelf kit, a similar archive on a set of 10 TB hard disks
might end up being double that cost. Archives like this are good for a
few years, but in practice a plan would have them periodically tested
and refreshed, unless they are being replaced every year with the
latest archive.

It is unclear to me why the WMF would not want to make a hearty
transparent and public commitment to off-site archives. At least with
an independently managed archive in another country, that at least
makes it possible that in some bizarre scenario where an extremist US
government makes it a federal crime to fail to either 'amend' the
Wikimedia database against the values of the WMF, or legally orders
the WMF to take down its websites in order to control certain
publications, videos or photographs, that WMF employees can
appropriately comply with US federal law, but are not be required to
do anything about the public archive hosted by a different
organization in another country. If such an unlikely scenario came to
pass (and the unexpected seems to becoming something to realistically
plan for these days), at least the archive could be resurrected for
public access within a few weeks by open knowledge organizations who
have staff that would never be subject to federal law in the US.

If the WMF honestly does not already do something like this already,
and wanted to earmark the relatively trivial sum of $10,000/year for
remote archives, us volunteers would be happy to approach a couple of
suitable national-level partners in Europe that could easily
physically host the archives each year and would probably like the
idea of blogging about it, as protecting open knowledge fits their
values and commitments.

Any WMF board members interested in asking some questions internally,
if the WMF senior management are unwilling to answer this rather
simple question publicly?

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 14:36, Pine W  wrote:
>
> I think that raising the question here is fine. I also think that it is
> more WMF's responsibility to be responsive than community members'
> responsibility to guess where and how to ask questions.
>
> In general (this is not intended as a criticism of you, Dan) my view is
> that WMF has a very mixed record on responsiveness. Some employees and
> board members repeatedly go above and beyond the call of duty, while other
> employees and board members ignore repeated questions, and some people are
> in between. The first group seems to me to deserve a lot of credit, while
> second group comes across to me as disrespectful and lazy. I have
> previously complained about problems with responsiveness to multiple
> managers in WMF,  and unfortunately that has not resulted in widespread
> improvements that I have observed. I think that the problem may have more
> to do with organizational culture and lack of will than with lack of
> capacity. Let me emphasize that unresponsiveness is not a problem with
> everyone in WMF, but I think that it is a significant problem and I know of
> no excuses for it.
>
> Pine
>
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2019, 10:50 Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:
>
> > On Tue 7 May 2019 at 11:04, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good
> > place
> > > to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public archives,
> > > or not.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process groups
> > > are undoubtedly a worse place to ask this question and expect a
> > verifiable
> > > answer.
> >
> >
> > I see! Then I will defer to your clear expertise in getting definitive
> > answers. I look forward to seeing the outcome!
> >
> > Dan
> > ___
> > 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
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

2019-05-14 Thread
Any image recognition system has the potential to be misused. What we
imagined was flagging images for the later attention of volunteers to
look at.

A simple image hash might just be the basis for identifying potential
close matches to previously deleted files or derivatives of existing
Commons hosted files. These benefits could be delivered without any
reliance on external databases.

The Article 17 aspect is from my perspective a large tangent. The WMF
opposing those systems does not stop us from using automation and
databases to identify potential copyright issues for our own purposes.

Fae

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 20:44, Mister Thrapostibongles
 wrote:
>
> Fae,
>
> I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism
> that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright
> directive.  Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their
> blog post
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-internet-freedom-in-controversial-copyright-vote/
> I
> presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on
> their projects.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

2019-05-12 Thread
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
reduced.[1]

Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
housekeeping very easy.

A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.

Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.

Links
1. 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash

Fae

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
>
> IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> images that might be copyright violation, or both.
>
> Best
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of
> > material it has to deal with.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
> > do
> > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > >
> > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > GLAM-related
> > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
> > > is
> > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > >
> > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > >
> > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > project
> > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > similar.
> > > >
> > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
> > > other
> > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > files a
> > > > day:
> > > >
> > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > >
> > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
> > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> > issue
> > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > >
> > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > uploads
> > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > >> Hello all,
> > > >>
> > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > components
> > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> > > >> Newsletter
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
> > > and
> > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> > > remarks
> > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > copyrighted
> > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
> > care."
> > > >> and
> > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > >>
> > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

2019-05-07 Thread
I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good place
to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public archives,
or not.

Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process groups
are undoubtedly a worse place to ask this question and expect a verifiable
answer.

Fae


On Tue, 7 May 2019, 10:44 Dan Garry (Deskana),  wrote:

> I think the correct venue to ask for such a large, cross-cutting, strategic
> commitment would be with the strategy process working groups, and not this
> mailing list. Did you try engaging with them?
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 09:35, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > With all of the strategy discussions still on-going, it would be good
> > to know where the long term public archive of our Wikimedia projects
> > sits within it.
> >
> > As has been mentioned on this list previously, when volunteers donate
> > to the Internet Archive, there is some comfort that their efforts in
> > helping preserve public domain media will be accessible and archived
> > for 100 years.
> >
> > I have been unable to work out what the Wikimedia Foundations
> > commitment is to maintaining a publicly accessible project archive. I
> > may be wrong and would love to have someone post a link that puts me
> > right, but based on past discussions, I suspect that if a project gets
> > closed or mothballed, there is no specific commitment to fund public
> > access to any archives. The WMF may be unable to match the 100 year
> > commitment that the Internet Archive plans for, but it would be jolly
> > nice to have a commitment to something and have that promoted in the
> > long term strategy.
> >
> > The best example I can think of is Wikimedia Commons as this is a
> > significant size, so committing to maintaining a 10 or 20 year archive
> > (not just an operational backup) is not an insignificant thing to find
> > publicly accessible server space for or earmark a specific budget for.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > 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>

[Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

2019-05-07 Thread
With all of the strategy discussions still on-going, it would be good
to know where the long term public archive of our Wikimedia projects
sits within it.

As has been mentioned on this list previously, when volunteers donate
to the Internet Archive, there is some comfort that their efforts in
helping preserve public domain media will be accessible and archived
for 100 years.

I have been unable to work out what the Wikimedia Foundations
commitment is to maintaining a publicly accessible project archive. I
may be wrong and would love to have someone post a link that puts me
right, but based on past discussions, I suspect that if a project gets
closed or mothballed, there is no specific commitment to fund public
access to any archives. The WMF may be unable to match the 100 year
commitment that the Internet Archive plans for, but it would be jolly
nice to have a commitment to something and have that promoted in the
long term strategy.

The best example I can think of is Wikimedia Commons as this is a
significant size, so committing to maintaining a 10 or 20 year archive
(not just an operational backup) is not an insignificant thing to find
publicly accessible server space for or earmark a specific budget for.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-14 Thread
Most Chapters and many other Affiliates are registered legal
organizations. In some cases, like the one you quote, the organization
is a registered charity and has several years of submitting accounts
and reports as that entity.

Names can be changed but this would be a legally meaningful decision
by each board, and each board should be free to make their own
decision on the necessity of the change and agree their budget for
changing, not simply because some unnamed marketing consultant gave
some expensive advice to the WMF about "branding". There is zero
verifiable statistical evidence to back up claimed benefits apart from
vague hand waving to pie charts in presentations about 'markets' for
which nothing is explained about the self-selected sample space, and
for which there are no reported credible tests.

If the true drivers behind this change are because WMF senior
management believe that the WMF is a competitor for Facebook or
YouTube (as was in one of the marketing presentations), then the
problem is their perception of the mission of the WMF, not the name
"Wikimedia".

Fae



On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 09:45, Ed Saperia  wrote:
>
> Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling 
> itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any 
> noticeable difference?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I agree Galder!
> >>
> >> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people
> >> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
> >> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
> >> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
> >> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
> >> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
> >> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
> >> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
> >>
> >
> > Dear Rebecca,
> > Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> > I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> > currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem
> > of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> > affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> > larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> > improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> >
> > Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> > infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> > geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> > existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> > this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> > effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> > participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> > editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> > building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> > structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> > largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> > all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in
> > themselves, the end goal.
> >
> > So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of
> > the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> > several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> > discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need
> > to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> > knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> > Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an
> > easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> > becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and
> > be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> > Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> > Foundation provides, exactly?
> >
> > If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in
> > the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> > various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience,
> > then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> > imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> > Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> > participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> >
> > -- Phoebe

--

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread
Seeing this "brand" discussion eat up all the limited available unpaid
volunteer oxygen on wikimedia-l makes me sad.

If the WMF's biggest strategy topic this year is to enter into navel
gazing about its brand, then the WMF looks like it has a problem with
setting meaningful work for its senior management, or maybe just its
team from Wolff Olins; anyone seen a budget line for this consultancy,
I'm assuming this advice is not free, or cheap?

If volunteers want to chew over something that is more meaningful how
about /transparency/, a target that by all practical measures has got
visibly worse over the last five years and appears to have been
deliberately dropped from every top level strategy document:
* Should the WMF cap CEO personal expenses to under $1,000,000 a year,
and publicly report on all individual senior management total expenses
over $50,000 a year AND report on these within a year of the spend?
* Should Wikimedia project volunteers be able to request and view the
reports that the WMF holds about them, in the same way as is legally
required under European law?
* Should the WMF publish flight travel expenses, and set targets for
decreasing year on year flight travel as part of actively doing
anything at all to decrease the WMF's contribution to climate change?

Ps, it is worth looking at some of the links in the original email, it
is revealing that WMF senior management appears to believe that it is
a competitor with the commercial worlds of social media, YouTube and
internet search engines. If this is how strategy and targets are
created, then the "sum of human knowledge" goals are horribly watered
down between ideology and delivery through the eyes of management
consultants.

Thanks,
Fae


On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 03:14, Zack McCune  wrote:
>
> :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure
> we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
>
> Hi all,
>
> We are writing today to invite you to be a part of a community review on
> Wikimedia brand research and strategy.
>
> Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation set out to better understand how the
> world sees Wikimedia and Wikimedia projects as brands.[1] We wanted to get
> a sense of the general visibility of our different projects, and evaluate
> public support of our mission to spread free knowledge.
>
> We launched a global brand study to research these questions, as part of
> our planning toward our 2030 strategic goals.[2] The study was commissioned
> by the Board, carried out by the brand consultancy Wolff Olins, and
> directed by the Foundation’s Communications team.[3][4] It collected
> perspectives from the internet users of seven countries (India, China,
> Nigeria, Egypt, Germany, Mexico and the US) on Wikimedia projects and
> values.
>
> The study revealed some interesting trends:
>
> - Awareness of Wikipedia is above 80% in Western Europe and North America.
>
> - Awareness of Wikipedia averages above 40% in emerging markets,[5] and is
> fast growing.
>
> - There is awareness of other projects, but was significantly lower. For
> example, awareness of Wikisource was at 30%, Wiktionary at 25%, Wikidata at
> 20%, and Wikivoyage at 8%.
>
> - There was significant confusion around the name Wikimedia. Respondents
> reported they had either not heard of it, or extrapolated its relationship
> to Wikipedia.
>
> - In spite of lack of awareness about Wikimedia, respondents showed a high
> level of support for our mission.
>
> Following from these research insights, the Wolff Olins team also made a
> strategic suggestion to refine the Wikimedia brand system.[6] The
> suggestions include:
>
> - Use Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
>
> - Provide clearer connections to the Movement projects from Wikipedia to
> drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to smaller projects.
>
> - Retain Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons
> which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with
> other projects.
>
> - Explore new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups
> that use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
>
> - Consider expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the
> connections between projects (e.g. “__ - A Wikipedia project”).
>
> This is not a new idea.[7][8]
>
> By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give
> them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with
> more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible
> before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of
> community response.
>
> We invite you to look at a project summary [9], the brand research [10],
> and the brand strategy suggestion [11] Wolff Olins prepared working with us.
>
> For feedback, please add comments on the Community Review talk page 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [strategy process] Fwd: I decided to leave the working group

2019-03-28 Thread
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 15:38, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> Hello Itzik,
>
> thanks for sharing this.
>
> I actually did not want to react, because I presumably sound too critical
> on this list in the last couple of years. However, 24h passed, and nobody
> reacted, and It would be unfortunate if we let this go.
...

Ditto.

I have been asked in private, three different times by three different
people if I would like to take part in the strategy process. My most
recent decline and explanation was pretty much identical.

I simply do not believe in the process being followed. So it would be
a poor use of my volunteer time to try to take part, as whatever I had
to contribute I am convinced would have zero measurable impact on the
eventual outcome. These thoughts are sad ones, as the money and
significant amount of volunteer time and goodwill being invested,
could be directed to very productive open knowledge projects. Let us
hope that I will be proven wrong, soon.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] [GLAM] Wikimedia Sverige receives a total of USD 500, 000+ in funding for three new projects, and a cost reduction of USD 30, 000/year

2019-03-28 Thread
Congratulations and sincere thanks to all working hard behind the
scenes as well as those publicly fronting the projects to achieve
these successes.

For putting in lots of late evenings, perspiration and perseverance, well done.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 10:31, John Andersson
 wrote:
>
> Wikimedia Sverige is proud to be the recipient of three new grants totaling 
> around USD 500,000. We hope to work with many of you as part of these 
> projects. If you are interested in getting involved or receiving updates 
> please let me know.
>
>
> Furthermore, the chapter also has a new heavily subsidized agreement for our 
> office space.
>
>
> Project 1: Wikispeech – The Speech Data Collector
>
> The first project is a continuation of the Wikispeech[1] project, a 
> text-to-speech (TTS) system that converts written text into speech. From 
> September 2019 to April 2021 we aim to finalize building the MediaWiki 
> extension and to build tools to collect speech data to add pronunciations to 
> Wikipedia, Wiktionary and Wikidata and to add more languages to the 
> text-to-speech solution. The tools should also be possible to use for oral 
> citations.
>
>
> The work happens in partnership with the Royal Technical Institute, STTS (a 
> language processing company), Mozilla Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland and 
> the Swedish Dyslexia Association.
>
>
> As always, you can find the full application on our wiki (in Swedish): 
> https://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Projekt:Wikispeech_–_Talresursinsamlaren_2019/Ansökan
>
>
> Project 2: Wikipedia in Libraries
>
> From 2019 to 2020 Wikimedia Sverige, together with the National Library of 
> Sweden, will develop an online training module for Swedish librarians focused 
> around free knowledge and the Wikimedia platforms. This will be a mandatory 
> training for all of Sweden's 5,000 public librarians. Our hope is to give all 
> of them a basic understanding of the Wikimedia projects, as well as to 
> complement the online training with advanced courses for the most dedicated. 
> The advanced courses will give them the tools to ongoingly organize 
> activities and events independently at their libraries across the country.
>
>
> Furthermore, the librarians will be engaged in the #1Lib1Ref and FindingGLAMs 
> campaigns.
>
>
> There is a great potential to receive continuous funding over the coming 3 
> years if successful.
>
>
> As always, you can find the full application on our wiki (in Swedish): 
> https://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Projekt:Wikipedia_i_biblioteken_2019/Ansökan
>
>
> Project 3: Bibliographical data on Wikidata
>
> We continue our work to include bibliographical data on Wikidata. The project 
> details are still being negotiated with the funder. The project will start in 
> mid-2019 and last until 2020.
>
>
> Cost reduction
>
> Starting from March 2019 we have a new agreement in place for a heavily 
> subsidized coworking space office from the Swedish Internet Foundation. 
> Through the agreement we will save us around USD 30,000 per year compared to 
> when we had an office of our own.
>
>
> We have received this generous subsidy because Wikipedia is considered so 
> important for the infrastructure of the Internet. We are very happy that the 
> agreement does not have an end date and that we have the possibility to grow 
> significantly over time as well (while keeping the generous subsidy).
>
>
> Please contact John Andersson (john.anders...@wikimedia.se) if you have any 
> questions.
>
>
> [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikispeech
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> John
>
> - - - -
>
> John Andersson
>
> Executive Director
>
> Wikimedia Sverige
>
>
> Phone: +46(0)73-3965189
>
> Email: john.anders...@wikimedia.se
>
> Visiting address: Goto10, Hammarby Kaj 10D, 120 32 Stockholm
>
>
>
>
> ___
> GLAM mailing list
> g...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

___
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] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

2019-03-06 Thread
Thanks Peter.

Completely agree that I was stupid in my choice to use the word
"intended" in the deletion nomination, giving any impression that the
distress the article has caused might be presumed to be deliberate
when that was not what I intended to express. It was hasty, unwise, a
massive self defeating clanger. I apologised, I have taken
responsibility and corrected the MfD nomination to entirely focus on
the "Pronouns beware" essay. It was a perfectly valid criticism.

The MfD is ongoing and will probably close soon. I do not want to
discuss specifics here, people can go read it or contribute for
themselves rather than duplicating the points being made.

In more general procedural terms of what happens once the MfD is
closed as a keep or delete, it is a fact before publication concerns
were raised that it was likely to cause disruption and distress,
because of how it would be received, especially by our LGBT+ readers,
regardless of intent. That early concern gave not just the named
authors, but many active contributors to Signpost the opportunity to
discuss the draft, and perhaps ask that the essay be revised or kept
draft until those comments were talked through. It would be nice if
concerned Wikipedians joined in with discussions focused on
preventative action, showing that lessons can be learned, and Signpost
processes improved, especially for "red flag" issues where it seems
wise and positive to give extra scrutiny and time for reflection.

Improvement is something I expect almost everyone will wholeheartedly
want to see as an outcome of this incident. How about the idea that
"Signpost is a community effort that should serve our community's
values and needs, and that there is zero reason for it ever to be
'edgy' with humor or to in any way offend..." It might save a lot of
time if similar words were to become an agreed Signpost editorial
policy, but let's wait a while for the dust to settle, before starting
to create a consensus on that.[1]

Links
1. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=886107859

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 12:24, Peter Southwood
 wrote:
>
> Fae
> Not your fault for looking at it, more like your fault for interpreting it in 
> the worst possible way, against hints given by the author, and insisting that 
> your interpretation is more correct than the meaning intended by the author, 
> even after getting a rational and plausible explanation from the author.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of Fæ
> Sent: 06 March 2019 10:37
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"
>
> It is an old story, artists and authors using humour and parody that
> they genuinely believed was an observation, not an attack on anyone.
> That a comedian or an author had good intentions, or the trope that
> complainers "need to get a sense of humour", does not stop us knowing
> that the promotion of stereotypes or other marginalization of a
> minority, causes actual harm, real distress, and for the targeted
> group there are long term consequences that come from having less self
> worth.
>
> Peter, history is against you and it always has been. It does not take
> long browsing Wikipedia to understand why we all need to stand up and
> callout thoughtless jokes and bad stereotypes, rather than being
> intimidated by free speech fallacious arguments that claim "it is your
> fault for looking at it". I suggest reflecting over how blackface
> minstrelsy was defended as harmless and hilarious fun that persisted
> for well over a hundred years, or in this century how parodies about
> trans people that were considered harmless twenty years ago, are
> correctly called abusive now.[1][2] I'm not even going to touch what
> we can learn from "parody" in the 1930s.
>
> Good faith is superduper, we should avoid presuming bad intentions,
> especially if a first mistake that will not be repeated. This does not
> stop us Wikipedians having a shared duty to ensure that through our
> website we are not complicit in creating bad outcomes. Seriously who
> disagrees with that, and if this is what you mean by "political
> purposes to push an agenda", sure please join us and sign up to our
> open knowledge agenda.
>
> Comedian Kumail Nanjiani, "Comedians making transphobic jokes: What
> side do you wanna be on?"
>
> Links
> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show
> 2. 
> https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119=12115577
>
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

2019-03-06 Thread
ame 
> group of people not aware of their own priviledge, and when they are 
> disseminated through official channels. They can pave the way to problematic 
> behaviors if the « joked about party » cannot in turn express freely what 
> they feel about these jokes.
> I have a request : can we have the conversation freely?
> This is in no way underevaluating the value of the Signpost and the 
> remarkable work done by people like you.
> Maybe more articles on the subject of harassement and gender issues are 
> needed in the Signpost to adress this issue, to lay down the cards, and maybe 
> not in humour tone.
> To finish  I want to thank Barbara  from the bottom of my heart  for showing 
> willingness to apologize and understand (because the effect of this is 
> soothing and shows willingness to understand) and I thank Fae for speaking 
> out.
> If all protagonists could now calm down and consider that the very fact the 
> conversation is taking place is positive, I think we would all have gained in 
> freedom of speech.
>
> Good afternoon,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> (1) 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/world/europe/la-ligue-du-lol-sexual-harassment.html
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le 5 mars 2019 à 10:07, Peter Southwood  a 
> > écrit :
> >
> > "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."
> > Overreacting is a tradition at Wikipedia.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Michel Vuijlsteke
> > Sent: 03 March 2019 19:49
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"
> >
> > I don't understand in which possible world anyone thought this was a good
> > idea.
> >
> > The MfD, that is. It, and the entire discussion in favour, reads as some
> > sort of caricature of the worst SJW-type excesses.
> >
> > M.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 16:41, Fæ  wrote:
> >>
> >> As the last second repost had the same format error, I am trying for a
> >> final time. How embarrassing!
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> I would like to apologise to SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS), and more
> >> generally to the Wikipedia community, for any possible implication
> >> given in my previous email to this list, that authors of the
> >> problematic Signpost "Pronouns beware" essay, might in any way be
> >> thought to be transphobic. This was an important matter to word
> >> precisely and accurately. I take responsibility and apologise, it was
> >> stupid of me to fail to ensure that there could be no way that my
> >> words might appear to be intended as an attack on the person, rather
> >> than criticism of the judgement used when writing this essay, and the
> >> choice to publish it on Wikipedia.
> >>
> >> I refrained from correcting this email previously, as it was thought
> >> to be better to avoid stirring up any further drama, however this was
> >> being interpreted by one of the authors as deliberately avoiding
> >> making any correction.[1] I apologise for that misjudgement, and my
> >> failure to understand how a delay would appear. My thanks go to
> >> SMcCandlish for raising their complaint that a correction was needed.
> >>
> >> The rest of this email runs on the long side, if you have been
> >> following the deletion discussion, there is probably nothing new here.
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> My action in acting transparently as a whistleblower, was to criticise
> >> the editorial judgement of creating an essay which made jokes about
> >> pronoun usage which would, and has, been read as making a bad joke
> >> that mocks genderqueer and transgender people. This problem of how the
> >> article could be read, was raised by others before publication.
> >> Overwhelmingly the deletion discussion created for the essay has had
> >> feedback from many long term and experienced Wikipedians who were
> >> alarmed and upset that the article was published without this problem
> >> being acted on, and either halting publication, or ensuring a
> >> resubmission so there could be no confusion that the article appeared
> >> abusive or a failure to respect genderqueer and nonbinary people.[0]
> >> Many deletion comments have called the article "transphobic". Nobody
> >> as far as I have seen, has mistakenly called the authors transphobes.
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

2019-03-03 Thread
As the last second repost had the same format error, I am trying for a
final time. How embarrassing!



I would like to apologise to SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS), and more
generally to the Wikipedia community, for any possible implication
given in my previous email to this list, that authors of the
problematic Signpost "Pronouns beware" essay, might in any way be
thought to be transphobic. This was an important matter to word
precisely and accurately. I take responsibility and apologise, it was
stupid of me to fail to ensure that there could be no way that my
words might appear to be intended as an attack on the person, rather
than criticism of the judgement used when writing this essay, and the
choice to publish it on Wikipedia.

I refrained from correcting this email previously, as it was thought
to be better to avoid stirring up any further drama, however this was
being interpreted by one of the authors as deliberately avoiding
making any correction.[1] I apologise for that misjudgement, and my
failure to understand how a delay would appear. My thanks go to
SMcCandlish for raising their complaint that a correction was needed.

The rest of this email runs on the long side, if you have been
following the deletion discussion, there is probably nothing new here.
:-)

My action in acting transparently as a whistleblower, was to criticise
the editorial judgement of creating an essay which made jokes about
pronoun usage which would, and has, been read as making a bad joke
that mocks genderqueer and transgender people. This problem of how the
article could be read, was raised by others before publication.
Overwhelmingly the deletion discussion created for the essay has had
feedback from many long term and experienced Wikipedians who were
alarmed and upset that the article was published without this problem
being acted on, and either halting publication, or ensuring a
resubmission so there could be no confusion that the article appeared
abusive or a failure to respect genderqueer and nonbinary people.[0]
Many deletion comments have called the article "transphobic". Nobody
as far as I have seen, has mistakenly called the authors transphobes.
There is a good faith presumption that cause is an error of judgement.
It has been explained several times by myself and others in related
Wikipedia discussions that objecting to a published joke being
offensive to a minority group, in no way implies or presumes that the
author(s) deliberately intended to cause offense to that minority
group.Thanks,

Thankfully the Signpost essay has been hidden from view while the
deletion discussion continues, an action that resolves the immediate
issue, and removes any need for me to be involved.

I have not made a complaint to the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct
Committee, and decided to let a thread on meta stay closed with regard
to use of a unpaid volunteer WMF related title that requires
compliance with the Code of Conduct.

I sent a friendly confidential email to the Wikimedia Wiki Education
project for comment, as Barbara chose to publish the essay using the
unpaid volunteer account that specifically represented Wiki Education,
though again, this was not a formal complaint. I had one informal
reply back saying they were looking into it. I have not emailed anyone
else with regard to the authors or their actions. Explicitly, I have
not contacted anyone's employer nor anyone else not directly part of
Wikimedia projects.

Barbara has thoughtfully stated in a personal email to me, and on her
Wikipedia talk page, that she is preparing a formal apology as one of
the coauthors.

Thankfully SMcCandlish has agreed with the article being hidden from
view, and continues to debate the article deletion. They chose to
raised an ANI request against me for "canvassing and
incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes", which was closed
without action toThanks,day.[3] At the time of writing this email, there are
claims by SMcCandlish that they are "accused of being a transphobe",
it is unclear who is doing this.[4]

The WMF have taken the unusual step of refusing an email promoting the
Signpost on the announcements list, due to "multiple reports of
concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019
edition of the Signpost". I made no formal email complaint to the WMF
about Signpost, or anything else. The multiple reports were from other
concerned people that are unknown to me. Sadly the immediate personal
response to the WMF by the Signpost Production Manager has been "I
find your rejection of my email to be an empty political gesture
bowing to political pressure from braying sheeple."[5] No other
Signpost contributor has made any other reply, either personally or on
behalf of Signpost. I have seen no plans or proposals to change or
improve the review process or policies for the Signpost.

Thank you for those sending private messages of encouragement, support
and information. Should anything similar happen on Wikipedia in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

2019-03-03 Thread
As the last post had a format error, I am reposting the body of the
email again to avoid confusion!



I would like to apologise to SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS), and more
generally to the Wikipedia community, for any possible implication
given in my previous email to this list, that authors of the
problematic Signpost "Pronouns beware" essay, might in any way be
thought to be transphobic. This was an important matter to word
precisely and accurately. I take responsibility and apologise, it was
stupid of me to fail to ensure that there could be no way that my
words might appear to be intended as an attack on the person, rather
than criticism of the judgement used when writing this essay, and the
choice to publish it on Wikipedia.

I refrained from correcting this email previously, as it was thought
to be better to avoid stirring up any further drama, however this was
being interpreted by one of the authors as deliberately avoiding
making any correction.[1] I apologise for that misjudgement, and my
failure to understand how a delay would appear. My thanks go to
SMcCandlish for raising their complaint that a correction was needed.

The rest of this email runs on the long side, if you have been
following the deletion discussion, there is probably nothing new here.
:-)

My action in acting transparently as a whistleblower, was to criticise
the editorial judgement of creating an essay which made jokes about
pronoun usage which would, and has, been read as making a bad joke
that mocks genderqueer and transgender people. This problem of how the
article could be read, was raised by others before publication.
Overwhelmingly the deletion discussion created for the essay has had
feedback from many long term and experienced Wikipedians who were
alarmed and upset that the article was published without this problem
being acted on, and either halting publication, or ensuring a
resubmission so there could be no confusion that the article appeared
abusive or a failure to respect genderqueer and nonbinary people.[0]
Many deletion comments have called the article "transphobic". Nobody
as far as I have seen, has mistakenly called the authors transphobes.
There is a good faith presumption that cause is an error of judgement.
It has been explained several times by myself and others in related
Wikipedia discussions that objecting to a published joke being
offensive to a minority group, in no way implies or presumes that the
author(s) deliberately intended to cause offense to that minority
group.

Thankfully the Signpost essay has been hidden from view while the
deletion discussion continues, an action that resolves the immediate
issue, and removes any need for me to be involved.

I have not made a complaint to the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct
Committee, and decided to let a thread on meta stay closed with regard
to use of a unpaid volunteer WMF related title that requires
compliance with the Code of Conduct.

I sent a friendly confidential email to the Wikimedia Wiki Education
project for comment, as Barbara chose to publish the essay using the
unpaid volunteer account that specifically represented Wiki Education,
though again, this was not a formal complaint. I had one informal
reply back saying they were looking into it. I have not emailed anyone
else with regard to the authors or their actions. Explicitly, I have
not contacted anyone's employer nor anyone else not directly part of
Wikimedia projects.

Barbara has thoughtfully stated in a personal email to me, and on her
Wikipedia talk page, that she is preparing a formal apology as one of
the coauthors.

Thankfully SMcCandlish has agreed with the article being hidden from
view, and continues to debate the article deletion. They chose to
raised an ANI request against me for "canvassing and
incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes", which was closed
without action today.[3] At the time of writing this email, there are
claims by SMcCandlish that they are "accused of being a transphobe",
it is unclear who is doing this.[4]

The WMF have taken the unusual step of refusing an email promoting the
Signpost on the announcements list, due to "multiple reports of
concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019
edition of the Signpost". I made no formal email complaint to the WMF
about Signpost, or anything else. The multiple reports were from other
concerned people that are unknown to me. Sadly the immediate personal
response to the WMF by the Signpost Production Manager has been "I
find your rejection of my email to be an empty political gesture
bowing to political pressure from braying sheeple."[5] No other
Signpost contributor has made any other reply, either personally or on
behalf of Signpost. I have seen no plans or proposals to change or
improve the review process or policies for the Signpost.

Thank you for those sending private messages of encouragement, support
and information. Should anything similar happen on Wikipedia in the
future, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

2019-03-03 Thread
en no plans or proposals to change or
improve the review process or policies for the Signpost.

Thank you to those sending private messages of encouragement, support
and information. :-D

Should anything similar happen on Wikipedia in the future, this
experience has taught me to run for cover, rather than putting my head
above the parapet. Becoming a figure of hatred is not worth the
stress, or having to read targeted mockery wrapped as "jokes",
published on the project you love and support. Throughout our
Wikimedia projects, I am certain that the majority of our contributors
agree, there remains huge room for improvement in how best to ensure
correct, friendly and respectful treatment of minority groups, rather
than doing the minimum possible.

Links
0. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour
1. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents=revision=885937612=885936723
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28
3. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents=revision=885954601=885953822
4. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour=60098422=885957940=885957573
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28

Thanks,
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 16:39, Fæ  wrote:either
>
> It is sad to see that two well established Wikipedians, Barbara (WVS)
> and SMcCandlish have misused Wikipedia Signpost to publish a "humour"
> article which derides the use of nonbinary pronouns. It will be clear
> for any reader that not only is this a joke in bad taste, but the
> article is a misuse of the Wikipedia project and brand, to deride and
> marginalise transgender, genderqueer and nonbinary people. A deletion
> discussion has been created, everyone is welcome to express theithereir
> opinions, should they wish to read the Signpost op-ed.[1][4][5]
>
> As part of the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars program, Barbara Page has
> been granted special status at the University of Pittsburgh, and in
> this capacity is seen to represent Wikimedia and Wikipedia, even if
> not in a paid capacity. Given their coauthorship of the defamatory
> essay, I do not see how it would be ethical for Page to retain any
> recognition or relationship, and ask that a representative of Wiki
> Education provide an official response.[2][6]
>
> Stanton McCandlish is named as a WMF Tech Ambassador, and I have
> requested on Meta that this formal recognition is immediately removed
> by the WMF, as their views are directly antithetical to the WMF
> supported Technical Spaces Code of Conduct.[3]

--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> Links:
> 1. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour
> 2. https://wikiedu.org/blog/2015/09/25/upitt-visiting-scholars/
> 3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tech/Ambassadors#Stanton_McCandlish
> 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barbara_(WVS)
> 5. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SMcCandlish
> 6. https://wikiedu.org/contact-us/
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> Wikimedia LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+
Fae

0. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour
1. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents=revision=885937612=885936723
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28
3. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents=revision=885954601=885953822
4. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour=60098422=885957940=885957573
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28

fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 16:39, Fæ  wrote:either
>
> It is sad to see that two well established Wikipedians, Barbara (WVS)
> and SMcCandlish have misused Wikipedia Signpost to publish a "humour"
> article which derides the use of nonbinary pronouns. It will be clear
> for any reader that not only is this a joke in bad taste, but the
> article is a misuse of the Wikipedia project and brand, to deride and
> marginalise transgender, genderqueer a

[Wikimedia-l] Use of Wikimedia projects for anti-LGBT+ "humour"

2019-02-28 Thread
It is sad to see that two well established Wikipedians, Barbara (WVS)
and SMcCandlish have misused Wikipedia Signpost to publish a "humour"
article which derides the use of nonbinary pronouns. It will be clear
for any reader that not only is this a joke in bad taste, but the
article is a misuse of the Wikipedia project and brand, to deride and
marginalise transgender, genderqueer and nonbinary people. A deletion
discussion has been created, everyone is welcome to express their
opinions, should they wish to read the Signpost op-ed.[1][4][5]

As part of the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars program, Barbara Page has
been granted special status at the University of Pittsburgh, and in
this capacity is seen to represent Wikimedia and Wikipedia, even if
not in a paid capacity. Given their coauthorship of the defamatory
essay, I do not see how it would be ethical for Page to retain any
recognition or relationship, and ask that a representative of Wiki
Education provide an official response.[2][6]

Stanton McCandlish is named as a WMF Tech Ambassador, and I have
requested on Meta that this formal recognition is immediately removed
by the WMF, as their views are directly antithetical to the WMF
supported Technical Spaces Code of Conduct.[3]

Links:
1. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour
2. https://wikiedu.org/blog/2015/09/25/upitt-visiting-scholars/
3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tech/Ambassadors#Stanton_McCandlish
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barbara_(WVS)
5. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SMcCandlish
6. https://wikiedu.org/contact-us/

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia LGBT+ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

___
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] Publication of WMF Affiliate agreements

2019-01-23 Thread
It appears that Affiliate agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation are
not published on-wiki in a consistent way.[1]

Though the standard templates are available, these have varied over
time, so at a minimum to understand which Chapter/Thorg/User Group has
currently agreed which legally binding statement, there should be an
indication or link to the specific version. The templates have to be
customized, and this may include some legally meaningful changes, not
just bureaucratic ones.

As an example, the table of 108 User Groups, simply gives the names of
the groups. It would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to
work out exactly when each signed up to the UG agreement, or confirm
which User Groups legally signed up to the post May 2015 version that
makes compliance with the Code of Conduct mandatory. As a second
example, tracking down the UK Chapter agreement,[2] a customized one
was agreed by the WMF and WMUK, but when I followed the 'official'
links, the version I was directed to was a 2009 draft version on the
UK Chapter wiki (no copy on Meta), which appears unlikely to be the
current chapters agreement due to a fairly obvious drafting error.

Could the Affiliates Committee look into this as a matter of its
necessary and tracked administration of a correct public record,
rather than relying on it happening ad hoc?

Thanks,
Fae

Links
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Agreements
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_agreements
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Next Wikimedia monthly activities meeting will be on 22 February

2019-01-23 Thread
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 01:00, Gregory Varnum  wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Our next Wikimedia monthly activities meeting will be on 22 February 2019.
> More information will be available on Meta-Wiki:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings
>
> But wait?!? What about January? Good catch! We are cancelling this month's
> meeting due to scheduling issues. In short, there is a lot going on this
> month for the Wikimedia Foundation and other planned presenters. As a
> result, we did not feel we could put on an effective meeting.

Congratulations on the good news.

Thanks for updating this list with meeting scheduling announcements.
Is there a shared general calendar somewhere on-wiki that can be kept
updated for microcoordination, the same way we do for wikimeets?[1]

Links
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup

Fae

> If you are interested in presenting at a future meeting, we want to hear
> from you! Please visit the sign-up page on Meta-Wiki:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings/Sign_up
>
> -greg
>
> --
>
> Gregory Varnum (pronouns - he/his/him)
>
> Communications Strategist
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> 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, 
> 
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

2019-01-09 Thread
Location: This is a tangent, one that has been raised before as a
/non-answer/ to the issue of actually getting on with contingency
planning. Realistically I would start by looking at the potential
matches of Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands (where servers already
are used for WMF operations), or lastly and for very different
reasons, Peru.

What I find weird, or bizarro, is that the responses so far are vague
dismissals for non-good fantastic reasons, at the level of "let magic
blockchain technology solve it for free", rather than taking on board
that preparing a hot switch for Wikimedia operations in a welcoming
host country, is a highly cost effective disaster contingency plan,
whether due to natural disasters in San Fran / Florida / Amsterdam, or
due to national government using its legal authority to freeze, switch
off or tamper with content due to politically inflated "security" or
"emergency" issues. The risks are real and predictable, and as a
globally recognized charity with plenty of money in the bank, the WMF
should have contingency plans to ensure its continued existence, as
any professional business actuary would advise.

As a past IT auditor, what also made the hairs prick up on the back of
my neck, was David Gerard's sensible question "So ... when did someone
last test putting up a copy of the sites from
the backups" - Could someone give a real answer to that please? If
it's never, then wow, we all have to ask some hard questions of the
WMF Board of exactly how they hold senior management to account.

Thanks,
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:05, Nathan  wrote:
>
> Hi Fae,
>
> I'm curious what nation you have in mind for your stable Plan B. Is it
> Brexit Britain? France of the Yellow Vests and Front National? Perhaps
> Orban's Hungary, Putin's Russia, or Germany with its recent right-wing
> resurgence?
>
> Maybe you'd prefer Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil? I suppose in Italy we'd worry
> about Beppe and criminal libel statutes, while BJP would hardly seem
> welcoming in India and I can't imagine you'd suggest a home on the other
> side of the Great Firewall.
>
> Maybe you're hinting at Canada, but otherwise, I'd love to understand what
> island of liberal stability and legal safeguards you think is safe from the
> vagaries of electoral politics or rigid authoritarianism.
>
> The countries I list above have their own flaws (although in each case, I
> believe, many desirable traits as well) as does any other alternative.
> Anyone could reasonably argue it's unfair to stigmatize any of them by
> glaringly public flaws.
>
> To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
> maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
> unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> > following,
> >
> > For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> > to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> > reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> > whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> > voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> > politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> > inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> > inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> > decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> > virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
> >
> > The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> > switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> > continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> > has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> > and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> > and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
> >
> > However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
> > B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> > hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> > government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
> > our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
> > political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
> > started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
> > plan wou

[Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

2019-01-08 Thread
Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the following,

For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]

The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.

However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
simply power off our servers in the USA, rather than compromise our
content.

If anyone knows of committed investment in a practical WMF Plan B, it
would be reassuring to share it more widely at this time. If not, more
of us should be asking about it, politely, persistently but perhaps
less patiently than indefinitely. :-)

Links:
1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739180
2. http://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/research/updates/populism
3. 
https://www.cnet.com/news/obama-signs-order-outlining-emergency-internet-control
"... this order was designed to empower certain governmental agencies
with control over telecommunications and the Web during natural
disasters and security emergencies."
4. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418
"The president could seize control of U.S. internet traffic, impeding
access to certain websites and ensuring that internet searches return
pro-Trump content as the top results."
5. Bizarro, as used in the title of this email:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Looking for Liaisons for the Movement Strategy Process

2019-01-07 Thread
"Liaisons will ensure that the voices and perspectives of these
communities are heard and considered in the Movement Strategy Process"

Question 1: Was there not feedback last year from volunteer
coordinators (or whatever the title was) that their voices were lost,
and that their time felt wasted; how was that fixed?

Question 2: Exactly how are paid liaisons empowered or authorised to
"ensure" that community feedback is heard, or will be able to measure
their impact on the huge, expensive and politically sensitive WMF
strategy process?

By the way, I know that the pitch is that this is a "movement"
strategy, but clearly when the top level goals are express in language
like:
"To serve our users, we will become a platform that serves open
knowledge to the world across interfaces and communities. We will
build tools for allies and partners to organize and exchange free
knowledge beyond Wikimedia. Our infrastructure will enable us and
others to collect and use different forms of free, trusted knowledge."
This has nothing to do with unpaid volunteers like me, as my real
experience over several years is that I have no voice whatsoever to
actually influence any of this WMF employee controlled
'infrastructure', 'platforms' or who the WMF chooses as 'partners',
even though I have invested months of my time in the development of
GLAM related tools, none was ever recognised or later maintained by
the WMF. I recall personal discussions and phone conferences where WMF
management were positively rude about any prospect of WMF dev time
being involved in non-WMF employee originating projects, and though
tone may be nicer, the outcomes are the same.

For these reasons I have positively avoided using up my valuable
volunteer time over the last couple of years in any of these WMF
strategy discussions, it would be jolly nice to be provided with
evidence that things are different in 2019, and it would be worth me
reconsidering my views and try to engage with whoever becomes a paid
WMF liaison when they appear on Commons, rather than ignoring them,
their surveys, or their email offers for interviews.

Thanks in advance,
Fae (Commons volunteer)

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 15:01, Kaarel Vaidla  wrote:
>
> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> We are happy to announce our plans to engage Wikimedia communities in the
> strategic and structural reform discussions of our global movement. The
> Movement Strategy Process requires input and participation from all of our
> communities and we are looking for Liaisons for the Movement Strategy
> Process to engage with some language communities and facilitate their
> participation in global strategic discussions. Liaisons will ensure that
> the voices and perspectives of these communities are heard and considered
> in the Movement Strategy Process and that members of these communities
> actively engage and participate in the discussions in their own language.
>
> Based on criteria of reach of the language, projects, as well as existing
> editor base, the Core Team has identified the following language
> communities for further engagement and will be hiring a Strategy Liaisons
> for each:[1]: Arabic, French, German, Hindi, Japanese, Mandarin Chinese,
> Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.
>
> The Liaisons are expected to: engage with the communities in their native
> language; coordinate and facilitate discussions; support healthy
> communication; provide details and context when needed, and monitor
> different communication channels of the communities to surface ideas
> related to the Strategy Process. Liaisons will be expected to identify
> opportunities where the ongoing Movement Strategy Process discussions can
> benefit and solicit ideas from interested community members. Liaisons will
> also be expected to summarize the most important discussion points,
> coordinate translations of these summaries to share them with Liaisons
> Coordinator, Working Groups and wider global community.
>
> Ideal candidates will have  a good connection with the local communities,
> strong communication skills, fluency in English and one of the nine
> identified community languages as well as organizational and collaborative
> skills.
>
> The Liaisons positions will be part time (up to 20 h/week) and will be in
> place from February to December 2019. If you are interested in the role or
> would like to have more information, you can find the full description of
> the role on respective application page
>  [2].
>
> Please note that we are also  recruiting for a full-time Liaisons
> Coordinator to ensure  engagement of the communities in the Movemement
> Strategy Process and manage the worknd fuddy-duddy of the  Strategy Liaisons. 
> You can
> find the full description of this role on respective application page
>  [3].
>nd fuddy-duddy
> We look forward to collaborating with many of you 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

2019-01-07 Thread
t; > > > first
> > > > > > step in this situation would be to confirm with the individual
> > editor
> > > > > > whether or not they want their "case" to be examined.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should the editor be agreeable, I suggest that the next step is for
> > > > > someone
> > > > > > who has the ability to converse in Amharic to contact the Amharic
> > > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > and find out why the block has been issued, how it is consistent
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > username policy on Amharic Wikipedia, whether that policy is driven
> > > in
> > > > > part
> > > > > > by external considerations (e.g., does the project risk heavy
> > > > > governmental
> > > > > > scrutiny if it appears to "promote" locally unacceptable
> > > activities). I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > personally curious as to why it took over six months to identify
> > that
> > > > > this
> > > > > > account did not meet the local username policy, and whether there
> > was
> > > > > > internal or external discussion about the username.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is not clear to me what the desired outcome is in this case - at
> > > > least
> > > > > > in part because we have no idea of the opinion of the editor
> > > > involved.  I
> > > > > > am hard-pressed to say that a project should be required to allow
> > > > > usernames
> > > > > > that it has a long history of considering unacceptable, especially
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > applied evenly to all accounts; in this case, if it disallows
> > > usernames
> > > > > > that imply sexual preference regardless of what that preference is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems to me that the WMF Trust & Safety group would probably be
> > > the
> > > > > > right group to examine this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 09:42, Ariel Glenn WMF 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Additional notes:
> > > > > > > The user's regular page can be viewed on en wikipedia:
> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QueerEcofeminist
> > > > > > > Queer may have to do with gender identity as opposed to being an
> > > > > > indicator
> > > > > > > of 'sexual behavior', so the blockers didn't even get that right.
> > > > > > Example:
> > > > > > > I am gender-nonconforming as to my gender identity and
> > expression;
> > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > the primary reason I use the label 'queer'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe this should be reported... somewhere. But I don't know
> > > > where.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > WMF CoC only covers technical spaces. A little help here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ariel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:26 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do we have cross project policies to govern or limit local
> > > policies
> > > > > > > > for the use of sysop tools? I would like to pass on policy
> > > advice,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > any past cases folks here would like to highlight that set a
> > > > > > > > precedent.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The case below is illustrative, though based on my recall of
> > > > several
> > > > > > > > complaints which went nowhere over the years, on email lists,
> > and
> > > > > > > > Jimmy's talk page, about apparently arbitrary blocks on
> > different
> > > > > > > > non-English Wikipedias, it seems reasonable to believe those
> > > > > > > > complaints are the tip of the iceberg, and there ar

[Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

2019-01-02 Thread
Do we have cross project policies to govern or limit local policies
for the use of sysop tools? I would like to pass on policy advice, and
any past cases folks here would like to highlight that set a
precedent.

The case below is illustrative, though based on my recall of several
complaints which went nowhere over the years, on email lists, and
Jimmy's talk page, about apparently arbitrary blocks on different
non-English Wikipedias, it seems reasonable to believe those
complaints are the tip of the iceberg, and there are likely to be many
historical cases of blocks that could have been appealed... had the
user been confident to complain in English, and have the energy to
pursue generic WMF policies on terms of use, or
harassment/discrimination, to establish a meta-level case.

# Example case

An account block on the Amharic Wikipedia (am.wp) was flagged up
yesterday on the WM LGBT+ Telegram discussion group.[3] The rationale
for blocking the account was because the account name includes the
word "Queer"[1]. The incident raises questions about process and
accountability, particularly as the block gives the impression that
this is the norm or an agreed interpretation of policy for sysops on
am.wp, and because the user is well established using this account
name across Wikimedia projects and has never edited am.wp so the block
cannot be based on any prior action or dispute.

In this example there is no obvious process for appeal, if sysops on
that project think that blocking any LGBT+ related account name
represents local consensus. After off-wiki discussion, the WMF Trust
and Safety team has been approached for advice,[2] as the rationale
for the action appears hostile to any openly LGBT+ volunteers who
might want to include something queer looking in their account name
(such as my account name, should anyone want to read it as transgender
related).

# Links

1. 
https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%88%8D%E1%8B%A9:Contributions/QueerEcofeminist;
the block log states "Names calling attention to your sexual behavior
have never been allowed here in 15 years and aren't suddenly allowed
in 2018"
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety
3. https://telegram.me/wmlgbt

Thanks
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

___
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?

2018-12-30 Thread
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 21:35, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> I have written a long text today (posted in my FB)

Facebook, is that still a thing? Gah, whatever is being posted there,
many of us Wikipedians are never going to see it. It would be nice to
see more people writing decent essays as blog posts rather than as
messages on a closed cynical data harvesting platform that makes a
multi-billionaire even richer.

There is a problem with the emphasis of (en) Wikipedia being on the
glory of ''creating'' an article. As a result many newbies and oldies
are driven to create lots of stubs and mediocre articles which may
never be much expanded. The primary criticism I hear from academics is
that the articrles for their subject area are ghastly, relying on
outdated sources, outdated ideas and seem so badly written that they
remain a concern for any student relying on Wikipedia as a starting
point for finding quality reliable sources for further reading.

Yesterday I was flagged on twitter about potential bias of "Feminist
views on transgender topics". It's a pretty sorry example which gives
an initial impression that the vast majority of feminists positively
hate trans people. However a closer read shows that the sources focus
on inflammatory writings, many sources and quotes being from the
1970s, so several decades out of date. The outcome is a polarised
essay which paints a social war, because that is what
self-aggrandising pundits, newspapers and social media focuses on,
when real life experience is nothing like this. Being a trans or
sexuality related article, sadly means that it is hard for newbies to
understand the special attention this gets on Wikipedia, with most
newbie edits being rapidly reverted and these contributors finding it
frustratingly complicated to talk about what they want to change.

If Wikipedia(s) are to have a revitalising period in the 2020s, there
needs to be more built-in ways to encourage and reward newbies to work
collegiality building up ''existing articles'', and to recognise that
those boldly trying to rewrite and restructure existing mediocre
articles to turn them in to good up to date topics are doing a far,
far more difficult and skilful thing than obsessive old lexicographers
trying to carpetbag red links.

Links
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
https://twitter.com/Faewik

___
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] new blog post: interview with designer George Oates about Wikimedia Commons

2018-11-13 Thread
There is a detailed and factual post released today on Medium about
how poor a reader experience Medium is for blog posts, due to
tracking, profiling and banner advertising.[1]

For those that recall discussion in response to the WMF choice of
Facebook and Medium to communicate the report from George Oates last
month, this seems a decently factual summary of some of the reasons
why this is a poor practical choice for comms, as well as an ethical
issue when calmly measured against our open movement values.

The conclusion should ring alarm bells for any WMF staffer with
responsibility for Communications and is still tempted to promote
Medium by posting or cross-posting there, or indeed any other platform
which uses the same commercial techniques:
"Basically, you’re selling readers to aggressive Medium
self-advertising so that Medium could make laughably small money from
a miserable fraction of them. And annoy the hell out of everyone
else."

Links:
1. 
https://medium.com/@nikitonsky/medium-is-a-poor-choice-for-blogging-bb0048d19133

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 15:33, Fæ  wrote:
>
> So, no learning points from this expensive feedback, cost measured in 
> volunteer time and damage to good will from the most active and committed 
> volunteers.
>
> Sorry, do not expect me to believe in future political statements of values 
> and ethics from the WMF, when they are thrown away at any slight 
> inconvenience.
>
> Fae
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, 15:23 Sandra Fauconnier via Commons-l, 
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I did indeed include the link to the Village Pump discussion in my original 
>> post, but not in the best or most visible/encouraging way. My apologies. 
>> It's not at all my intention to force anyone to use a platform they don't 
>> like, and I apologize again if I gave that impression.
>>
>> Many people in our communities discuss very actively and constructively on 
>> Facebook, and increasingly on Telegram, and probably on quite a few other 
>> platforms that may or may not be aligned with our values as much as we would 
>> like. As a long-time Wikimedian in my free time, I'm a strong open source 
>> and OpenGLAM advocate and fan, but I will be the first to admit I'm not a 
>> purist, I do indeed use Facebook and a few of these other Evil Places, and I 
>> don't mind tracking (and pointing to) conversations happening elsewhere. I 
>> do feel conflicted about this (like about many other things in that 
>> complicated thing called life) but I give priority to hearing more voices 
>> here.
>>
>> The interview is indeed intended as a 'fresh' perspective from an informed 
>> outsider. While we may not agree with everything George says, hopefully 
>> there are nuggets of interesting feedback that we can use to our benefit. 
>> This is not meant to replace the community's ideas, needs and vision at all. 
>> It's additional to it.
>>
>> Cheers, Sandra
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 3:48 PM Steinsplitter Wiki via Commons-l 
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >>I'm sure we can find a suitable place to discuss this on-wiki, and there 
>>> >>should be an appropriate link for that.
>>>
>>>
>>> I see Sara posted it on the VP as well: 
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Blog_post:_interview_with_George_Oates_about_Wikimedia_Commons
>>>
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>>
>>> >>As for the actual topic of the interview, I am glad to see an outside 
>>> >>opinion from someone who has experience with large, community-driven 
>>> >>media repositories. I might not agree with all the sentiments, and 
>>> >>structured data and out Next Big Thing did not exactly feature 
>>> >>prominently, but I find it refreshing to leave the echo chamber once in a 
>>> >>while.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is true as well.
>>>
>>> BTW: If my initial post sounded a bit rude, please excuse for that.
>>>
>>> --Steinsplitter
>>>
>>> 
>>> Von: Commons-l  im Auftrag von 
>>> Magnus Manske via Commons-l 
>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 31. Oktober 2018 15:43
>>> An: Walter Siegmund; Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
>>> Betreff: Re: [Commons-l] new blog post: interview with designer George 
>>> Oates about Wikimedia Commons
>>>
>>> Some quick thoughts from me.
>>>
>>> I, too, find the Facebook/Medium discussion reroute unfortunate (I'm not 
>>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] REMINDER: Invitation to the October 2018 Wikimedia Monthly Activities Meeting: Thursday, October 25th, 18:00 UTC

2018-10-26 Thread
If you find several broadcast emails for the same meeting useful, please
join wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org. You can get all the
broadcasts you want there, including this one.

Fae


On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, 09:35 Anders Wennersten, 
wrote:

> I disagree.
>
> For me it is perfect. I get the impulse to get in and I know if I am
> busy with other things. Reminder of something in the future get lost
> otherwise.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2018-10-26 kl. 10:22, skrev Fæ:
> > Saw this message today. Almost all readers of this list will find a
> > broadcasted 30 minutes reminder equally useless.
> >
> > Please revisit this part of the WMF comms plan.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Fae
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, 18:35 Greg Varnum,  wrote:
> >
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> Reminder that this month’s Wikimedia Monthly Activities Meeting will
> begin
> >> in approximately 30 minutes.
> >>
> >> The “To be determined” slot will be an "Update from the Wikimedia
> >> Foundation Executive Director”.
> >>
> >> I hope that you are able to join us, or watch the video on Wikimedia
> >> Commons (or YouTube) later.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Gregory Varnum
> >> Communications Strategist
> >> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> >> gvar...@wikimedia.org
> >> Pronouns: He/Him/His
> >>
> >>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>
> >>> From: Gregory Varnum 
> >>> Subject: Invitation to the October 2018 Wikimedia Monthly Activities
> >> Meeting: Thursday, October 25th, 18:00 UTC
> >>> Date: October 22, 2018 at 10:46:48 PM PDT
> >>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List ,
> >> WikimediaAnnounce-l , "Staff
> >> (All)" 
> >>> Hello everyone,
> >>>
> >>> The next Wikimedia Monthly Activities meeting will take place on
> >> Thursday, October 25th, 2018 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC
> channel is
> >> #wikimedia-office on https://webchat.freenode.net <
> >> https://webchat.freenode.net/>, and the meeting will be broadcast as a
> >> live YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J86J8N1gExk <
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J86J8N1gExk>. We’ll post the video
> >> recording publicly after the meeting.
> >>> During the October 2018 meeting, we will have an update on the
> movement,
> >> Wikimedia 2030 status update, a presentation on values, principles and
> >> methods, and more.
> >>> Meeting agenda:
> >>> Welcome and introduction to agenda - 2 minutes
> >>> Movement update - 3 minutes
> >>> Values, Principles, and Methods, oh my! - 10 minutes
> >>> Wikimedia 2030 status update and opportunities to participate - 20
> >> minutes
> >>> Update from the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director - 5-10 minutes
> >>> Questions and discussion - 10 minutes
> >>> Wikilove - 5 minutes
> >>>
> >>> Please review the meeting's Meta-Wiki page for further information
> about
> >> the meeting and how to participate:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings
> <
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings>
> >>> The November 2018 and December 2018 monthly activities meetings will be
> >> combined and will take place on Thursday, December 6th, starting at
> 19:00
> >> UTC (11:00 Pacific Daylight Time). If you would like to sign up to
> >> participate, please visit:
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings/Sign_up
> >> <
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings/Sign_up
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Gregory Varnum
> >>> Communications Strategist
> >>> Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/>
> >>> gvar...@wikimedia.org <mailto:gvar...@wikimedia.org>
> >>> Pronouns: He/His/Him
> >> ___
> >> 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/wikim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] REMINDER: Invitation to the October 2018 Wikimedia Monthly Activities Meeting: Thursday, October 25th, 18:00 UTC

2018-10-26 Thread
Saw this message today. Almost all readers of this list will find a
broadcasted 30 minutes reminder equally useless.

Please revisit this part of the WMF comms plan.

Thanks
Fae

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, 18:35 Greg Varnum,  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Reminder that this month’s Wikimedia Monthly Activities Meeting will begin
> in approximately 30 minutes.
>
> The “To be determined” slot will be an "Update from the Wikimedia
> Foundation Executive Director”.
>
> I hope that you are able to join us, or watch the video on Wikimedia
> Commons (or YouTube) later.
>
>
> ---
> Gregory Varnum
> Communications Strategist
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> gvar...@wikimedia.org
> Pronouns: He/Him/His
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Gregory Varnum 
> > Subject: Invitation to the October 2018 Wikimedia Monthly Activities
> Meeting: Thursday, October 25th, 18:00 UTC
> > Date: October 22, 2018 at 10:46:48 PM PDT
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List ,
> WikimediaAnnounce-l , "Staff
> (All)" 
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > The next Wikimedia Monthly Activities meeting will take place on
> Thursday, October 25th, 2018 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is
> #wikimedia-office on https://webchat.freenode.net <
> https://webchat.freenode.net/>, and the meeting will be broadcast as a
> live YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J86J8N1gExk <
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J86J8N1gExk>. We’ll post the video
> recording publicly after the meeting.
> >
> > During the October 2018 meeting, we will have an update on the movement,
> Wikimedia 2030 status update, a presentation on values, principles and
> methods, and more.
> >
> > Meeting agenda:
> > Welcome and introduction to agenda - 2 minutes
> > Movement update - 3 minutes
> > Values, Principles, and Methods, oh my! - 10 minutes
> > Wikimedia 2030 status update and opportunities to participate - 20
> minutes
> > Update from the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director - 5-10 minutes
> > Questions and discussion - 10 minutes
> > Wikilove - 5 minutes
> >
> > Please review the meeting's Meta-Wiki page for further information about
> the meeting and how to participate:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings>
> >
> > The November 2018 and December 2018 monthly activities meetings will be
> combined and will take place on Thursday, December 6th, starting at 19:00
> UTC (11:00 Pacific Daylight Time). If you would like to sign up to
> participate, please visit:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings/Sign_up
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings/Sign_up
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gregory Varnum
> > Communications Strategist
> > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > gvar...@wikimedia.org 
> > Pronouns: He/His/Him
>
> ___
> 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] Proposal regarding norms for meeting/deadline announcements

2018-10-23 Thread
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 00:34, effe iets anders  wrote:
>
> Hi Pine,
>
> I would also suggest not to get overly bureaucratic with this :) If the
> public meeting you refer to requires a large attendance, the 14 days makes
> sense for example - but I cannot recall many meetings of that style.
> Rather, most meetings are either scheduled taking the availability of
> participants in mind, or it is to get input (where it is more important to
> have a bunch of people show up, than to have everyone participate).
>
> Whether more than one reminder is excessive, is imho quite subjective. I
> appreciate most reminders, especially if they stick to the same thread.
>
> On a side note: are there any weekly meetings being announced on this list?
> Again, it highly depends on the topic, and whether the reminder may also
> contain more information.
>
> My point? Don't worry about it so much :) Be flexible with this, and go
> with the flow. People can figure this out quite well if they use their
> common sense without added bureaucracy.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:50 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Wikimedia-l and Wikitech-l,
> >
> > Keeping in mind the large numbers of subscribers on some Wikimedia email
> > lists, the endless valuable uses for the time of knowledgeable volunteer
> > Wikimedians, the significant financial costs for the time of many of the
> > staff and contractors on these mailing lists, and how packed calendars can
> > be, I propose that we implement a few social norms/guidelines for
> > Wikimedia-l and Wikitech-l in particular.
> >
> > 1. When planning to have a one-time public meeting, announce it at least 14
> > days in advance to give everyone who might like to participate that much
> > lead time to clear space on their calendars. Rarely is a one-time public
> > meeting so urgent that it cannot wait 14 days from the day that it is
> > announced.
> >
> > 2. Send a maximum of one reminder email regarding a one-time public
> > meeting, and also send a maximum of one reminder email regarding events
> > with deadlines such as Wikimania scholarship submissions or conference
> > presentation proposals. More than one reminder about a meeting or deadline
> > is excessive.
> >
> > 3. If extending a deadline, send only an announcement of the extension with
> > no additional reminder.
> >
> > 4. Send only one email to announce a recurring weekly meeting, with no
> > additional reminders. Meetings which recur less often, such as biweekly or
> > monthly, may continue to be announced with one additional reminder.
> >
> > At this time these are proposals only. Comments are welcome. If the
> > comments become extensive then I may request that we move the conversation
> > to Meta.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

Completely agree that this is a real problem, and that solving it is a
positive change rather than a "bureaucratic" one.

As a reminder for everyone who reads this list, it is defined as:[1]
Wikimedia Mailing List
Discussion list for the Wikimedia community and the larger network of
organizations (Wikimedia Foundation, chapter organizations,
affiliates, partners) supporting its work.

Let's agree to draw the common-sense distinction between having a
*discussion* and one-way *broadcasting* announcements, PR statements
and thankspam. This list is not intended for any of the latter, and
filling subscriber's inboxes with announcements rather than
interesting contemporary discussion is damaging this list and reduces
its subscriber base. This is probably a significant part of why
subscription and community engagement has been seriously dropping off
over the last few years.

I propose that we create a movement wide announcements list
(wikimedia-announcements) that is intended for broadcasting, rather
than discussion, and this list can be kept for discussion. If people
feel they need to send three announcements/reminders/changes for the
same meeting, then that can be okay on the announcements list, and
should be called out as misuse, or even hijacking, for this discussion
list. A simple change, and for those that wish to follow
announcements, makes it easy for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Information on "Multiple failed attempts to log in" emails

2018-08-25 Thread
Dear Security group of the Wikimedia Foundation,

The community has been patiently waiting for *113 days* for an
analysis to be published for the login attack of 3 May 2018.

The community has been waiting for *650 days* (that's around one year
and 10 months) for an analysis of the OurMine hack to be published.

We are repeatedly, and at times rudely, advised by WMF employees to
raise Phabricator tickets for these types of task, which now appears
to be deliberately bad advice if the tickets can remain open but
languish as "Needs Triage" and ignored by the WMF for a period of
years or indefinitely until the community conveniently forgets about
them.

The OurMine hack was an important breach of Wikimedia project
security, and though the precise details may not be smart to make
public as this might risk becoming guidance for future hackers, nobody
can object to a potted summary and analysis of how severe the attack
was, and what types of steps the WMF has taken to ensure this will
never be repeated.

Links
1. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193846 Publish analysis of
sustained login attack of 3 May 2018
2. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150605 Publish an analysis of
the OurMine hack (11 November 2016)

Thank you for helping out with better community communication,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Fri, 4 May 2018 at 10:40, Fæ  wrote:
>
> On 4 May 2018 at 01:27, John Bennett  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Many of you may have been receiving emails in the last 24 hours warning you
> > of "Multiple failed attempts to log in" with your account. I wanted to let
> > you know that the Wikimedia Foundation's Security team is aware of the
> > situation, and working with others in the organization on steps to decrease
> > the success of attacks like these.
> >
> > The exact source is not yet known, but it is not originating from our
> > systems. That means it is an external effort to gain unauthorized access to
> > random accounts. These types of efforts are increasingly common for
> > websites of our reach. A vast majority of these attempts have been
> > unsuccessful, and we are reaching out personally to the small number of
> > accounts which we believe have been compromised.
> >
> > While we are constantly looking at improvements to our security systems and
> > processes to offset the impact of malicious efforts such as these, the best
> > method of prevention continues to be the steps each of you take to
> > safeguard your accounts. Because of this, we have taken steps in the past
> > to support things like stronger password requirements,[1] and we continue
> > to encourage everyone to take some routine steps to maintain a secure
> > computer and account. That includes regularly changing your passwords,[2]
> > actively running antivirus software on your systems, and keeping your
> > system software up to date.
> >
> > My team will continue to investigate this incident, and report back if we
> > notice any concerning changes. If you have any questions, please contact
> > the Support and Safety team (susa{{@}}wikimedia.org).
> >
> > John Bennett
> > Director of Security, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Password_strength_requirements
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ChangePassword
> > ___
> > 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>
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> Could you please follow up with a public report about incident and the
> analysis. There is plenty of data available in the public domain, and
> an awful lot of users have been affected, there seems no special
> reason to keep the basic analysis a secret even if some
> behind-the-scenes changes might need to remain unpublished. I have
> raised this as a Phabricator ticket as a prompt.[1]
>
> By the way, the Wikimedia user community is still waiting for the
> promised report on the OurMine hack of 11th November 2016. Could you
> get on with it please? Leaving users hanging for more than a year for
> analysis to get published is not a good look for the WMF, it leaves us
> wondering if this type of standard analysis gets done properly or
> not.[2]
>
> Links
> 1. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193846 Publish analysis of
> sustained login attack of 3 May 2018
> 2. https://phab

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimedia Foundation has soft launched!

2018-08-22 Thread
Agree with Jane. Wow. For those unaware, Antoine Musso is a WMF
Software developer, which you would never know based on their email
signature.

Hey fellow long-term unpaid volunteers. Remember that the WMF was
created by us not that long ago, and had a single mission, to support
us volunteers and our shared open knowledge mission?

A drip, drip of "communication failures", along with the core
Americanocentic obsession with hearing praise and ignoring critics
must change, or we will all eventually take the hint that we are
neither wanted or needed here, and find or establish a new and more
rewarding place to have fun. Do we really need a revolution to flip
the WMF upside down, or is there a better way to speedily reshape the
WMF so it regains its focus on the outside world rather than the
brilliance of its employees?

Fae

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 09:55, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
> Wow. Just...wow.
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:24 AM Antoine Musso  wrote:
>
> > On 21/08/2018 21:01, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > >> The text I cited has now been changed to "All text on Wikimedia sites
> > >> is available as Creative Commons material".
> > >>
> > >> This does not resolve the issue I raised above; as my first bullet
> > >> point applies not only to media files, but also to numerous texts on
> > >> Wikimedia sites; not least a large part of Wikisource.
> > > This is still the case. When will it be fixed? Will it?
> > >
> > >>> Furthermore, the "Sesame Street" image used on the site's home page
> > >>> and the linked article, is labelled on Commons: "This work might not
> > >>> be available under a free license in the United States because it is
> > >>> based on an artwork or sculpture that may be protected by copyright
> > >>> under U.S. law."
> > >> This image is still on the pages I mentioned.
> > > And still is; over two weeks after I first pointed it out. No-one at
> > > WMF has even acknowledged my comment.
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > As several people pointed out, the issues should be reported on
> > Phabricator. As "a b" stated on August 12th:
> >
> > >
> > > Please file the relevant tasks in phabricator to enable better tracking
> > of
> > > issues compared to on the mailing list:
> > >
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/1/?tags=wikimediafoundation.org
> >
> > To which you kindly replied:
> >
> > > Thank you; no.
> >
> > So your concerns will be acknowledged once they make their way to
> > Phabricator. You can login there with your wiki account.
> >
> > Until you do so, your concerns will stay under the radar on this list.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Antoine "hashar" Musso
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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, 
> 

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Pixel tracking by Wikimedia

2018-08-09 Thread
I have been trying to work how the WMF or its suppliers have chosen to
use pixel tracking methods on Wikimedia projects, and exactly what
data is tracked, who can access it and if it ever gets officially
deleted, but failed so far.

There was some past speculation that some banners were using pixel
tracking, but apart from the cookie statement published by request of
WMF legal in 2015,[1] I have been unable to find precise explanations
of how this has been part of banner design, used on external landing
pages, or whether pixel tracking had ever been used more directly by
being integrated or tested on Wikimedia projects. Naturally this leads
to questions about legitimate use of pixel tracking data and what/who
it is tracking.

It would be much appreciated if anyone can provide a link to an
official statement given by the WMF that pixel tracking is used on its
sites outside of fundraising banners, or its supplier's sites, and any
example cases or reports of where it is happening.

Links
1. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cookie_statement

Thanks,
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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 Israel joins the nationwide strike to protest the exclusion of gay couples the right to become parents

2018-07-21 Thread
Let's be clear.

The anti-surrogacy movement may not be anti-LGBT, I basically said
that in my previous email. If you want to lobby against surrogacy,
there is no problem with doing so in the right forum, and as all legal
surrogacies over the last 22 years in Israel have been *100% for
heterosexual couples* as enshrined in the wording of the 1996 act, you
should be lobbying against that existing act, which by definition has
involved not one single same sex couple, so the only legal surrogacy
cases you can possibly discuss and lobby against have nothing to do
with LGBT+ parental rights or access.

Your actions hijacking a statement by WMIL for LGBT+ equality, are
anti-LGBT+ as was your nasty stereotype of those that dare to speak
openly about LGBT+ equality as being right-wing supporting rich white
men.

This same stereotype has been used against LGBT+ rights discussion my
entire life, long before #fakenews was invented. It is untrue,
insidious, offensive, closes down civil discussion and deliberately
marginalising. I have no doubt that your purpose in being here is not
to help our open knowledge movement but to use any convenient soapbox
to be offensive and disruptive.

Fae

On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 13:29, Mario Gómez  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 13:12, Mario Gómez  wrote:
> >
> >
> > No it is not "fair", it is a way of dismissing equality for LGBT+
> > people by parodying and stereotyping all of us with views in this area
> > as rich white men. That is wrapping distasteful bigoted views in soft
> > words.
> >
> >
> Of course it is not fair. I agree, that's what I said. My point is that it
> is as unfair as stereotyping anti-surrogacy movement as anti-LGBT.
>
> Best,
>
> Mario
> ___
> 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>

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Wikimedia Israel joins the nationwide strike to protest the exclusion of gay couples the right to become parents

2018-07-21 Thread
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 13:12, Mario Gómez  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > However when you choose to derail a discussion that is no more and no
> > less than same sex couples being treated equally and being given equal
> > access for parental rights and medical support, then your actions will
> > be read as supporting the use of the law as a weapon for anti-LGBT
> > discrimination. Saying you support LGBT rights, or that you are LGBT+
> > yourself, does not change the way your words affect the rest of us.
> >
>
> Yes, it is not the first point that I read this "you look anti-LGBT". It
> will probably be the case for some people. I could say that proponents of
> these positions _look like_ rich white people, predominantly male, who are
> classist and anti-women right. Is that characterization fair? I don't think
> so, but it might look like it for some people.

No it is not "fair", it is a way of dismissing equality for LGBT+
people by parodying and stereotyping all of us with views in this area
as rich white men. That is wrapping distasteful bigoted views in soft
words.

By saying these offensive things you have made this discussion a lot
easier, as your complaint is based on prejudice and assumptions rather
than facts, evidence or logic. Thanks for making that clear.

Again I recommend you take your lobbying to another place where others
can keep asking you for evidence, reliable sources and the format may
help you stick to rational discussion.

> I don't think this kind of dispute can be resolved within the Wikimedia
> community. Doing so would push people on the "losing" position to just
> leave the community and let it be as ideologically homogeneous as the WMF
> and the winning side of the community wants it to be. I find increasingly
> worrying that this seems the path we're following very happily.
>
> Best,
>
> Mario
> ___
> 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>

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Wikimedia Israel joins the nationwide strike to protest the exclusion of gay couples the right to become parents

2018-07-21 Thread
I understood the point you were making.

However if we agree on full equality, then please recognise that when
a state allows surrogacy for heterosexual couples but makes it
unlawful for same sex couples, this is anti-LGBT discrimination.

If you want to complain about surrogacy in Israel because you believe
all surrogacy exploits women, perhaps you would benefit from
contacting lobby groups in Israel who aim to make all surrogacy
illegal. There are plenty of statements on record from women who
happily volunteer to be surrogates and the law in Israel is well
defined, has been around for two decades, ensures that the surrogate
mother fully understands what they are doing, and the assessment board
always includes a professional social worker.[1]

However when you choose to derail a discussion that is no more and no
less than same sex couples being treated equally and being given equal
access for parental rights and medical support, then your actions will
be read as supporting the use of the law as a weapon for anti-LGBT
discrimination. Saying you support LGBT rights, or that you are LGBT+
yourself, does not change the way your words affect the rest of us.

Links
1. 
https://www.health.gov.il/English/Topics/fertility/Surrogacy/Pages/default.aspx

Thanks,
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 11:18, Mario Gómez  wrote:
>
> Hi Fæ,
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > In Wikipedian fashion, let us stick to the published statement by
> > Wikimedia Israel without making unnecessary inferences.
>
>
> That is what I do as a Wikipedia editor. But I don't find it reasonable
> when it comes to WMF and affiliates activities. This would effectively mean
> "stick to what WMF and affiliate says and don't complain".
>
>
> > WMIL made a
> > positive statement to support equality, and we know that equality is
> > repeated in the Wikimedia Values and echoed in the developing future
> > strategy
> >
>
> It is probable obvious from my previous emails, but I don't agree with this
> framing of the issue. Taking surrogacy as simple issue of equality is
> missing most of the debate about it.
>
> My fellow colleages against surrogacy include a majority of women
> (including L*BT) and a quite a few men too (including *GBT). I assure you
> that for us, surrogacy is a form of exploitation of women, primarily women
> of lower social classes and specially from less-developed countries.
> Following the the trend of simplifying things to fit the Wikimedia Values,
> I would say that, in order to promote equality, we should support all women
> rights. And in doing so, in case of conflict, we should prioritize the
> right to live, and live free of violence and exploitation. Hence, the WMF
> should be clearly positioned against surrogacy regardless of who the
> intended parents are. But no, I'm not proposing this, because of the
> reasons in my previous emails.
>
> And yes, just in case you were wondering, I strongly support the movement
> for LGBT rights, but I don't think this is a simple case of LGBT _rights_
> and it also involves women rights, which are largely ignored.
>
> Best,
>
> Mario

___
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] Wikimedia Israel joins the nationwide strike to protest the exclusion of gay couples the right to become parents

2018-07-21 Thread
In Wikipedian fashion, let us stick to the published statement by
Wikimedia Israel without making unnecessary inferences. WMIL made a
positive statement to support equality, and we know that equality is
repeated in the Wikimedia Values and echoed in the developing future
strategy.[1][2]

The statement "Equality to every woman and man, regardless of gender,
sexual preference, religion, origin, or disability is a central value
in the international Wikimedia Movement" is not unreasonable. It is
hard to imagine that anyone disagreeing with this principle would be
able to personally support the current Wikimedia Values. It is also
correct to say that affiliates like the WMIL chapter add value to the
robustness and diversity of the global Wikimedia community by not
simply cloning the WMF values and strategy, but as part of their
reason to exist ensure that their programmes and strategies more
directly reflect the needs of their own members and community.

If anyone wants to work on this in detail, especially if they believe
that we can create and maintain an "inclusive culture"[1] and deliver
on "cultivate an environment where anyone can contribute safely, free
of harassment and prejudice"[2] while avoiding making positive
statements about equality, and choosing to stay silent about groups
including LGBT+ groups that suffer prejudice and discrimination by
their state because some may see that as unnecessarily political, then
I encourage them to talk this through by using logical and civil
discourse either during the current WMF driven strategy development
process or in consultation with local affiliate organizations.[3]
Though Wikimedia projects are not a free soapbox, our values guarantee
that critical voices are not silenced and rational on-topic discussion
is always welcome.

1. 
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values#We_welcome_and_cherish_our_differences
2. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity
3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy

Cheers,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 09:46, Mario Gómez  wrote:
>
> I see.
>
> Yes. Part of the LGBTQ collective considers surrogacy to be related to
> their rights. I completely acknowledge that.
>
> Best,
>
> Mario
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 4:01 AM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
>
> > I think you misunderstood my point there. ;)
> >
> > I was speaking to your comment that it was incorrectly labeled a LGBTQ
> > issue because of adoption. I did not mean to suggest no one is against
> > surrogacy or that they are not promoting adoption as an alternative. I was
> > indicating that to my knowledge those organizations are not telling
> > non-LGBTQ people that the laws are not of interest to them because they can
> > adopt. Looking at their sites, they seem to want all people (LGBTQ and
> > non-LGBTQ) to see it as related to their lives and rights.
> >
> > Again, I am not commenting here on if organizations should engage, just
> > pointing out that regardless of someone’s stance on the issue or this
> > action, the issue remains one of relevance to LGBTQ rights (and others) and
> > WMIL labeling it as a LGBTQ rights issue was accurate. :)
> >
> > -greg
> >
> > ___
> > Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
> >
> > > On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:25 AM, Mario Gómez  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:56 AM, Gregory Varnum <
> > gregory.var...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> As far as it being an alternative, that is usually true, but it is also
> > >> true for non-LGBTQ families and I am not aware of viable political
> > >> movements successfully suggesting non-LGBTQ families should not worry
> > about
> > >> surrogacy laws as adoptions are an alternative option for them.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Well, so you just met someone who suggests exactly that for non-LGBTQ
> > > families and who actively participates in campaigns against legalization
> > of
> > > surrogacy in his country.
> > >
> > > This is actually a position held by many organizations, just to name a
> > few:
> > > the "National Network Against Wombs for Rent" and the  "We are not Pots"
> > > campaign in Spain or the "Mexican Feminists Against Wombs for Rent" in
> > > Mexico.
> > >
> > > These positions are also held by some feminist authors such as Kajsa Ekis
> > > Ekman, Sylviane Agacinski or Silvia Federici.
> > >
> > > My point is not trying to convince you of my position. I do not think
> > this
> > > is the right forum to debate politics beyond WMF mission. My point is
> > that
> > > if the WMF or its affiliates take such positions beyond its mission, it
> > > will be extremely damaging to the community, since this is just
> > alienating
> > > to all members of the community whose political positions do not match
> > > exactly WMF's framework 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Israel joins the nationwide strike to protest the exclusion of gay couples the right to become parents

2018-07-20 Thread
Congratulations to the Wikimedia Israel board for taking positive
action for equality.

Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 08:57, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A few days ago, the Israeli parliament, with the support of Israeli Prime
> Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, blocked a legal change on that would have
> given the LGBT community the right to become parents. The new law denies
> state-supported surrogacy to LGBT couples and single men.
>
> In response, Israel’s LGBT Task Force called publicly for a strike on
> Sunday, "The LGBT community is calling upon you, the LGBT and community
> supporters, to join us in a one-day nationwide strike on Sunday, July 22,
> Tisha Be’av".
>
> During the last few days, a huge list of big companies and organizations in
> Israel *publicized *their support and joined the strike by allowing their
> employees to take a paid day off work to join the nationwide protest.
>
> This morning, the board of Wikimedia Israel, alongside with other
> organizations joined this call and published this announcement:
> https://www.facebook.com/WikimediaIL/posts/1716487061739276
> https://twitter.com/WikimediaIL/status/1020214512392302592
> 
>
> *"Wikimedia Israel supports the just struggle for full equality, led by the
> Israeli LGTBQ community.*
>
> *Equality to every woman and man, regardless of gender, sexual preference,
> religion, origin, or disability is a central value in the international
> Wikimedia Movement. *
>
> *The current outcry for the right for parenthood, indiscriminate medical
> treatment, and protection against violent statements by public figures
> against the LGTBQ community, is a part of the grand and continuous struggle
> for full rights and legitimacy to the Israeli LGTBQ community, and we
> support them in their struggle."*
>
>
>
> *Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson
> it...@wikimedia.org.il
> +972-54-5878078
> ___
> 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

2018-05-07 Thread
On 7 May 2018 at 10:01, FRED BAUDER  wrote:
> Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history of 
> nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the 
> subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Amir E. Aharoni 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> 2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell :
>
>> Amir,
>> It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's
>> mail correctly.
>
>
> You had probably read it correctly.
>
> Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of
> color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that
> they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand correctly,
> Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too, at
> least for some people.
>
> I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I
> don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
>
> I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute her
> knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I missed
> it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of
> the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
>
> Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I do.
> Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about
> Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
>
> Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't?
> Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know. Maybe,
> maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to
> raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> ___
> 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, 
> 

Thanks for reminding everyone that we live in the 21st Century, where
there are plenty of women role models at the top of previously male
dominated professions, not just nursing.

The Wikipedia community has the most success at correcting gender bias
by encouraging interested volunteers of any gender to create articles
which help correct that bias, in all subjects.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Information on "Multiple failed attempts to log in" emails

2018-05-04 Thread
On 4 May 2018 at 01:27, John Bennett  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Many of you may have been receiving emails in the last 24 hours warning you
> of "Multiple failed attempts to log in" with your account. I wanted to let
> you know that the Wikimedia Foundation's Security team is aware of the
> situation, and working with others in the organization on steps to decrease
> the success of attacks like these.
>
> The exact source is not yet known, but it is not originating from our
> systems. That means it is an external effort to gain unauthorized access to
> random accounts. These types of efforts are increasingly common for
> websites of our reach. A vast majority of these attempts have been
> unsuccessful, and we are reaching out personally to the small number of
> accounts which we believe have been compromised.
>
> While we are constantly looking at improvements to our security systems and
> processes to offset the impact of malicious efforts such as these, the best
> method of prevention continues to be the steps each of you take to
> safeguard your accounts. Because of this, we have taken steps in the past
> to support things like stronger password requirements,[1] and we continue
> to encourage everyone to take some routine steps to maintain a secure
> computer and account. That includes regularly changing your passwords,[2]
> actively running antivirus software on your systems, and keeping your
> system software up to date.
>
> My team will continue to investigate this incident, and report back if we
> notice any concerning changes. If you have any questions, please contact
> the Support and Safety team (susa{{@}}wikimedia.org).
>
> John Bennett
> Director of Security, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Password_strength_requirements
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ChangePassword
> ___
> 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, 
> 

Thanks for the update.

Could you please follow up with a public report about incident and the
analysis. There is plenty of data available in the public domain, and
an awful lot of users have been affected, there seems no special
reason to keep the basic analysis a secret even if some
behind-the-scenes changes might need to remain unpublished. I have
raised this as a Phabricator ticket as a prompt.[1]

By the way, the Wikimedia user community is still waiting for the
promised report on the OurMine hack of 11th November 2016. Could you
get on with it please? Leaving users hanging for more than a year for
analysis to get published is not a good look for the WMF, it leaves us
wondering if this type of standard analysis gets done properly or
not.[2]

Links
1. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193846 Publish analysis of
sustained login attack of 3 May 2018
2. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150605 Publish an analysis of
the OurMine hack

Thanks
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] [GLAM] Rapid Grants Closure May 14 - June 30, 2018

2018-05-02 Thread
On 2 May 2018 at 17:53, Strainu  wrote:
> 2018-05-02 1:51 GMT+03:00 Woubzena Jifar :
>> 3. On your third point of having the 1st - 15th of the month be an open
>> application time, this is also an experiment. We hope that this focused,
>> clear timeline will allow us to respond more quickly and help community
>> members understand the state of their application more easily.
>
> Woubzena, there used to be a time when the promise of the Rapid grants
> was that they would be reviewed weekly. I understand this is no longer
> possible, even if the wording is still present on meta. Does the new
> rule imply a promise from the WMF that the grants will be granted or
> refused withing the same calendar month?
>
> Regards,
> Strainu

On being experimental and responsive, it would be cool to bring back
some of the trust in grass roots volunteers, and consider funding a
system of very light-weight global microgrants using an open request
process on meta. Microgrants under $250, perhaps with a network of
long term identified local volunteers taking responsibility for
assessing that the money got spent on the right stuff, would be jolly
nice. Enough to pay for bits and bobs of travel expenses, software,
minor bits of hardware like accessibility or experimental kit.

The community has discussed this before, in fact the UK used to have a
productive micro-grant procedure, which I think has been abandoned for
staff managed grants. In terms of trust, I recall going to Amsterdam
to coordinate a GLAM related event with a cash wad of a dozen people's
expenses in my pocket. It felt very informal, but a great
demonstration of trust that volunteers could sort out their own checks
and balances. My main headache was ensuring that everyone got the
money as quickly as possible, so it was out of my wallet!

Any thoughts on lobbying for a tiny global budget to spend on a 100%
volunteer social and open simpleminded process, outside of any
Affiliates structure, with zero employee time needed to run it?

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Recognition of Grŵp Defnyddwyr Cymuned Wicimedia Cymru

2018-03-20 Thread
On 20 March 2018 at 15:36, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.loks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20 March 2018 at 15:03, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.loks...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Descriptions of user group activities on Meta shouldn't be interpreted as
>> > legal documents under UK law (or any other legal code, for that matter).
>>
>> Hi Kirill,
>>
>> In the spirit of an open and transparent process, could you please
>> provide a link to the scope of the new approved User Group is
>> published, as the one on Meta is not the one that AffCom reviewed with
>> the UG application?
>>
>
> The Affiliations Committee publishes all of our application review and
> approval resolutions on Meta; the one for the group in question can be
> found at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_Grŵp_Defnyddwyr_Cymuned_Wicimedia_Cymru

Thanks for the link, that's great. It would be super to include a link
to the relevant resolution when making announcements.

Unfortunately your emails seem in conflict with the resolution. The
statement by the Affiliations Committee links to the meta page to
define the reviewed scope, the words used are "The scope of the group,
which can be found on their meta page" and then gives a link to the
same page I used previously and read that the User Group represents
WMUK. In fact there are no other links to any other document that can
be interpreted as "officially" publishing the scope of the new user
group.

Consequently there is no ambiguity that the AffCom approval was
literally for a regional User Group with a stated objective to
represent the national Chapter. The exact words are "Cooperate with
and represent Wikimedia UK in Wales".

It is worth noting that the italicized sentence in the very brief
summary appears to be intended to be a direct quote from the meta
page, however it is a rephrasing which turns the sentence into an
objective for the new User Group when the phrasing on the original
page is a description of members (i.e. not the group itself). It is
not stated whether the interpreted objective was part of the UG
application, or someone else's interpretation of the published scope.
This seems misleading unless the meta page is rephrased to include the
statement of scope as explicitly that. This may seem a fine point, but
there exact words that officially define a new Affiliate or User Group
seem worth getting precise so everyone understands what has been
authorized.

Thanks,
Fae

>
>
>> > Any questions regarding potential legal implications for Wikimedia UK
>> > should, of course, be directed to the chapter itself.
>>
>> This brush-off is surprising, with the clear implication that AffCom
>> has not approached WMUK with any question. I was mistaken in believing
>> that AffCom had a responsibility to consider obvious legal
>> implications, before approving a User Group that is granted the right
>> to use official logos and the name "Wikipedia" and its language
>> variants when advertising their events. It is disappointing to see
>> that AffCom does not see their official process as needing to address
>> these areas, which may well be a barrier to direct funding, legal
>> recognition or represent a risk to other named pre-existing Affiliates
>> within the scope of the proposed new UG.
>>
>
> Your implication is entirely incorrect; AffCom consulted with -- and
> received an endorsement from -- Wikimedia UK prior to approving the user
> group.  However, we are neither experts in UK charity law nor empowered to
> speak on behalf of Wikimedia UK; consequently, any questions regarding the
> chapter's legal position should be posed to the chapter, not to us.

For the sake of openness and transparency, can you provide a link to
where the endorsement and any questions raised are published? It is
not included with the AffCom resolution.

> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
> ___
> 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>

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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>

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >