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

2018-08-06 Thread Lodewijk
I can imagine that this alternate privacy policy is actually covering a
wider range of sites that are non-wiki, such as the fundraising
infrastructure and the survey websites, voting websites etc. Rather than
having a different privacy policy for each of those instances, I think it
is actually clearer to have two policies: one for the content delivery (the
'wikis') that have practically zero cookie tracking to the best of my
knowledge and one for the other websites that may require other methods to
be functional.

As a sidenote, I think it actually could be a totally fair statement to say
that wikimediafoundation.org is, relative to the content projects, not a
'major site' of the WMF. It is supporting infrastructure at best. (no
offense :) )

Lodewijk

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 7:23 AM Chico Venancio 
wrote:

> Indeed an special watered down privacy policy is strange. It is worth
> noting that the standard privacy policy[1] does not state that it only
> applies to "wiki based websites" but instead lists what it does and does
> not cover[2], the only interpretation that allows a separate policy for the
> new website weirdly leaves* https://wikimediafoundation.org/
> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> as being defined to not be a major site
> of WMF. *
>
> Irregardless of possible poor wording of both privacy policies, I find it
> strange that the main website for WMF has a tracking pixel and forces
> visitors to provide users' personal information (as defined by either
> privacy policies) to Google and Wordpress.com.
>
> Perhaps this is something WMF could revisit?
>
> Best regards,
> Chico Venancio
>
> [1]https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
> [2]https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#coverage
>
>
>
> 2018-08-06 2:06 GMT-03:00 Yair Rand :
>
> > There are several more issues I've noticed with the new website:
> > * According to the notice at the bottom, the company "Automattic Inc." is
> > receiving all sorts of data about all visitors to the site, including
> > location information, cookie data, data from pixel tags/web beacons used
> to
> > track visitors and target ads on other WordPress sites, and other data.
> > * The "non-wiki privacy policy of the Wikimedia Foundation" linked at the
> > bottom is different than the regular privacy policy. Why is this?
> > * Much of the content is essentially English-Wikipedia-only. "Visit The
> > Teahouse for a friendly place to learn about editing" Most Wikipedias
> don't
> > have teahouses or equivalents.
> > * In "Wikimedia projects": "Wikipedia - All the world's knowledge". See
> > [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of
> information]].
> > * "Working with partners like Google, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and
> > UNESCO, Wikimedia...". I don't think most Wikimedians are okay with the
> WMF
> > describing Google as among its partners. Nor the Met or UNESCO, for that
> > matter.
> > * In the "Technology" section, there's a paragraph devoted to bragging
> > about how NASA has an internal Mediawiki wiki. I don't think that belongs
> > there.
> > * The actual Wikimedia Foundation Mission is kind of buried deep in the
> > site. The Mission is the definitive version of what the WMF is supposed
> to
> > be doing, and I really think it should be highlighted somewhere in a more
> > prominent position.
> >
> > "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
> > around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
> > license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
> > globally.
> >
> > In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation
> > provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for
> > the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other
> > endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep
> > useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of
> > charge, in perpetuity."
> >
> > -- Yair Rand
> >
> > 2018-08-03 17:12 GMT-04:00 Andy Mabbett :
> >
> > > On 2 August 2018 at 02:51, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can check it out for yourself here (you may need to clear your
> > > browser's cache):  https://wikimediafoundation.org/
> > >
> > > The home page currently says:
> > >
> > >" Everything on a Wikimedia site is available as Creative Commons
> > > material. "
> > >
> > > That is not 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cheat sheets visual editing on Wikipedia

2018-07-12 Thread Lodewijk
Hmm, the svg's are behaving oddly here. I'll send a screenshot to arne.

Lodewijk

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:46 AM Arne Wossink  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I just uploaded the SVG versions of the cheat sheets:
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voeg_je_eerste_referentie_toe_aan_Wikipedia.svg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maak_een_account_aan_op_Wikipedia.svg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spiekbriefje_Visueel_bewerken_op_Wikipedia.svg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Upload_je_eerste_foto_naar_Wikimedia_Commons.svg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cheat_sheet_Visual_editing_on_Wikipedia.svg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Doe_je_eerste_bewerking_op_Wikipedia.svg
>
> As before, I'm still happy to work with anyone to get more language
> versions online if you don't the right editing software, but this should
> get others going as well.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Arne Wossink
>
> Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
>
> *(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday,
> Thursday)*
>
> Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505
> E-mail: woss...@wikimedia.nl
>
> *Post/bezoekadres / Mail/visiting address:*
> Mariaplaats 3
> 3511 LH Utrecht
>
> 2018-07-12 0:48 GMT+02:00 Strainu :
>
> > There are a bunch of such cheatsheets around, I did one myself based on
> the
> > old Editing Wikipedia brochure, but what Arne has managed is to somehow
> put
> > the image (screenshot)  in the spotlight in a way much better than
> anything
> > I've seen before.
> >
> > Having a svg version will ease the translation effort a lot.
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > Pe joi, 12 iulie 2018, Nick Wilson (Quiddity)  a
> > scris:
> >
> > > Traditionally, the centralized spot is at
> > > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf
> > > I've added an item for that, to the Wikimedia Resource Center.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:31 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
> > > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sure, I / we are happy to add this (and other) material somewhere. I
> > > > couldn't find the best spot in the Wikimedia Resource Center
> (somewhere
> > > > here
> > > >
> > > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Resource_Center/For_program_
> > > coordinators
> > > > ?
> > > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Resource_
> > Center/For_program_
> > > coordinators?>),
> > > > so I'm happy to get any pointers.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Cornelius
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 at 10:54, Delphine Dallison <
> > > > d.dalli...@scottishlibraries.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It would be great to get all these cheat sheets gathered up in a
> meta
> > > > page
> > > > > on Wikimedia Resources so we can do a concerted effort to get them
> > > > > translated into as many languages as possible and so we don't keep
> on
> > > > > reinventing the wheel. I think both Arne's cheat sheets and the
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > > Deutschland ones are great. Personally I would probably chose to go
> > > with
> > > > > Arne's if I was doing institutional level outreach and the other
> set
> > > for
> > > > > more relaxed public editathons, so they both have their value. Is
> > > anyone
> > > > on
> > > > > here with metawiki to help us gather these in one place including
> the
> > > > > translations as they start to come through?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > >
> > > > > Delphine Dallison
> > > > > Wikimedian in Residence
> > > > > Scottish Library and Information Council
> > > > > Turnberry House
> > > > > Suite 5:5, Fifth Floor
> > > > > 175 West George Street
> > > > > Glasgow G2 2LB
> > > > > Tel: 0141 202 2999
> > > > > www.scottishlibraries.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Enriching lives through libraries
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l  On
> > Behalf
> > > Of
> > > > > Cornelius Kibelka
> > > > > Sent: 11 July 2018 08:17
> > > > > To:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Status of Wikipedia Zero

2018-07-01 Thread Lodewijk
Actually, Daniel Foy has been removing partnerships that are no longer
active.

I guess if a local affiliate wants to know when their partnership expires
to prepare for backlash, they could contact him.

Best,
Lodewijk

ps: I didn't see any Brazilian cooperation in that table in the recent
past. Angola still seems to be active? But perhaps I'm overlooking
something obvious.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 11:21 AM Alex Monk  wrote:

> So we just need someone to populate that table with expiry dates?
>
> On 1 July 2018 at 16:41, Steinsplitter Wiki 
> wrote:
>
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
> >
> > --Steinsplitter
> >
> > 
> > Von: Wikimedia-l  im Auftrag
> von
> > Michael Snow 
> > Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 21:11
> > An: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Status of Wikipedia Zero
> >
> > On 6/30/2018 11:11 AM, Lucas Teles wrote:
> > > I was also looking for information on the expiration date for
> > partnerships,
> > > which is when the users will notice the access issues. Not sure if
> there
> > is
> > > any.
> > I would guess that partnerships are not being terminated early, but
> > merely being allowed to expire whenever they expire. As the end date
> > will depend on the agreement that formed the partnership, I expect there
> > is not a single universal date on which Wikipedia Zero ends.
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> > ___
> > 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 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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

2018-06-18 Thread Lodewijk
Dear James,

this is a returning topic, it seems (Wikimedia should take political stands
on XYZ economic policies). And somehow it's always initiated by you.

I think the general attitude is clear: not interested.

I join the chorus: Wikimedia should remain nonpartisan, and not take any
position in political debates - unless it is directly relevant for our
mission. Exceptions may arise if there is a demonstrated overwhelming
consensus (as seems to have been the case with the climate neutral
policies), but even then focused on our projects. Not taking a position is
definitely not the same as taking a 'neutral' position or holding the
middle ground.

This has nothing to do with the ED's resume, or what she does or doesn't
like to do. This has to do with core fundamental values our movement is
built on. Not taking a position in political debates is a core requirement
for us to remain acceptable as a source of information to all parties.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:57 AM James Salsman  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Dennis During  wrote:
> > Yes. I think I am. I wouldn't have thought that WMF would be so driven by
> > economics.
>
> Have you looked at the ED's CV?
>
> > I would bail from this project and find another that was less partisan
>
> If the ED told donors to take steps that might get American editors
> health care, UK editors free college, German editors shorter work
> weeks, or Greek editors a two-bracket tax structure, that would be
> enough to make you want to stop participating? Why?
>
> > fewer and fewer institutions seem nonpartisan to me.
>
> I wish I could say the same. The Denver Post was just taken over by a
> hedge fund a couple months ago, and the newsroom staff gutted. That
> was certainly the kind of libertarian partisanship which the
> Foundation certainly supported through early support of civil
> liberties groups to the exclusion of tax and transfer equity groups,
> not to mention the Objectivist bent of most of the wikipedias'
> economics articles. Now the reporters are jumping ship and forming a
> new employee-owned newspaper, the Colorado Sun, using blockchain
> technology to facilitate a new equity structure.
>
> Being nonpartisan is like being neutral: relative to what? I am merely
> asking that the Foundation's default partisan position be modified for
> instead of against individual wikimedian editors.
>
> > the WMF projects would be more to your liking without people of my
> > beliefs intruding on policy discussions.
>
> Nonsense! Some of my best friends believe
>  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfs1nG_UwAEsST3.jpg
>
> > I favor the WMF focusing its efforts on serving a vast public by offering
> > content that is not
>
> Not what? Not biased like the enwiki's "Economics" article implying
> that the government never spends taxes in a pathetic sophomorish
> attempt to claim that taxes are always bad?
>
> >> We should measure how much donors are likely
> >> to donate more or less for each of the issues.
> >
> > That is a short-run view.
>
> No, measurement to optimize donations is how we have always built the long
> run.
>
> > I prefer institutions that seem committed to a minimal core set of
> values.
>
> Such as fighting for the economic health of their volunteers thus
> enlarging the pool of potential volunteers and winning the concordant
> PR?
>
> > I am also surprised that you believe that the economics of donations
> > and grants should be driving the projects.
>
> I was not surprised when others confirmed that the articles I've been
> monitoring as quality barometers turned out to be heavily correlated
> with articles likely to be associated with above-average donations.
>
> > Is WMF for sale to corporate donors, to large private donors, or to
> those who
> > craft seductive fund-raising messages?
>
> Well obviously not because there are still hundreds of banner messages
> which have never been measured.
>
> >> I would also like to know the proportion of wikimedians who think the
> Mission
> >> is so restrictive.
> >
> > Facts are always nice
>
> The idea that more than a few percent of wikimedians think that the
> Mission limits political advocacy to libertarian copyright and
> internet law organizations is absurd. It may be 10% tops. If there is
> an actual question, we can and should measure the quantity.
>
> > What is an "optimized influence likelihood"?
>
> For example, the arguments for free college, shorter work weeks,
> payroll subsidies, and two-bracket taxation are appropriate for the
> UK, but single payer health care is not, because they've already won
> that a long time ago. Instead,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

2018-06-16 Thread Lodewijk
I don't like to steal Kaarel's thunder here, but he actually changed the
number of hours from minimum 5 per week to average 5 per week (which is a
significant improvement):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups=10598095=18129628=18125168


Probably good to know. Thanks Kaarel & Nicole.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Kaarel,
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment
> > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
> >
> > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to
> > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
> time
> > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product
> > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
> them
> > than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
> >
>
> I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the engineers
> who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that
> the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious and
> could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
> could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share, here
> or on the talk page
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
> >,
> your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the
> best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain how
> you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the
> Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication of
> effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the talk
> page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be good
> to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
>
>
>
> >
> > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
> would
> > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
> > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
> > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and
> > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
> go
> > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
> the
> > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa.
> > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
> Group
> > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
> > throughout the process.
> >
>
> I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think that
> they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that they
> will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
> willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
> activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
> diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
> significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
>
>
> >
> > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is
> > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
> groups,
> > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
> representatives
> > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
> the
> > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic
> > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization
> > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what
> > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
> contributions.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most people
> participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you
> are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their
> own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am
> likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your good
> intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you
> would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
> requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
>
>
> >
> > Thank you so

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

2018-06-13 Thread Lodewijk
The number of hours (a minimum of 5 hours, each week) is indeed very
significant - especially as a minimum per week (which means that the
average will more likely end up around 8-12 hours?). I understand that a
significant commitment is necessary (an average of 1 as suggested by Pine
will unlikely produce anything more than a few mailing list discussions,
I'm afraid).

Just to set expectations clearly: I read that the grants department is
scaling back their community facing activities (and I guess also other
activities) to free up time to work on the strategy. I read that the FDC is
'skipping' a round to do the same. Is this the general expectation for
other volunteers as well?

This is probably all a conscious choice - but I'm afraid it will
self-select for a certain type of participants that can make a 9 month
commitment for such a time investment. I'm guessing you already considered
having working groups with tiers - where you have some people with a large
time commitment, and some people with a more reasonable commitment? That
may have helped in diversification.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Nicole,
>
> Generally I like how the groups are organized. I have a few questions and
> comments.
>
> 1. The Product & Technology working group seems like it has a large scope
> for a single group. Also, the people who are in that working group will
> probably want to sync with TechCom and with the "Platform Evolution"
> initiative. Have you considered dividing this group's responsibilities into
> two (or more) groups, and how to synchronize this group's work with TechCom
> and the Platform Evolution initiative?
>
> 2. It appears that Working Groups page asks for members of the groups to
> commit to a minimum of five hours per week for nine months. That seems to
> be a very high commitment to ask from volunteers, especially when people
> would be adding their WG activities on top of their existing
> responsibilities and/or de-prioritize other valuable Wikimedia activities
> in favor of WG activity. Also, if I estimate 10 members per group times 9
> groups times 5 hours per week times 39 weeks, then that means that the WG
> activities would consume 17,550 volunteer hours, which seems excessive. I
> suggest that you reduce the commitment that you request to an average of
> one hour per week per person, which would likely result in more people
> being willing to volunteer and reduce the diversion of people's time from
> other valuable activities, and that you accordingly make any necessary
> adjustments to plans for paid staff to support the WGs.
>
> 3. Has the budget for the 2nd phase of the strategy process been published?
> I am not asking for a promise that the process will cost a fixed amount,
> but I would hope to see detailed cost estimates and explanations of how
> estimates were made.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > Following up on Katherine’s email from last week[1], we are today
> > opening the call for Working Group members for 9 Thematic Areas (yes,
> > we added one more!).
> >
> > == Working Group members ==
> > The Working Groups will map the present situation of their Thematic
> > Area, the obstacles and opportunities, as well as needed changes to
> > advance our movement in our strategic direction. They will identify
> > possible strategies for making these changes and develop concrete
> > recommendations for the movement on how to ratify and implement
> > them.[2]
> >
> > Working Group members will need to be able to invest a minimum of 5
> > hours per week, but that time might vary depending on the workflow
> > that each group agrees upon. Members of the Working Groups are
> > expected to act in the interest of the movement, not in the interest
> > of their own organization or community.
> >
> > == Selection of members ==
> > We are looking for a maximum of 15 members for each of the 9 groups.
> > For best results we will need a diverse set of members from across the
> > movement. We have developed a set of criteria, to ensure the necessary
> > expertise, diversity, and representation.[3] We will assemble a
> > Steering Committee to decide upon membership of the Working Groups in
> > close coordination with the Core Strategy Team.[4]
> >
> > == Apply to become a working group member ==
> > We encourage everyone with an interest in the strategic conversations
> > to apply for becoming a Working Group member in their topic of
> > expertise. We recommend that movement organizations and groups create
> > internal 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Polska - new Board

2018-06-10 Thread Lodewijk
Dear Tomasz,

Thank you so much for all those years of thoughtful leadership. It was
always a pleasure to talk with you about what happened this time in our
little movement, and you were in many discussions a voice of reason - while
not shying away from telling people the truth. You managed to 'keep
Wikimedia Polska together', grow it into a professional club and jointly
forge this coalition of friends. Both during the meetings, but perhaps
especially 'after-hours'.

Thank you for the many years of many volunteer hours. I hope and trust we
haven't seen the last of you :)

Lodewijk

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:20 AM Eileen Hershenov 
wrote:

> Congratulations to the new board members and others and many thanks for the
> service of those who have left!
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 4:39 AM Wojciech Pędzich 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > following yesterday's General Assembly of Wikimedia Polska Association,
> > held in Katowice, a new composition of the Board and other statutory
> bodies
> > of the chapter have been established.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz decided to resign his long-standing position
> on
> > the Board, after 13 years of service - as the Board's Treasurer (first
> term
> > of Wikimedia Polska ever) and President (ever since then). Two other
> > members - Jarosław "Powerek38" Blaszczak and Tomasz "Elfhelm" Skibiński -
> > have also left the Board. The current composition of the statutory bodies
> > of the Association for the term 2018-2020 is as follows:
> >
> >
> >
> > == Board ==
> >
> >
> >
> > * Michał "Aegis Maelstrom" Buczyński, President
> >
> > * Małgorzata “Maire” Wilk, Vice-President
> >
> > * Paweł “Yarl” Marynowski, Vice-President
> >
> > * Piotr “PMG” Gackowski, Vice-President
> >
> > * Marek “Masti” Stelmasik, Treasurer
> >
> > * Wojciech Pędzich, Secretary
> >
> > * Jacek “Phinek” Fink-Finowicki, Member of the Board
> >
> >
> >
> > == Revision Board ==
> >
> >
> >
> > * Juliusz “Julo” Zieliński
> > * Karol “Karol007” Głąb
> >
> > * Maciej “Maikking” Król
> >
> >
> >
> > == Internal Court ==
> >
> >
> >
> > * Tomasz “Polimerek” Ganicz
> >
> > * Maria “Gytha” Drozdek
> >
> > * Julia “Lantuszka” Koszewska
> >
> >
> > All the best!
> >
> > Wojciech
> > ___
> > 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>
>
> --
> Eileen B. Hershenov
> General Counsel and Secretary
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> <
> https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Montgomery+Street,+Suite+1600+%0D+San+Francisco,+CA+94104=gmail=g
> >
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> <
> https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Montgomery+Street,+Suite+1600+%0D+San+Francisco,+CA+94104=gmail=g
> >
> (Licensed in New York; applying for California Registered In-House Counsel
> status)
> ehershe...@wikimedia.org
> (US) 415-483-6676
>
> *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical
> reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
> ___
> 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] Countries that publish in public domain

2018-05-15 Thread Lodewijk
Jean-Philippe: if you are composing a list, could you please also publish
it on Commons? I think it would be a helpful overview for others as well!

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Caroline Becker <
caroline.bec...@wikimedia.fr> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> You can have a kind of list with the PD-gov category in Commons :
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD-Gov_license_tags
>
> Caroline Becker
> Membre de Wikimédia France
>
> 2018-05-15 18:02 GMT+02:00 Jean-Philippe Béland <jpbel...@wikimedia.ca>:
>
> > Good day,
> >
> > Is there a list somewhere of countries or sub-national governments that
> > publish the works of their employees in the public domain?
> >
> > Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Vice President, Wikimedia Canada
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [GLAM] Rapid Grants Closure May 14 - June 30, 2018

2018-05-15 Thread Lodewijk
I'm also concerned about the implementation of these new rules - especially
in the context of the upcoming Wiki Loves Monuments round. If implemented
without change or exceptions, the implications could be tricky.

The combination of dates and timelines effectively reduces the time window
to apply for rapid grants to about 2 weeks for Wiki Loves Monuments this
year: 1-15 July (new submissions should not be made less than a month
before the event). It removes all possibility for prospective grantees to
get feedback on ideas or get help with their application during Wikimania.
These months are precious in the context of organizing Wiki Loves Monuments.

I hope that the team can fulfill their commitment to respond rapidly indeed
- but given the altered timeline, I fear a large influx of proposals in a
short period of time; a recipe that typically leads to delays. Especially
as no doubt Wikimania will require travel, cause delays by itself, and the
strategy taking time too.

I'm less concerned about the practical implications of the $500 limit: I
guess I'll just be advising people to increase their programs to match the
threshold (e.g. find something to spend money on: adapt the needs to what
you can ask for), even though in the past I have always had the opposite
approach: only ask what you need.

What's perhaps most concerning, is that this change to day to day
operations are such that they result in less effective empowerment of
community members. It's painful. Given the cumulation of these measures, it
feels like the community empowerment will have to pay a significant cost
for developing a strategy. Surely, someone has to give: I just hope this is
not a set of choices/trend that continues in the strategy itself.

Best,
Lodewijk


On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Laurentius <laurentius.w...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On mar, 2018-05-01 at 15:51 -0700, Woubzena Jifar wrote:
> > 2. Regarding having a minimum of $500 for the rapid grants program,
> > this is something we’re experimenting with while we’re aligning to
> > the new strategic direction. Our preliminary data is showing that
> > this change will improve our ability to support communities, allowing
> > for more impactful grants with less overhead for a more effective use
> > of our shared resources.
> > We also need to make reductions in the time spent processing grants
> > this year in order to make space for the considerable research and
> > discussions needed to implement the new strategy, and we need to
> > consider whether the impact of very small grants warrants their
> > administrative expense.
>
> I'm interested in better understanding this decision and its impact.
>
> 1. How many grants are actually impacted by this decision? In
> particular, in the last year:
>  * How many grants below 500 $ have been approved?
>  * Of the total 265.000 $ of rapid grants, how much went into grants
>below 500 $?
>
> My rough estimate, by looking at the list on Meta, is that
> approximately 20% of rapid grants are below 500 $ (but I don't know the
> total), which I expect is around 10.000-20.000 $ per year.
>
> 2. From your experience, how do you value the quality of the requests
> for grants below 500 $? Do they have proportionally the same impact of
> the larger (rapid) grants, less, or more?
> In other words: this decision is led by the thought that impact is
> roughly proportial with the size of the grant, but the administrative
> cost for the WMF is more or less the same, so it's better to prioritize
> for larger grants? or that the small grants are actually comparatively
> worse (less impactful, or less likely to be approved anyway)? or what
> else?
>
> 3. Roughly, how much is the administrative overhead for each grant?
>
> 4. You mentioned preliminary data about this change. Is there any
> additional data that you can share?
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <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] Craig Franklin passed away

2018-04-16 Thread Lodewijk
Hi all,

Through various other channels I learned the unfortunate news that Craig
Franklin (Lankiveil) has recently passed away. He was a board member
(2011-2015) and president (2013) at Wikimedia Australia, longtime English
Wikipedian and admin, and until this month he was member of the Ombudsman
Commission.

Craig was a lively participant in many of our meetings/conferences, and it
was always a joy to see him enter a discussion.

Condoleances are being collected on his user talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lankiveil

Best regards,

Lodewijk
___
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] De-recognition of Wikimedia user groups in Brazil

2018-04-09 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Kirill,

Could you clarify what would be a path forward from this situation? For
example, would you encourage someone to set up a new application for a user
group in Brazil, if they have a good proposal (and/or proven commitment)
for how to manage the collaboration with the whole Brazilian community?

I doubt the intention of AffCom is to leave the situation in Brazil to
remain broken indefinitely.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.loks...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic
> organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent
> group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia
> mission. To receive and maintain their status as recognized Wikimedia
> affiliates, groups are required to comply with certain requirements, which
> are identified in each group's individual chapter, thematic organization,
> or user group agreement.  In particular, the terms of the Wikimedia User
> Group Agreement and Code of Conduct prohibit user groups from engaging in
> activity that poses significant risk to other Wikimedia organizations or
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> As many of you doubtlessly know, the two Wikimedia user groups based in
> Brazil — Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil and Wiki Education Brazil —
> have been engaged in a severe and protracted conflict, which has resulted
> in significant harm to past, ongoing, and planned Wikimedia movement
> activities in Brazil.  As all reasonable attempts to resolve the conflict
> have failed, the Affiliations Committee is left with no choice but to
> withdraw the groups' recognition as Wikimedia affiliates.
>
> Consequently, the recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil and
> Wiki Education Brazil as Wikimedia user groups has been revoked, and the
> Wikimedia Foundation's legal department has been requested to formally
> terminate their respective user group agreements as soon as practicable.
> Further, the specific individuals who served as the primary contacts for
> these user groups will be prohibited from serving as primary contacts for
> any user group application or existing user group for a period of one year.
>
> The Affiliations Committee recognizes that this is an unprecedented and
> unfortunate development. However, we hope that this step will allow the
> Wikimedia community in Brazil to work towards a new organizational
> structure and model that will better serve the needs of movement
> participants and stakeholders in the country.
>
> Any questions regarding this matter should be addressed directly to the
> Affiliations Committee.
>
> 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>
___
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] New Stewards elected

2018-02-28 Thread Lodewijk
My best wishes to the new stewards! Enjoy the ride, with all these exciting
communities...

Lodewijk

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Compared to the low point of 2016, it is glad that for another year we had
> enough elected candidates.
> Five is a good number.
>
> Il Giovedì 1 Marzo 2018 1:36, Md. Ibrahim Husain <mera...@gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
>
>  Congrats to the new stewards.
>
> On Thursday, March 1, 2018, Mardetanha <mardetanha.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Wikimedia community
> > after a long election we finally have couple new stewards elected
> >
> >
> >1. علاء <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%
> D8%A1>
> > (
> >talk <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D8%B9%D9%84%
> > D8%A7%D8%A1>
> >· contribs
> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%
> > D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A1>
> >)
> >2. Green Giant <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Green_Giant>
> (talk
> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Green_Giant> · contribs
> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Green_Giant>)
> >3. Rxy <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rxy> (talk
> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rxy> · contribs
> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rxy>)
> >4. -revi <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:-revi> (talk
> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:-revi> · contribs
> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/-revi>)
> >5. There'sNoTime <https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/User:There%27sNoTime>
> > (
> >talk <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:There%27sNoTime> ·
> >contribs
> ><https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/
> There%27sNoTime
> > >)
> >
> >
> > please join me in welcoming them for the new position and congratulating
> > them for gaining communities trust.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mardetanha
> > On behalf of election 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>
>
>
>
> --
> Mohammad Ibrahim Husain
> Mobile: 01921 584733
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Publicpolicy] Update on FISA 702 reauthorization

2018-01-20 Thread Lodewijk
1) still don't see the relevance. If better technology is needed, it's
needed - that should be independent of any lobbying preferences. It looks
like you're just pushing tangents again.

2) You do realize that the FTC and the FEC are very different
organizations? But again, it seems you just used this statement as an
opportunity to push a tangent.

Please don't do that.

Thanks,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 1) I don't quite see how your question about servers and switches relates
> > to Stephen's statement. Could you explain for us mere mortals how you
> link
> > the two?
>
> The NSA surveillance which was reauthorized by Congress can not depend
> on eavesdropping alone with new HTTPS cyphers. It needs compromised
> hardware to work, such as has been included in Dell servers since the
> Foundation started purchasing them, and the design of which was
> overseen by the Foundation's CTO, who worked then at Intel. This
> provides us with the know-how, a teachable moment, and an excellent
> opportunity to specify and acquire replacement open source hardware
> which doesn't have the DIETYBOUNCE / System Management Mode OOB / iAMT
> and related backdoors.
>
> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/nsa_exploit_of.html
>
> > 2) I somehow missed the commitment by the WMF to research "FEC
> requirements
> > of organized advocates for US political candidates' or anything that
> > suggests that the WMF may advocate for specific political candidates
> (which
> > seems a change of course that would be hard to sweep under the rug).
> Could
> > you quote?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_
> talk:Conflict_of_interest=prev=815460492#
> Note_from_Wikimedia_Legal
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slaporte_(WMF)#
> Research_topic_request
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: [Publicpolicy] Update on FISA 702 reauthorization

2018-01-20 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Jim,

I'm afraid I don't quite follow.
1) I don't quite see how your question about servers and switches relates
to Stephen's statement. Could you explain for us mere mortals how you link
the two?
2) I somehow missed the commitment by the WMF to research "FEC requirements
of organized advocates for US political candidates' or anything that
suggests that the WMF may advocate for specific political candidates (which
seems a change of course that would be hard to sweep under the rug). Could
you quote?

Thanks.

Lodewijk

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:01 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:

> How much would it cost to replace the servers and switches with open
> source hardware?
>
> Stephen, when do you expect to have the FEC requirements of organized
> advocates for US political candidates researched?
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Stephen LaPorte <slapo...@wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:23 AM
> Subject: [Publicpolicy] Update on FISA 702 reauthorization
> To: Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia <publicpol...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> Earlier this month, the Wikimedia Foundation, along with a coalition
> of 43 civil liberties, civil rights, and transparency organizations,
> signed a letter urging Congress to reform Section 702 of the Foreign
> Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law that allegedly authorizes the
> mass surveillance challenged in our lawsuit, Wikimedia Foundation v.
> National Security Agency. In the letter, we urged Congress to oppose a
> straightforward reauthorization of the law and to support meaningful
> reforms.
>
> On January 11th, the U.S. House of Representatives quashed the
> opportunity for those reforms by voting to reauthorize Section 702
> with minimal changes. The bill then went to the U.S. Senate for
> further consideration. Despite opposition in the Senate from both
> major political parties, on January 16th, a filibuster to block the
> bill narrowly failed. Yesterday, the bill cleared the Senate, and it
> was signed into law today.
>
> Although we are deeply disappointed in this result, the Wikimedia
> Foundation will continue to fight for user privacy, including in
> Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA. We will keep you updated on further
> developments.
>
> Best,
> Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen LaPorte
> Legal Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and
> ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer
> for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
> capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal
> disclaimer.
>
> ___
> Publicpolicy mailing list
> publicpol...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
>
> ___
> 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] Austin Hair is gone

2017-12-18 Thread Lodewijk
Hi all,

the family has indicated an interest in memories that we could collect. If
you would like to share a memory for such collection, I would encourage you
to share it here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Austin/Memorial .

For many of us Wikimedians, our families have only a slight idea what it is
that we do, in all those hours we spend on this free knowledge stuff.
Bringing together some memories may help bridge that gap.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlo...@shlomifish.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:51:30 +0200
> Asaf Bartov <asaf.bar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > I regret to have to inform this list that veteran Wikimedian and longtime
> > volunteer administrator of this mailing list, Austin Hair (User:Austin
> > Hair), has died, after prolonged health complications.
> >
> > If you knew him, a good place to leave condolences is his talk page:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Austin_Hair#Condolences
> >
> > Life is short. Be kind to one another.
> >
>
> sorry to hear that.
>
> > Asaf
> > ___
> > 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>
>
>
> --
> -
> Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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 Announcements] Movement Strategy: Endorse the strategic direction today! #wikimedia2030

2017-10-27 Thread Lodewijk
I'm not sure how I missed that strongarm-statement ("the endorsement is
also a necessary step in order to participate in phase 2 discussions"). I'm
confident that this is a typo of a kind. It does not match with how I know
the people in charge of this process.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 Oct 2017 09:00, "Nicole Ebber" <nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Today marks the final milestone of phase 1 of our movement strategy
> process. Over the past eight months, many of you, of your peers,
> colleagues, partners and friends have contributed to an endeavor that
> resulted in the new Strategic Direction of the Wikimedia movement.
>
> This direction provides us with an answer to the question: What do we
> want to build and achieve as a movement over the next 10–15 years: By
> 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
> ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be
> able to join us.[1]
>
> On behalf of the strategy team, it’s with great pleasure that I invite
> you today to declare your intent to work together towards this future.
> Organized groups as well as individual contributors of our movement
> are invited to endorse the Strategic Direction by adding their
> signature to the endorsement page on Meta-Wiki. You will find all
> necessary instructions there.[2]
>
> By endorsing the Strategic Direction, you are not necessarily agreeing
> with every single outcome of the first phase. Endorsing means that you
> commit to participating in the next phase of this discussion in good
> faith and to help define, by Wikimania 2018, how to come to an
> agreement on roles, responsibilities, and organizational strategies
> that enable us to implement that future.
>
> In addition to signing the meta page, you are all welcome to use the
> #wikimedia2030 hashtag on social media to celebrate and share your
> excitement with the world and encourage other Wikimedians to show
> their support, too.
>
> Ideally, please leave questions or remarks on the talk page, to make
> it easier to follow-up in a structured way.
>
> Thank you!
> Nicole
>
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Direction#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Movement Strategy Track Lead: Organized Groups
>
> 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.
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
>
> Could Nicole, or someone else who is acting for the WMF, rephrase "Please
> note that the strategic direction will not be renegotiated, and *the
> endorsement is also a necessary step in order to participate in phase 2
> discussions*." This needs clarification to ensure that the same values of
> transparency and openness declared in the Movement Strategy applies to its
> own process.
>
> As currently worded, no afflilate that is committed to openness should
> endorse the document, as it appears to create a closed club that
> deliberately excludes all possible critical future voices. Whatever that
> is, it is not the Wikimedia Community.
>
> 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>
>
___
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 Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

2017-10-25 Thread Lodewijk
funny enough, Asaf's version arrived broken here too, albeit in a different
place:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/
Eligibility_Criteria

Hope more luck this time!

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Unbroken link for those on mobile devices who may have a harder time fixing
> it:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2
> 018/Eligibility_Criteria
>
>A.
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:50 AM Cornelius Kibelka <
> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > aside from the conversation about project/language communities – thanks
> for
> > the feedback! – I just wanted to share the Eligibility Criteria page for
> > the conference that is available on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> > rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Eligibility_Criteria
> >
> > I have received some off-list questions about specific details for
> specific
> > affiliates. I think most of the questions are answered on this page. In
> > case your question is not answered, feel free to write me an e-mail
> > off-list.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Cornelius
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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 Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

2017-10-24 Thread Lodewijk
While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.

Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
community.

While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.

If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.

I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
cutting it yet.

Lodewijk

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
> the affiliate model has become very different.
>
> Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> topics to varying degrees.
>
> In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> representatives. There is a difference though between representative in an
> outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> representative.
>
> The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
> in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles and
> responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
>
> Seddon
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs <mich...@maggs.name>
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
> > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
> > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde <reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> chapters
> > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
> > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> > > representatives if they must be represented.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Isaac.
> > >
> > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
> always
> > :)
> > >
> > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
> > organized
> > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole
> movement.
> > In
> > > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the
> same
> > > location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite
> a
> > > unique situation because of the strategic process.
> > >
> > > The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a
> goal.
> > If
> > > being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the
> > structure
> > > probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation
> for
> > > all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> > > Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
> > >
> > > On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would
> be
> > to
> > > fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could
> be
> > > input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where
> > we
> > > even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would
> not
> > > imply a representation as much. In part it wo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

2017-10-23 Thread Lodewijk
That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as always :)

As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and organized
groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole movement. In
2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the same
location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite a
unique situation because of the strategic process.

The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a goal. If
being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the structure
probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation for
all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).

On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would be to
fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could be
input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where we
even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would not
imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider other
areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or project
communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
language communities in Africa or communities that are government-blocked -
of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would also
send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative what
you expect of such participant (if that would indeed be your goal).

There could be many other goals of course, that you (plural) could have in
mind. I'm not sure which applies best. I would suggest not to deviate from
the official line that chapters don't represent language communities,
though. That is, unless this official line has changed.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
>
> Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia Conference
> would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For the
> Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to the
> conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy process, but the
> selection/invitation process was not as clear as it could have been.
>
> To be more representative on a global scale and to have more different
> people from different regions present at the conference, we needed clear,
> transparent and non arbitrary criteria. However, there is no solution that
> covers every possible challenge. Therefore, we chose to give this approach
> – with clear criteria – at least a try for the Wikimedia Conference 2018.
> Also, as we expect more changes in the Movement in the upcoming year, this
> approach is a try for 2018 only, as an overhaul of the whole concept of the
> Wikimedia Conference will be needed anyway.
>
> Additionally, I want to highlight this, because this was criticized in the
> past as well, all regularly eligible affiliates may send at least two
> representatives.
>
> I’m aware that this approach implies challenges, though. I’m happy to
> receive suggestions on how to come up with equally clear and transparent
> criteria.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cornelius
>
>
> On 23 October 2017 at 19:37, Jean-Philippe Béland <jpbel...@wikimedia.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > I share the questions of Lodewijk
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 19:22 Cornelius Kibelka, <
> > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, I meant:
> > >
> > > "The registration process will start on November 24, *2017* and will
> end
> > > sharply (no exceptions), on January 15, 2018."
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Cornelius
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Cornelius Kibelka
> > >
> > > Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
> > > for the Wikimedia Conference
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 23.10.2017 18:04 schrieb "Cornelius Kibelka" <
> > > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de>:
> > >
> > > > Dear Wikimedians, dear representatives of Wikimedia affiliates,
> > > >
> > > > A few weeks ago, we announced that the next Wikimedia Conference will
> > > take
> > > > place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in
> Berlin-Neukölln
> > > > (same location as in 2017). This email contains information about the
> > > > program themes and the Eligibility Criteria for invited affiliates
> > > > including the relevant reporting deadlines.
&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

2017-10-23 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks Cornelius,

just to check: you're working from the assumption here that language
communities are being represented by geographic chapters (German
represented by WMDE, English by WMUK (??), Dutch by WMNL)? This is the
first time I hear someone in an official capacity change the approach to
separation of language and geography, so I want to double check that I
understand correctly.

This may have significant implications down the line. For example, it would
imply that the chapters will have to take instructions what to discuss and
do from their language communities, the same way that a language community
representative from Japanese would be expected to.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians, dear representatives of Wikimedia affiliates,
>
> A few weeks ago, we announced that the next Wikimedia Conference will take
> place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in Berlin-Neukölln
> (same location as in 2017). This email contains information about the
> program themes and the Eligibility Criteria for invited affiliates
> including the relevant reporting deadlines.
>
> == Program Themes ==
>
> As in the previous editions of the conference, the Wikimedia Conference
> 2018 will again focus on three core themes.
>
>-
>
>Movement Strategy: In November 2017, phase 2 of the Wikimedia Movement
>Strategy Process will start. Its main goal will be to answer the
> question
>"How do we implement the strategic direction", which means identifying
> the
>roles and resources needed for execution, and the activities it
> involves.
>In order to ensure participation from the organized part of the
> movement in
>this next phase, we will again host a three-day track on movement
> strategy.
>This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation.
>-
>
>Partnerships in the Wikimedia Movement: Wikimedia organizations and
>groups have a wide variety of experiences and knowledge in working with
>partners to achieve our mission. Based on the conversation at the last
>Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania, and regional Wikimedia conferences, we
> aim
>to continue to offer a space for conversations, experience sharing and
>learning around partnerships within and outside the Wikimedia movement.
>This track will be designed together with the Wikimedia Foundation’s
> Global
>Reach & Partnerships team, WMDE’s Partnerships & Development team and
> the
>volunteer “Partnerships group”.
>-
>
>Capacity Building & Learning: The Wikimedia Conference currently is one
>of the main spaces for learning and sharing among Wikimedia affiliates.
>Again, we will host a track with sessions that are designed according to
>the participants’ needs, wishes and experiences. This track will be
>designed in close consultation with WMF’s Learning & Evaluation team,
> and
>will complement the pre-conference Learning Days.
>
>
> == Eligibility Criteria ==
>
> The eligibility criteria for participating in the Wikimedia Conference 2018
> are aligned to the Affiliates’ Agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups must have shown signs of
> recent activity (within the last six months) and be up-to-date on their
> reporting by the eligibility deadline (December 15, 2017). Moreover,
> affiliates need to have been officially recognized by the Wikimedia
> Foundation before April 19, 2017.
>
> == Participant number regulation ==
>
>-
>
>Chapters, Thematic Organizations and User Groups may send two delegates.
>Chapters and Thematic Organizations which employ at least 0.5 FTE by
> Sep 1,
>2017, may send one additional delegate who is a paid staff member.
>-
>
>Allied organizations may send two delegates.
>-
>
>The biggest ten language/project communities (by numbers of active
>editors [>5 edits/month]) that are not represented by any affiliate, or
>have an affiliate, which is not eligible because it was recognized after
>April 19, 2017, may send one delegate.
>-
>
>   As per September 2017, the biggest communities without an (eligible)
>   affiliate representation are the Japanese, Vietnamese, Tamil,
> Bengali,
>   Slovak, Croatian, Hindi and Malay, Wikimedia Commons and Wikivoyage
>   communities.
>   -
>
>   The user groups West Bengal Wikimedians User Group (for the Bengali
>   community), Hindi Wikimedians User Group (for the Hindi
> community), Wikimedia
>   Community User Group Malaysia (for the Malay community), as well 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikitribune!

2017-10-21 Thread Lodewijk
Well, someone announcing such a project could also be seen as a disclosure.
And answering initial questions around such announcement/disclosure is
something different from using this as the go-to place to ask those
questions.

The way you're phrasing this mostly leaves an impression that you're trying
to 'catch' jimmy in something, not sure if that was indeed the case. If you
genuinly just want to see curiosity answered, emailing direction seems most
sensible in this case. If you're concerned that there are conflicts with
Wikimedia's mission at this point, this list is probably the right venue -
but then you should be clearer about it.

Lodewijk

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's a useful distinction Isaac, thanks.
>
> If Jimmy uses this list to start another thread about Wikitribune, we
> should raise that with him. Sadly nobody thought to raise that issue
> when there were only super positive comments about what a great idea
> Jimmy's new company was.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 21 October 2017 at 18:55, Isaac Olatunde <reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Fae, Wikitribune is not a Wikimedia project but a project owned by one of
> > the Foundation's trustee, Jimbo. Thus, any question about Wikitribune
> should
> > be sent to Jimbo. I don't just see the need for this thread if there is a
> > possibility to ask Jimbo personally.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Isaac.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 21, 2017 3:48 PM, "Fæ" <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21 October 2017 at 13:05, Isaac Olatunde <reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Fae,
> >> >
> >> > Is there a possibility for you to contact Jimbo or any Wikitribune
> staff
> >> > member about this? I don't just think a thread here on what has
> happened
> >> > to
> >> > Wikitribune serves any useful purpose.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Isaac.
> >> >
> >> > On Oct 21, 2017 12:45 PM, "Fæ" <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 25 April 2017 at 22:59, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia
> >> >> > activities,
> >> >> > to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly
> with
> >> >> > all of you information about this new initiative early on.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The new project  will use a wiki-style setup and experiment with
> >> >> > bringing together professional journalists and community
> contributors
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > produce fact-checked, global news stories.  At launch, we'll be
> using
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > hacked version of wordpress and we'll be evaluating whether that's
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > right tool moving forward.  Wordpress has a lot to
> >> >> > commend it (free software, mature platform, used by lots of
> >> >> > newsrooms,
> >> >> > active developer ecosystem) but also has some philosophy that's
> quite
> >> >> > "top down" in a way.
> >> >> > (Not many people would think in a wiki way when setting up a
> >> >> > newsroom!)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This new initiative, Wikitribune, will be a learning experience -
> my
> >> >> > vision is one that I've had a hard time explaining... except to
> >> >> > Wikimedians who tend to immediately
> >> >> > get it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > While I am launching this project independent from Wikipedia and
> the
> >> >> > Wikimedia Foundation, it is my plan that this new project will work
> >> >> > alongside Wikimedia in the free knowledge movement. For example, I
> >> >> > hope
> >> >> > that the numerous Wikinews/Wikinoticias/Wikinotizie/etc.
> communities
> >> >> > can
> >> >> > collaborate with the  Wikitribune community in way that allows both
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > learn and benefit from each other. Additionally, Wikitribune will
> >> >> > utilize the same Creative Commons license (CC-BY) as other free
> >> >> > content
> >> >> > projects in
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] New Developers Quarterly Report's first edition

2017-10-20 Thread Lodewijk
Just trying to understand: this is the percentage change of a percentage?
Or the percentage change of the absolute retention?
(I would be particularly interested in the latter, as the former could be
muddied by successful efforts to have more people make a first contribution)

Lodewijk


On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18 October 2017 at 18:32, Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fae wrote:
> >>Does the minus symbol in "-60.0%" mean anything? Being a retention
> >>percentage, I do not understand how it can be negative unless
> >>potential volunteers are getting rejected at the door before they can
> >>sign-up. Could that be corrected?
> >
> > My understanding is that this means that the rentention percentage was
> > 60% (or is it percentage points?) less than it was this time last
> > year.
> >
> > So its now 5%, but this time last year it was 12%.
> >
> > --
> > bawolff
>
> Ah, thanks for the clarification. I have a background as a
> mathematician, but that report with second-order numbers had me foxed.
>
> Now I think I understand the stats, I probably correctly appreciate
> that whatever actions were taken in the last 12 months to retain
> volunteers were not "non-successes", they are super fantastic
> management team learning points for the coming year...
>
> Suggestion, throw away the current plan and rather than using findings
> to create incremental improvement,[1] try something completely
> different before all the wheels fall off. I look forward to seeing
> some serious radical initiatives.
>
> Links:
> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <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] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-20 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks for the response, Katherine. I'm a little concerned that we can have
such "vastly different" interpretations of the same text. I tried to get
some Wikimedians to give me their take-away, and have not gotten a
consistent direction from those.

What I mostly remember after reading your response is that Wikimedia would
be doing more of the same, and more.

This is a two-folded concern for me. On one hand, it feels like the
direction is too multi-interpretable. While vagueness and leaving specifics
open is only natural, I do believe that a clear direction is essential to
take the next steps.

Second, after reading your response I'm left with the feeling that we don't
really take a direction. Choosing a direction is also determining what not
to do. This was also a main criticism of the earlier version presented at
Wikimania. Directions are painful, because we're not satisfying everyone.

Currently, the WMF is asking people and affiliates to 'endorse' this text.
It has a high textual quality and says a number of things that resonate
with my ideals and those that I know to be Wikimedia's ideals. However, I
don't feel it provides the direction we need yet. I'm not keen on endorsing
a direction, which may then be interpreted in a vastly different way.

I should also note: I have little hope of changing the process. And it may
very well be that I'm alone in this concern. But I would suggest that you
(plural) select 25 (or more) random Wikimedians that were not intimately
involved with the strategic process, let them read the direction, and let
them summarize their take-aways. (that is working from the assumption you
have not done so already) If their variance is too large, that may be an
indicator that unfortunately another cycle of labor may be needed before we
can enter the next round. Given all effort and resources that have been
invested in this process, such sanity check may be worth while.

Warmly,

Lodewijk

ps: just to state the obvious: I'm highly appreciative of all the work that
went into this. It could have turned out worse in many many ways, and I
appreciate all the efforts that went into involving the community. I'm
always feeling guilty about not having been able to spend way more time on
the strategic process than I did in all the various steps of the process -
such rebut would be totally fair :).

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Katherine Maher <kma...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for the delay in chiming in. It's been a busy few weeks, and while I
> haven't made a public update about strategy in a while, work has been
> continuing! We've now closed Phase 1, and we're heading into Phase 2, in
> which our objective is to start thinking about how we make the strategic
> direction into a plan of action and implementation. It's an opportunity to
> create greater clarity about how we each understand the direction, how we
> might set goals against it, what we may need to change to achieve these
> goals, and how we can contribute -- as projects, communities, and
> individuals. I’ll be sending my next weekly update shortly but I wanted to
> acknowledge the contributions in this thread first.
>
> I've read through this entire thread, and I've agreed, disagreed, agreed
> again, and started emails only to see new ones come in and have to scrap my
> drafts. While I found myself often agreeing with Erik, I dig the challenges
> you all have put forward and appreciate the diversity of opinions. Some of
> our differences stem from the unique contexts of the groups and individuals
> responding and will result in differences in implementation in each
> community. Other differences, such as questioning the very concept of
> source credibility, will certainly require additional discussion. But
> regardless of where we end up, it has been a delight to follow such a rich,
> substantive conversation. This has been one of the best, and
> most thought-provoking, Wikimedia-l threads I've read in some time, and I
> hope that it is the first of many as we go into Phase 2 of the movement
> strategy process.
>
> A few more responses inline:
>
> 2017-10-04 11:19 GMT-07:00 Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>:
> >
> > I don't understand what exactly that direction is headed towards, there
> is
> > too much space for a variety of interpretation. The one thing that I take
> > away though, is that we won't place ourselves at the center of the free
> > knowledge universe (as a brand), but want to become a service. We don't
> > expect people to know about 'Wikipedia' in 10 years, but we do want that
> > our work is being put to good use.
>
> It's always helpful to read critique as a challenge to our logical
> assumptions. Lodewijk, I see where your interpretation comes from here, but
> it is vastly different than how I interpret from this st

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The other side of the crisis at WMFR

2017-10-20 Thread Lodewijk
While this topic is painful and important, I don't have the feeling any
progress is being made by continuing this tirade on this mailing list.

I can see that hiring lawyers to investigate, will (at least in my culture)
always have a whiff of subjectivity. Even though this seems (from what I
understand) to be the default approach in the US, which is the primary
context in which the WMF operates. I would like to emphasize one sentence
in Katherine's email: "the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing
and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual or other
harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board
member. " This sounds to me as an invitation to the plaintiffs (*) to
request to reopen the investigation and present further testimony and
evidence. For obvious privacy concerns, I imagine this won't happen in
public. I hope that they will make use of this offer.

What I don't see however, is what the alternate pathway is that the
plaintiffs have in mind. It is suggested that this is a complaint that has
been filed with the judicial system in France, which makes it even harder
for anyone involved to publicly comment (while I'm not legally schooled, I
suspect that any lawyer would probably advise against it). Therefore, I
don't have the impression that continuing the very personal discussion
about individuals without offering an alternative pathway is particularly
helpful - especially as we don't even know in detail what the allegations
are (a crucial piece of context). I'm even more concerned where discussions
start to be held through the media (although I'm not sure I misunderstood
that part).

The plaintiffs have however also mentioned that the general climate should
be improved. That seems a topic where public conversations can actually be
helpful. I don't have a shred of doubt that there was a toxic climate in
Wikimedia France. Both parties accuse each other for being responsible for
that. What I would be more interested in, is what you as the WMFR
community, or we as the international community, could have done to
de-escalate that situation much earlier. This is not the first conflict
situation in our movement, and I fear it'll be the last.

When the dust has settled a bit, I would be in favor of asking (a subset
of) the Affiliations Committee to look into the situation (and perhaps
similar conflicts in other communities that were less visible), and come
with some recommendations. This will probably not be very satisfactory for
the involved parties where it comes to 'justice being done' - but it may
help avoid more pain in the future.

With a sad heart,

Lodewijk

(*) The reason I'm not mentioning people by name is not because I don't
respect them, but because I don't necessarily want this thread to turn up
in search results for eternity. I imagine others may have similar good
faith reasons.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Frans Grijzenhout <fr...@wikimedia.nl>
wrote:

> Hi Remi, You're mail is one big complaint, may I remind you to the last
> phrase of your Board Handbook? It states: Fortes capacité d’auto-évaluation
> ​ (​Strong self-assessment capability). Thank you, Frans
>
>
> *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
> +31 6 5333 9499
> --
> *Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland*
> Mariaplaats 3  -  3511 LH Utrecht
> Kamer van Koophandel 17189036
> http://www.wikimedia.nl/
>
> 2017-10-20 13:49 GMT+02:00 Rémi Mathis <mathis.r...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Katherine,
> >
> > I told you a month ago "Maybe you should reply as a responsible human
> being
> > and not as a trained crisis communication people". This is truer
> everyday.
> >
> > What did you write this email yesterday, and not one,two, three months
> ago?
> > Because I left Wikimedia France, because a Fields Medallist left, because
> > the president of Picasso Museum left, and because journalists began to
> talk
> > about the harassment and the violence of some members of the community.
> > Because the fact that Nathalie Martin had filed a complaint against
> > Christophe Henner begins to spread not only amongst the community but
> also
> > outside.
> > Because the articles made people aware of the problem and that they are
> > victims too, and new testimonies are being sent to journalists.
> > Because you met Christophe Henner in person the day before.
> >
> > Because you are doing your job to protect your boss and make as little
> > noise as possible. But when I donate to Wikimedia, when I edit Wikipedia,
> > that's not what I want from you. I want a safe community.
> >
> > I wrote to you, Christophe and your team more than ten times between July
> > and today. I even met your Legal Conselor and Christophe Henner to talk
> > about the harassment. I never got an email back

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of Raju Narisetti to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

2017-10-16 Thread Lodewijk
Welcome to the movement, Raju!

Your profile seems, with my limited understanding of the current
functioning of the board, a valuable complement to the current board. I
hope that you feel able and encouraged to also share your wisdom directly
with the community.
While some of us can be a little more direct and harsh than is appreciated
by many, there is usually a large (quiet) majority that appreciates to hear
from its board members, especially when they have unique perspectives to
bring to the table. Engage early, engage often - and like we say in the
Netherlands: barking dogs don't bite.

Warmly,
Lodewijk Gelauff

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Victoria Coleman <vcole...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Raju welcome! You bring much expertise & wisdom to us!
>
> Victoria
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Katherine Maher <kma...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, Christophe, for sharing this wonderful news.
> >
> > I have had the opportunity to get to know Raju during this appointments
> > process, and am very excited that he is joining our Wikimedia family as a
> > Foundation Trustee. It is clear to me that his values are closely aligned
> > with those of our movement, and that he brings wisdom and expertise
> > attained throughout his varied professional experiences. As Executive
> > Director, I have the distinct pleasure of working closely with our Board,
> > and I share Christophe's confidence that Raju will make an excellent
> > addition.
> >
> > Raju, welcome and thank you for joining one of the world's largest
> > volunteer movements, and generously offering your time, talent, and
> wisdom
> > to the advancement of our mission. I look forward to working with and
> > learning from you in the years to come.
> >
> > Katherine
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Bishakha Datta <bishakhada...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Excellent news!
> >> Bishakha
> >>
> >> On 17 Oct 2017 00:11, "Anna Stillwell" <astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Welcome, Raju.
> >>> /a
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Christophe Henner <
> >> chen...@wikimedia.org
> >>>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> Over the past year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has
> been
> >>>> reviewing and evolving our appointment and onboarding process for new
> >>> Board
> >>>> members. While that has resulted in some lingering vacancies, we knew
> >> it
> >>>> was important to update these processes to help maintain a cordial and
> >>>> productive Board.
> >>>>
> >>>> The updated appointment process provides the entire board with more
> >>>> detailed (albeit private) information about each candidate’s
> >> background,
> >>>> public profile, past professional and volunteer work, and ability to
> >>>> contribute to the Board. The updated onboarding process is meant to
> >> help
> >>>> Board members learn about the processes and expectations of our Board
> >>> more
> >>>> quickly to help reduce productivity lost to transitions. Special
> thanks
> >>> to
> >>>> everyone serving on the Board Governance Committee and Nataliia for
> the
> >>>> work they have put into these improvements!
> >>>>
> >>>> I am also incredibly excited to share that these efforts have helped
> us
> >>>> identify and appoint an amazing addition to the Wikimedia Foundation
> >>> Board
> >>>> of Trustees! At our October meeting, the Board appointed and welcomed
> >>> Raju
> >>>> Narisetti to fill one of the vacant expert seats.
> >>>>
> >>>> Raju is a veteran media executive and journalist and brings a wealth
> of
> >>>> communications experience to the board. He is also a veteran of
> >> nonprofit
> >>>> governance and currently serves on the board for the International
> >> Center
> >>>> for Journalists and Institute for International Education. I am
> >> confident
> >>>> he will be a very valuable addition to the board and thrilled that he
> >> has
> >>>> agreed to join us!
> >>>>
> >>>> We will continue to make improvements to our governance processes, for
> >>>> example with 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-16 Thread Lodewijk
I understand from the original email that the venue was chosen based on the
fact that it was WMF-funded as a project. I am guessing he's trying to pull
that leverage.

The topic is more generic though: should we support projects that are
considered by some to be a little rough on the edges, or should we only
pick 'safe' projects that will land well with the community. And how much
of 'be bold' can be applied to projects that operate at a somewhat larger
scale.

While this particular topic seems enwp specific, its theme isn't.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland <
jpbel...@wikimedia.ca> wrote:

> There is so many threads on this list that are only about English Wikipedia
> like it is the centre of the world... Why other communities are able to
> keep their internal discussions internal and not this community?
>
> Jean-Philippe Béland
> Vice President, Wikimedia Canada
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
> list-wikime...@funcrunch.org> wrote:
>
> > The people whose opinion should most matter in determining whether a
> > comment is sexist are women. Not men, and not non-binary transmasculine
> > people like myself.
> >
> > I support and echo Emily and Molly's earlier comments on this thread:
> >
> >
> > Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's
> >> message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
> >>
> >> I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns that
> this
> >> will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for in the
> >> document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this project
> >> will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including not
> >> mass-producing poor-quality content).
> >>
> >> As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between
> >> describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a sexist. I
> >> believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's said can
> >> be
> >> described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism of
> poor
> >> wording.
> >>
> >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare
> <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
> >> gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to
> this
> >> list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue with
> her
> >> email address.
> >>
> >> "This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some
> >> stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD
> >> everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
> >>
> >> I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about women
> to a
> >> higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia isn't
> going
> >> to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a bunch
> of
> >> stubs.
> >>
> >> And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women? It's
> better
> >> than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I
> shouldn't
> >> have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands."
> >>
> >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> >>
> >
> > - Pax aka Funcrunch
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/16/17 10:11 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> >
> >> Is that still going on?
> >>
> >> I'm against sexism and all for improving coverage of women on Wikipedia.
> >> I've helped to encourage events toward that end, and they've turned out
> >> pretty well. We now have quite a few more articles, for example, on
> women
> >> involved as pioneers in outdoor sports and activities because of them.
> >>
> >> But I'm unsure how asking the question "Is it wise to offer money in
> >> exchange for creating large numbers of articles without consideration of
> >> quality?" or "Will this effort have the intended result?" is sexist. The
> >> same question would apply if the proposed articles were about Russian
> >> literature or asteroids. It is not sexist to ask the question just
> because
> >> of what the subject happens to be.
> >>
> >> I think that needs to be discussed, not sidetracked by calling people
> >> sexists. If people really were making sexist statements, I'd be all for
> >> shutting that crap down. But I've seen not one such statement in th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

2017-10-12 Thread Lodewijk
Besides all discussions on the exact definition, could we please replace
"WMF" with "the Wikimedia movement"? I don't think that supporting emerging
communities, however we define them, should be the prerogative of the WMF,
nor should it be implied. I trust this was not the intention, either :)

Lodewijk

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the
> highly discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a
> more nuanced approach.
>
> Indeed - this is a really useful step forward, and much more practical
> for the way our movement works.
>
> Plus we can now stop arguing about whether or not to use the term
> "global south" which will increase everyone's productivity.
>
> Chris
>
> ___
> 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] what made me happy this week: the offline app

2017-10-09 Thread Lodewijk
Hey James,

I'm glad to see that something made you happy this week.

I'd like to note that the whole idea of 'what made me happy this week' is
to also have some positive conversations about things that excite us. Which
kind of becomes moot when you start the message with complaints of what you
don't like (which then takes over the whole message).

I hope you can next time focus on the positive component, and restrain
yourself from sharing all the things you don't like - at least from threads
that start with "what made me happy this week" :)

Thank you,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 2:45 AM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, mobile app page views are much closer to 1.5% than 0.0006%, my
> mistake, I used the WAP row with 116,000 page views in 2015 instead of
> the 784,000,000 pageviews of the mobile app.
>
> I caught the error after pressing "Send", but I decided that it didn't
> need to be corrected, given that the Strategic Direction document
> still says, "in the next 15 years, the languages that will be the most
> spoken are primarily those that currently lack good content and strong
> Wikimedia communities," citing a table which predicts the most widely
> spoken languages in 2050, which in turn cites a report which says
> nothing about 2050, but does say, "Mandarin is the most spoken
> language globally."
>
> Mandarin is not the most widely spoken language:
> https://assets.weforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/
> 1510B15-languages-most-speakers-english-chinese-chart.png
>
> And it's growing much more slowly than English is:
> https://revolutioninlearning.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/
> 14j3i4hyjvi88-0p0ofe-english-speakers-learners-1.jpg
>
> I would have corrected the error promptly if there was evidence that
> respect for the truth was more highly regarded.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Legoktm <legoktm.wikipe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Nuria Ruiz <nu...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> You have data about app pageviews in several places, the most popular
> tool
> >> to see that kind of data has numbers, for example app pageviews
> >> for en.wikipedia.
> >>
> >> The notion of what is an app pageview fluctuates more than what is a web
> >> pageview, but numbers are quite far away from being less than 1%
> >>
> >> https://tools.wmflabs.org/siteviews/?platform=mobile-
> app=pageviews=user=latest-20=en.wikipedia.org
> >
> > Using the tool you linked, I selected "All projects", and then divided
> > the number of mobile app views by the total views to get: around 1.5%.
> > Is that figure accurate for the amount of page views coming from
> > mobile apps?
> >
> > -- Legoktm
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Lodewijk
And that is where the broader Wikimedia movement could come in, to provide
that pipeline of rigor and reliability, right? I don't know a solution
either, but the question for the strategy is not whether we have a solution
right now. The question would be whether the movement should work towards
finding a solution through our ecosystem (or even beyond), and support
that. Maybe at the end of this process, some information may end up on
Wikipedia - if the process proves to be reliable enough. And maybe not.

I also agree with the nuance by Charles, that we're talking about many
different types of knowledge - some of which may be more suitable than
others.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, but if oral tradition is recorded at the academic standard, why should
> we be the first publication venue? Usually these people just publish books
> in academic publishing houses.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the purpose,
> > but that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any project that
> > allows anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral tradition would
> at
> > least have to be sourced to the teller, and would have to be recorded by
> a
> > reliable and identified recorder, who can be held responsible for their
> due
> > diligence. This would not be an easy thing for a crowdsourced project,
> but
> > anything less would be like a magnet for everything we don't want.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Chandres Wikipedia
> > Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> > Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
> >
> > I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in
> Wikipedia
> > today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.
> >
> > Just to give you an illustration:
> >
> > Today ,a significative amount of African topics in the Wikipedia in
> French
> > rely only on the work of only few French historian. Without saying they
> are
> > not honest, I find difficult to consider that there words have really so
> > more value than the words of the Ancient of the African tribes.
> >
> > We know for sure than oral tradition will include bias, but do not forget
> > that the «  traditional western historian work » are not exempt of bias
> too.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > PS: IMHO, I find offensive the way you define oral traditions, but it may
> > be caused by a misconception from my part.
> >
> > These are the definition I use for urban legend and oral tradition, very
> > different each other I think.
> > urban <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban#English> legend <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legend#English> (plural urban legends <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban_legends#English>)
> > A widely circulated story <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/story> that is
> > untrue <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/untrue> or apocryphal <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apocryphal>, often having elements of
> > humour <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humour> or horror <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horror>.
> > oral <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oral#English> tradition <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tradition#English> (countable <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable> and
> > uncountable <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#
> uncountable>,
> > plural oral traditions <https://en.wiktionary.org/
> > wiki/oral_traditions#English>)
> > Cultural <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture> material transmitted <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transmit> orally from one generation <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/generation> to another.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Le 4 oct. 2017 à 21:11, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > > You might be right, and the goal is indeed to differentiate between
> > > them. I just do not see how it could be implemented in practice. A
> > > legend is a legend, be it urban or not.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 4

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Lodewijk
(first I'll respond to Ziko/Yaroslav, and then I'll ponder a bit about the
direction in a more general sense)

Just to check, Ziko and Yaroslav: are you talking about Wikipedia, or the
sum of all human knowledge? Are you arguing that Wikipedia should only make
use of secondary sources, or are you arguing that the whole Wikimedia
movement should limit itself to that?

I can see pathways (although they won't be easy) of how oral knowledge can
be collected, described, analyzed, compared and turned into a secondary
source in Wikimedia projects. Maybe Wikipedia is not the most suitable
project for that - this is something we could discuss. This is a typical
topic that is super important to a part of our community.

This is probably true for many things: what doesn't work for Wikipedia
(right now), may well work within other projects. Not each component of the
strategy is equally applicable to every single person and every single
situation.

But in general, there are two ways that the strategic direction can be
improved - and they are in direct contradiction. The first is to make
everything more acceptable to everyone. That is basically what you're
arguing here. The second is what was a resonating feedback I heard at
Wikimania: to make clearer choices. Actually setting a direction.

We are an incredibly diverse community (even if we are underrepresented in
many groups), and people will want to go in different directions. After
reading the current direction, I'm acknowledging there's more 'direction',
but still feel left hanging.

I don't understand what exactly that direction is headed towards, there is
too much space for a variety of interpretation. The one thing that I take
away though, is that we won't place ourselves at the center of the free
knowledge universe (as a brand), but want to become a service. We don't
expect people to know about 'Wikipedia' in 10 years, but we do want that
our work is being put to good use. Is this a correct (simplified)
interpretation?

Lodewijk

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I fully support Ziko on this point. Making oral tradidions welcome, in
> particular, making them welcome at Wikipedia, will open the door to all
> king of fringe POV theories. We were able to distinguish ourselves exactly
> because these fringe theories had no place on Wikipedia. Allowing them
> meaning shoot our own feet.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Guillaume,
> >
> > Thank you for making your point of view clear, I appreciate that. Please
> > allow me to make two points clear myself.
> >
> > (A) It is not my opinion that only active Wikipedians are „community“.
> > There are other Wikimedia wikis, and also activities, that have a
> community
> > character. I do reject the idea to open the term community to literally
> > everybody/anybody „and beyond“. It would be necessary that the draft
> paper,
> > instead, explains what should be understood by „movement“ or „community“
> in
> > order to avoid certain ambiguities.
> >
> > (B) I also do not deny that there is an overweight of content that is
> > related to Western countries and culture. On (English) Wikipedia, the
> > average Dutch village is certainly much better described than a larger
> city
> > in, for example, Ethiopia or Guatemala. I am always supportive of
> > initiatives that want to do something about this lack of balance. (And I
> > suppose that most people on the Berlin conference meant that, too).
> >
> > But the wording in the further strategy process was much different. The
> > concept of „reliable sources“ was called a Western bias, while „oral
> > traditions“ should be considered to be reliable as well.
> >
> > I know that writing the history of many countries is difficult because of
> > the lack of written material. That makes it also difficult to write a
> more
> > complete history of, for example, Celtic and Germanic tribes in ancient
> > times.
> >
> > But „oral traditions“ are just not reliable in the way scholarly
> literature
> > is. Historians provide us with numerous examples how people fail in
> > remembering what they heard a long time ago, or even recently. The human
> > brain is simply not made by nature to be a historian or a data storage;
> > human memory is fragile and changes. Also, additionally some people have
> a
> > malicious intent when giving their testimony to a historian or a well
> > meaning platform for „oral history“. A historian‘s work is to collect
> > several testimonies, compare them to each other (= the transcripts of
> their
> > interviews) and corroborate them with other material - and f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners for logged-in users (was:How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?)

2017-09-11 Thread Lodewijk
hi david,

i'll respond inline.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:08 AM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi lodewijk
>
> I've altered the subject line at your suggestion.
>

thank you.

>
> The name of the case (and the opposite party) is equally well known to
> Wikimedia-Legal. The first decision in the case is online at the WIPO
> website, however, since it is still under litigation, I am not linking
> to it under the WP:OUTING policies, and it would be far better that
> whoever speaks for WMF links to it.
>

entirely different topic. lets no mingle that.


>
> I am categorically saying
>
> 1) In 2016, WMF's Asian fund-raising campaign in SAARC began 2 or 3
> weeks before they started elsewhere, probably to coincide with the
> local festive season when people are receptive to giving.
>

fundraising happens all over the world at different times - nobody is
denying that, and I see no problem with that.


>
> 2) The WMF banner ads for SAARC did not discrimnate between logged-in
> users and readers.
>

that is your claim, so much is clear. Do you have anything to back that up
in other accounts. Also, this does not consider the simple possibility of
human error.


>
> 3) Perhaps WMF learned from all this and adapted it to their non-Asian
> ad banner / email solicitation campaigns which began from 29 Nov 2016
> ?.
>

I must say that seddon sounds better informed, and has a more plausable
explanation, even if it were correct.


>
> 4) Perhaps you have an inherent COI in this case to suppress the
> questionable means by how WMF funds / endowments are raised, because
> you are on the consuming side ?
>

I mostly have beef with unfounded or unhelpful criticism.


>
> If it is evidence you want, try this for intelligent hounding ?
>
> https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/wikipedias-new-email-
> campaign-is-a-master-class-in-emotional-intelligence.html


i'm missing the relevance of the email campaign?

>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/jimmy_wales_
> wikipedia_fundraising_promise/



i'm sorry, but where it comes to the register, i refuse to take their
coverage serious.


>
> PS: I would certainly like specific clarity from WMF on how much was
> paid in 2014-15 for legal services "to" Jonesday and how much was paid
> "through" Jonesday.
>
>
again, straying off-topic. lets not go there.

best,
lodewijk


> warmly
>
> David
>
> On 9/11/17, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> > hi david,
> >
> > as with your accusations regarding the spending, my question would be
> > whether
> > you have anything to substantiate it. Seddon was clear: it did not
> happen,
> > unless perhaps a human error in a minimal number of campaigns. If you
> have
> > that then please bring that up in a *separate* thead.
> >
> > you're going more and more off topic. I suggest that we return to the
> > question
> > at hand: the two stage loading problem.
> >
> > lodewijk
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Joseph
> >>
> >> Thanks for that link.
> >>
> >> *NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly
> >> delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF
> >> self-financing model.
> >>
> >> Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm
> >> linking to the following messages
> >>
> >> 1. *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form
> 990
> >> for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki*
> >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084254.html
> >
> >>
> >> *"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
> >> money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
> >> the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
> >> apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
> >> which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
> >> booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
> >> squatters"  had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
> >> before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
> >> donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
> >> (a not insubstantial amount).
> >>
> >> Dave"*
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*
> >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?

2017-09-11 Thread Lodewijk
hi david,

as with your accusations regarding the spending, my question would be whether
you have anything to substantiate it. Seddon was clear: it did not happen,
unless perhaps a human error in a minimal number of campaigns. If you have
that then please bring that up in a *separate* thead.

you're going more and more off topic. I suggest that we return to the question
at hand: the two stage loading problem.

lodewijk

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Joseph
>
> Thanks for that link.
>
> *NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly
> delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF
> self-financing model.
>
> Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm
> linking to the following messages
>
> 1. *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990
> for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki*
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084254.html>
>
> *"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
> money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
> the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
> apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
> which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
> booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
> squatters"  had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
> before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
> donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
> (a not insubstantial amount).
>
> Dave"*
>
>
> 2. *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084276.html>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *"As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundationspent $317,490 
> fighting "cybersquatters" that offeredto donate the domain in dispute: We’re 
> not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt with a case that 
> fits this description. We do not fight cybersquatters who offer to donate 
> their domains (especially if they are community members),and, to date, we 
> have not spent anything approachingthat much money on this type of case."*
>
>
> 3.   *Your donation keeps Wikipedia and free knowledge thriving*
> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/11/29/wikimedia-foundation-annual-fundraiser/>
>
> "Legal defense to preserve your right to access, share, and remix
> knowledge, including court battles won over Wikimedia content in Brazil
> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/09/14/rosanah-fienngo/>, Germany
> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/08/09/victory-germany-appeal-dismissed/>,
> France <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/20/france-legal-victory/>, and
> India."
>
> including unreplied comments on why the India court battles were not
> linked unlike the others
> So to sum up:
>
> 1. The WMF form 990 says US law firm "JonesDay" received US$ 1,742,916 for
> legal services in 2014-15
>
> 2. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community how much of that
> was spent on fighting a specific "cyber-squatter" from India (my own
> sources at the time said US$ 300,000 was paid by WMF to JonesDay for this
> case, mainly billable hours for JD partner Carrie Kiedrowski).
>
> 3. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community whether or not
> this cyber squatter (who claims to be a community member since 2003) had
> straightaway offered to donate the domain name free of cost to the WMF and
> close the case, however, WMF rejected the offer and instead ran up huge
> legal bills which were financed by donations, and probably continues to do
> so since that case is still ongoing in India's legal system .
>
> 4. I distinctly recall that when I was in India in mid-November 2016,
> attending the Opendaylight Linux forum in Bengaluru and incidentally
> discussing there the progress of this legal case with the other party who
> was an attendee, I was bombarded with WMF donation banner-ads, as a
> logged-in user, which carried through till mid-December 2016 when I was at
> Sri Lanka and Kathmandu but which curiously stopped when I reached
> Austraila.
>
> 5. So, as a community member and contributor, I would like to know how
> every dollar raised by WMF is collected, and also spent thereafter.
>
> Warmly
>
> David
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Joseph Seddon <josephsed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I would refer to my answer I gave on the forked threa

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?

2017-09-06 Thread Lodewijk
Hi David,

Would you mind elaborating on the first point? I vaguely recall test
banners being shown to logged in users, but don't recall seeing one myself
while logged in for a while.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:16 PM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a) This is incorrect
> b) how many years would "for several years" encompass?
>
> David
>
> On 9/5/17, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > WMF hasn't shown fundraising banners to logged in users for several
> years.
> >
> > Regards
> > Seddon
>
> ___
> 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] How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?

2017-09-05 Thread Lodewijk
Hey Ori,

I like the creative thinking :) For the fundraising that could indeed work
well (although I have no numbers on what percentage of domations comes from
logged in users etc), but there are also campaigns tht are quite relevant
for logged in users.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Ori Livneh <ori.liv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 3, 2017 13:02, "David Gerard" <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2 September 2017 at 02:09, Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote:
>
> > This is possibly the most annoying feature of the Wikimedia projects at
> the moment. You access a page. Then you start reading or editing it. And
> then suddenly the page jumps when a fundraising banner / central notice /
> gadget / beta feature loads. So you have to start reading the page again,
> or you have to find where you were editing again, or you have to undo the
> change you just made since you made it in the wrong part of the page.
>
>
> Or you click "edit" and it hits the banner that suddenly popped up
> under your click. 
>
>
> One possible solution would be to exempt anyone who edits an article from
> being shown a banner by means of a cookie with a suitable expiry. Since
> only a tiny fraction of visitors edit, I would expect the impact on the
> WMF's bottom line to be negligible.
> ___
> 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] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-23 Thread Lodewijk
R,

if you know my contributions to this list, you also know that it is not
rare that I disagree with Foundation staff members. However, also I am very
uncomfortable with how you interact on this list, and the way you
communicate in general. This has only marginally to do with being on the
receiving end of the criticism. Especially the way you express your
criticisms, makes me cringe.

With you, I think a level of criticism is healthy. We do disagree strongly
on what is effective criticism, and what a healthy relationship looks like.
Without a healthy and safe climate, there is no way criticism can be
discussed in an effective way.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Lodewijk
>
> I agree that your second paragraph is quite likely to be correct.  I have
> consistently argued that the performance of the Foundation could be
> significantly improved if it were to engage more effectively with the
> Community, and that in the past it has failed to do so.  I have also
> suggested a number of ways that engagement could be enhanced.  I am aware
> that this is not always comfortable for the people who find themselves
> being criticised.  But I believe that it is in the long-term best interests
> of the Community, the Foundation and the Mission.  I hope and believe that
> the majority of the participants on the list can say the same about their
> own postings.
>
> Roland
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
>
> > R,
> >
> > if it's worth anything (probably not), what Seddon wrote on this list
> could
> > in those exact wordings equally well have come from me. I don't think his
> > words are why this conversation turned sour.
> >
> > Unrelated to that: I'm pretty confident indeed that several of the
> > participants in this conversation are discussing these guidelines with
> your
> > behavior in mind in particular.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > Actually, being insulted and falsely accused of generalised misconduct
> > by a
> > > paid employee of the Foundation who has failed to read my post
> correctly
> > is
> > > what I call unconstructive behaviour.  But perhaps that is what you
> > expect
> > > the donors money to be spent on.
> > >
> > > Roald
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjes...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Rogol:
> > > >
> > > > "Alternatively,
> > > > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is
> > the
> > > > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum."
> > > >
> > > > This is the kind of "unconstructive" behavior the list is talking
> > about.
> > > I
> > > > fail to see how threatening to tattle to someone's manager, because
> > they
> > > > disagreed with you about the wording of your posts in public, is
> either
> > > > constructive or the "sort of behavior" one would "expect you to
> exhibit
> > > in
> > > > a public forum." But then again, I'd venture to guess you knew that
> > > > already.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers.
> > > >
> > > > Dan Rosenthal
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" <jay...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi list members,
> > > > >
> > > > > The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I,
> > your
> > > > > humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> > > > > posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere
> some
> > > > > posters (some of them frequent) create.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that
> > more
> > > > > frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are
> due
> > > > > to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
> > > > >
> > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-23 Thread Lodewijk
R,

if it's worth anything (probably not), what Seddon wrote on this list could
in those exact wordings equally well have come from me. I don't think his
words are why this conversation turned sour.

Unrelated to that: I'm pretty confident indeed that several of the
participants in this conversation are discussing these guidelines with your
behavior in mind in particular.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dan
>
> Actually, being insulted and falsely accused of generalised misconduct by a
> paid employee of the Foundation who has failed to read my post correctly is
> what I call unconstructive behaviour.  But perhaps that is what you expect
> the donors money to be spent on.
>
> Roald
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjes...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Rogol:
> >
> > "Alternatively,
> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is the
> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum."
> >
> > This is the kind of "unconstructive" behavior the list is talking about.
> I
> > fail to see how threatening to tattle to someone's manager, because they
> > disagreed with you about the wording of your posts in public, is either
> > constructive or the "sort of behavior" one would "expect you to exhibit
> in
> > a public forum." But then again, I'd venture to guess you knew that
> > already.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> > Dan Rosenthal
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.
> > >
> > > On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" <jay...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi list members,
> > >
> > > The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
> > > humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> > > posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
> > > posters (some of them frequent) create.
> > >
> > > It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
> > > frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
> > > to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
> > >
> > > We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> > > volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
> > > but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> > > quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
> > >
> > > The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> > > three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
> > > which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> > > are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> > > will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> > > need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> > > volume will often achieve the same result.
> > > --
> > >
> > > Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
> > >
> > > The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never
> > > been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
> > > clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests
> > > the current quota is too high.
> > >
> > > A review of the stats at
> > > https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few
> > > people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
> > > exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
> > > members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are
> > > repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating
> > > themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their
> > > opinion heard.
> > > --
> > >
> > > Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
> > >
> > > As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
> > > proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have
> > > been globally banned by the community according to the
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
> > >
> > > This proposal does not 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads up

2017-08-23 Thread Lodewijk
Hey Brad,

I can see that confusing people is not what we should be aiming for :)
Would it help sooth your mind when there is a clear distinction between
content and banner, even if the look and feel is the same? (I can imagine
that you could accomplish this by doing the banner at full site width, for
example)
Just thinking out loud here, because I can resonate with your objection to
this particular design - but at the same time I recognize that community
members have been asking Fundraising to make the banners less 'in your
face' and 'ad-like' (which is by far the obvious way to make sure nobody
gets confused about the seperation).

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
bjor...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > New Native feel:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein?banner=B1718_
> > 0823_en6C_dsk_p1_lg_dsn_native=1=US=QA
> >
>
> Personally, I really dislike banners that try to pretend to be content.
> This one makes it look like the page is an article titled "To all our
> readers in the U.S." rather than a page with a banner on it.
>
> --
> Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
> Senior Software Engineer
> 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,
> <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] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-23 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks Gerard for pointing out that the 'goals' are probably not as clear.
And maybe we are talking with different goals in mind. So let me phrase my
goals for this discussion:

I would like to see this list develop into a forum that facilitates healthy
and constructive discussions within and between the wider Wikimedia
communities and the Wikimedia Foundation staff, board and committees
especially. I would like to see that this list becomes a venue where people
feel safe enough that community and staff members no longer feel it
necessary to warn newcomers that they should not subscribe to this mailing
list. I also hope this will be a place where people can expect honest
feedback, also when the opinions are not what they expect them to be, or
are inconvenient.

I think volume is a component of it. However, I wouldn't mind a volume
increase when that is an increase in sensible and constructive
contributions with new facts and information to a discussion, or when that
is because more people find it sensible to ask for input here. It is the
repeating of positions and the unhelpful snarky remarks that I would like
to see reduced to a minimum.

Hopefully that makes sense :)

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of posts
> is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must be
> brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this list.
> When you disagree on this, show some statistics.
>
> When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of
> edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators are
> judge jury and executioner.
>
> The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given.
> Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like facebook
> a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the
> vested interest of those at Meta.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi list members,
> >
> > The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
> > humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> > posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
> > posters (some of them frequent) create.
> >
> > It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
> > frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
> > to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
> >
> > We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> > volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
> > but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> > quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
> >
> > The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> > three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
> > which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> > are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> > will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> > need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> > volume will often achieve the same result.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
> >
> > The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never
> > been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
> > clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests
> > the current quota is too high.
> >
> > A review of the stats at
> > https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few
> > people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
> > exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
> > members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are
> > repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating
> > themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their
> > opinion heard.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
> >
> > As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
> > proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have
> > been globally banned by the community according to the
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
> >
> > This proposal does not prevent proxyin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-23 Thread Lodewijk
Hey John,

Thanks for starting this discussion. I appreciate the efforts.

I don't have the impression that the exact height of the soft limit will
solve any problems. It's fighting a sympton, rather than the cause of the
issue. I'm fine either way, although I fear that having it at this level
would discourage WMF employees to engage in active discussions when needed.
As long as sensible exceptions are generously applied, I don't mind though.

Proposal 2,3 and 4 seem fine to me, but they come across as trying to find
a very objective way to approach a subjective problem. They are fine
approaches, but will never get to the core of the problem - they will cut
down on some excesses though.

What I'm missing, is a proposal 5 that would have to tackle the more
subjective question: how to handle contributors that are consistently
unconstructive. I would personally appreciate a tighter control on civilty
and constructiveness by the moderators, which could be covered by that. I
don't know a good wording for that either, but would appreciate someone
trying to make a proposal for that :)

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:44 AM, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The 15 limit is busted regularly by normal active posters.  I disagree
> with that one.
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 22, 2017, at 9:03 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi list members,
> >
> > The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
> > humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> > posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
> > posters (some of them frequent) create.
> >
> > It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
> > frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
> > to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
> >
> > We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> > volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
> > but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> > quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
> >
> > The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> > three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
> > which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> > are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> > will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> > need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> > volume will often achieve the same result.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
> >
> > The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never
> > been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
> > clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests
> > the current quota is too high.
> >
> > A review of the stats at
> > https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few
> > people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
> > exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
> > members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are
> > repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating
> > themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their
> > opinion heard.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
> >
> > As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
> > proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have
> > been globally banned by the community according to the
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
> >
> > This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat
> > puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy.  The list admins
> > would prefer that globally banned people communicate their grievances
> > via established members of our community who can guide them, rather
> > than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned people on
> > how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience, and
> > then required to block them when they do not follow advice.  The role
> > of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only patrolling
> > the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping
> > globally banned users.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #3: I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

2017-08-20 Thread Lodewijk
Maybe a silly question, but is there no more specialized forum that would
be more suitable to have this conversation? I'm not sure if we need the
wide movement list to discuss the copyright policy of a particular UK
database. Or is there a specific expertise you're searching for? If so, I
somehow missed the question for that in the exchange.

Best,
Lodewijk

ps: sorry Andy if it annoys you. I do think there's a diverse set of
opinions on top-posting or not, these days. Especially as email clients
have changed to suit the needs of those that do. I fear it's a battle lost.

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andy (or Fae), if you've corresponded with them, could you please post that
> correspondence here?
>
> Todd
> ___
> 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] Funding the endowment

2017-08-19 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks for the link, Rogol. It is wonderful to hear that these generous
donors have decided to match a deposit of $5 million into the endowment.

It is always a good thing if someone from the board could expand on what
(if anything) the board is planning to do with the proposed expenses. The
way you're framing this decision is not something I consider fair.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I was surprised to read the record
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_
> of_Endowment_funding_(Fiscal_Year_2016-2017)_and_matching_$
> 5_million_gift_from_Peter_Baldwin_and_Lisbet_Rausing
> of the decision to place $5M into the endowment.  After the anouncement by
> Lisa Gruwell on this list
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-
> December/085712.html
> there was a discussion of what might be done with the funds raised, and a
> number of suggestions were made for how these funds could be used to
> directly support the work of the volunteers who contribute the content to
> the projects, such as
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-January/085835.html
> .
>
> It is disappointing that the Board has chosen not to fund support of this
> kind.  What is more than disappointing, but positively disturbing is that
> the decision was made in the light of an offer from a donor to match the
> sum put into the endowment.  I suggest that this was not a fair offer, and
> the Board's decision was the wrong one.  Effectively this donor has said to
> the Board that they will pay the Foundation not to support the volunteers,
> and the Board has agreed to follow their wishes.  If the donor believes so
> strongly in the necessity to build up the mission by means of an Endowment,
> why did they not simply gift the money directly into the endowment without
> conditions?  Equally, if the donor believes so strongly that money should
> not be spent supporting the volunteer community, then I challenge them to
> say so explicitly in public and to defend their position.
>
> I call on the Board to explain to the community of volunteers precisely why
> they have chosen not to offer that support to the community and to state
> that they will not allow future decisions of this nature to be influenced
> by the wishes of one donor, however generous.
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> 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] Advertizing Wikimania (youtube) livestreams on centralnotice

2017-08-18 Thread Lodewijk
Hi all,

Wikimania is well over, and now that everyone is slowly getting home, I'd
like to touch on a hallway discussion that was going on during Wikimania.
This was regarding the centralnotice banners advertizing a livestream of
Katherine's and Christophe's presentation of the draft direction for the
2030 strategy.

First a few quick facts:
The banners were on Fri 11 Aug shown for 1,5 hour in 'emergency mode' on
all English language projects (including Commons, meta) to all logged in,
anonimous and mobile visitors. The campaigns can be found here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice=noticeDetail=WikimaniaLive>,
here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice=noticeDetail=WikimaniaLiveLoggedin>and
here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice=noticeDetail=WikimaniaLiveMobile>,
for reference. The text in the banner was "Where will Wikipedia and
Wikimedia be in 2030? Find out LIVE from Montreal" with a link to a youtube
page with a stream <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdr2F8aB9y0> .

I was quite taken by surprise with this, and taken aback. Here we were, the
Wikimedia community telling all these visitors of Wikipedia and other
projects that we are so important, that we should have them watch a
presentation of a first draft of a direction of a strategy that still needs
to be worked out. Not only was the text in the banner a bit misleading (I
didn't see much crystal bowl gazing - but rather a statement of where we
would like to go - but soit, I can overlook that), but it feels especially
pretentious to me. Maybe this is a cultural matter, and in other cultures
this kind of bragging (which is what it feels like to me) is normal.

I could have understood an advertizement of this and other sessions to our
logged in community members - that would actually have been a nice way of
engaging them in an expensive conference that we would like more online
audience to be part of. But only this session, and then all visitors of
Wikimedia projects? No, thanks.

Totally separate of the message displayed and whether we want to show it to
this kind of large audience, I was surprised that this link was pointing to
Youtube. This goes against our policies on Centralnotice
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines>, stating:
"Wikimedia Owned - Banners must link to Wikimedia controlled domains (owned
either by Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia affiliates or Wikimedia
Volunteers identified to the Wikimedia Foundation)." I guess there is a
very remote interpretation possible that the channel is owned by the
Wikimedia Foundation, and I did not see any indication that Youtube was
running ads on that particular channel.

I was unable to locate any community discussions or consultation about
this. Could someone at the WMF share where this was discussed prior to the
decision, and could they explain their reasoning? I'm not looking to blame
anyone for this - shit happens - but I would like to see some discussion on
what we want and dont want to do in this field, so that we can actually
learn from this exercise. I was told in (very rapid and somewhat unwilling)
hallway discussions that this was signed off by multiple layers of
management at the WMF, so I assume some documented reasoning and
consultation is available.

Best,
Lodewijk
___
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] [African Wikimedians] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 16 August 2017)

2017-08-18 Thread Lodewijk
(in the spirit of WP:WOTTA
 ;), I'd
like to clarify that L2K most likely refers to the "Letter to Katherine"
sent on April 1 by the Wiki Indaba participants. The letter and Katherine's
response from a week ago are available on meta

)

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Felix Nartey  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am excited for being awarded the Wikipedian of the year!
>
> The amazing Wikimania video from South Africa tells me the wiki world will
> be blown by what Africa has to offer in 2018. More grease to your elbow,
> organizers of Wikimania 2018!
>
> I am also very delighted about the response of the L2K and the ripple
> effect of the L2K in the movement.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am happy this week because a Wikimedian from Africa, Felix Nartey was
> > named Wikipedian of the Year 2017 in Montreal.
> >
> > What's making you happy this week?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> > ___
> > African-Wikimedians mailing list
> > african-wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/african-wikimedians
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Felix Nartey*
> *Cofounder/Director Finance & Admin*
> *Open Foundation West Africa *
> *+233242844987 | +447440959477*
> *Skype:Flixtey*
> ___
> 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] Wikimedia content for in-flight entertainment?

2017-07-30 Thread Lodewijk
I know that KLM included some cuts from Wikipedia articles in their
onflight system to explain sights from at least San Francisco. Not sure
whether they made it scale, probably not.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Pierre-Selim <pierre-se...@huard.info>
wrote:

> Certification process for the hardware of kiwix might be a tremendous pain
> in the ass.
>
> And second point the airline will need a business case to cary more weight
> (count about 3.5% of the weight as extra fuel burn per hour).
>
> That said I'd love to use Wikipedia on an IFE.
>
> Le 31 juil. 2017 00:02, "Daniel Mietchen" <daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com>
> a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > during long flights, I have often been wondering why there is no
> > Wikimedia option in in-flight entertainment systems. As I am normally
> > offline during flights and I normally don't think about in-flight
> > stuff while on the ground, I never actually asked around, so after a
> > long flight yesterday, here we go:
> > Do any of you know of attempts to explore the option(s) to get
> > Wikimedia content onto in-flight entertainment and similar systems?
> >
> > Many of them already have educational content, but I am not aware of
> > anything openly licensed amidst those offerings. Have any of the Kiwix
> > team looked into this?
> >
> > Also, many airlines/ ships/ trains and others offer WiFi for a fee -
> > has the Wikipedia Zero team ever looked into engaging with such
> > "providers"?
> >
> > Thanks and cheers,
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimédia France - informations sur la situation actuelle

2017-07-13 Thread Lodewijk
> Thanks for sharing - it is good to see WMF is on top of this. I agree it
> is not very helpful to descend into a discussion about details of who said
> what when, but rather focus on the big picture. My hope is that the members
> can work towards a healthy association as soon as possible - and that WMF's
> role will be constructive in that respect, aimed at the future.
>
> I'm also glad to read your implicit invitation to groups of volunteers
> that feel unable to work within the existing WMFR structures, that they can
> receive support of the WMF directly.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-07-12 6:30 GMT+02:00 Katy Love <kl...@wikimedia.org>:
>
>> Hi Chris, hi all,
>>
>> I am forwarding the email I sent to a French Wikimedia community mailing
>> list <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediafr>. I
>> include
>> the message first in English and then French.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. We’re the non-profit
>> organization that exists to support Wikimedia volunteer communities and
>> free knowledge projects around the world.
>>
>>
>> That is why we are writing today. You may have read an email from the CA
>> of
>> Wikimédia France, making serious allegations against members of our
>> movement. Many of these allegations relate to members of the French
>> volunteer community, certain current and former staff members of Wikimédia
>> France, and former chapter board members who have been openly questioning
>> the activities and aspects of the governance of the current leadership of
>> Wikimédia France. In the email from the CA, the signatories characterize
>> these volunteers, or the manner in which they have engaged in criticizing
>> the chapter leadership, as being unacceptable and destructive. We find
>> many
>> aspects of this public email disturbing and contrary to the values of the
>> Wikimedia movement.
>>
>>
>> The email from the Wikimédia France CA has brought the issues at Wikimédia
>> France to the public attention of many in the French Wikimedia community,
>> as well as to the broader global Wikimedia movement. Although this may be
>> the first public message some members of our Wikimedia community have
>> seen,
>> it follows months of other discussions within various Wikimedia committees
>> and governance bodies about the current governance and operations of
>> Wikimédia France.
>>
>>
>> As many of you may know, in May 2017, the Funds Dissemination Committee
>> (FDC), an independent committee of Wikimedia community members charged
>> with
>> helping “make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds,”
>> assessed Wikimédia France’s application for a 2017-2018 Annual Plan Grant.
>> The FDC made a recommendation
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendati
>> ons/2016-2017_round_2#Wikim.C3.A9dia_France>
>> to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board that Wikimédia France receive 50% of
>> the grant amount requested by the organization. The FDC recommendation
>> noted, among other things, that “there are significant concerns about
>> WMFR's current governance and organisational structure being able to most
>> effectively support and achieve the results sought."
>>
>>
>> Wikimédia France appealed the FDC’s recommendation. The Wikimedia
>> Foundation Board of Trustees considered and denied this appeal
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_
>> Board_on_the_recommendations_of_the_FDC#Board_decision>,
>> and resolved to accept
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Board_decisions/
>> 2016-2017_round_2>
>> the FDC’s recommendation. Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> Trustees endorses the need for a governance review, consistent with FDC
>> recommendations. Funding to Wikimédia France is conditional on a Wikimedia
>> Foundation staff site visit
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Policies/Site_visits>, a
>> governance review to be conducted by an independent, third party, to be
>> chosen in consultation with the Wikimedia Foundation, and progress against
>> recommendations resulting from the governance review.
>>
>>
>> The current situation with Wikimédia France is creating great strain on
>> the
>> French community,  former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and
>> concerned volunteers around the world. We recognize that the situation
>> must
>> be resolved soon, in the interests of the Wikimedia pro

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimédia France - informations sur la situation actuelle

2017-07-13 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks Natacha.

I see that 70 members have requested a General Assembly to be held. I
remember from WMFR's bylaws that 25% of the membership can force the board
to call a General Assembly, or do it themselves. Is this request formulated
in such a manner? What is the required threshold?

This is a terribly sad situation WMFR finds itself in. There are no
winners, and trying to continue this struggle can only create bigger losses
on all sides.

I hope an assembly can be held soon, and that a democratic decision can be
prepared there, where the membership can give its trust to a board - either
providing the current board (with a majority of board-appointed members, if
I understand correctly) with the much needed moral authority, or by
electing a new board that can start afresh.

This is why we have always put so much emphasis on having democratic
chapters where the members can in the end intervene.

Lodewijk
(snipping the messages below, as the software complains it's too long)


> 2017-07-13 10:21 GMT+02:00 Natacha Rault <n.ra...@me.com>:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> As some anglophone wikimedians wanted an English version, we have
>> translated the time line in English concerning what is happening in the
>> French chapter, although surely we still have to clarify and correct
>> mistakes. You can find it here: https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu
>> /wikimedia-timeline/indexEN.html <https://www.mathisbenguigui.e
>> u/wikimedia-timeline/indexEN.html>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Nattes à chat / Natacha
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/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 Announcements] June 2017 agenda of the Board of Trustees

2017-06-16 Thread Lodewijk
First of all: kudos to Stephen for getting the agenda more or less
consistently out before the meeting - that's already an improvement
compared to the past.

Of course any advance time would be helpful - but only if the board would
actually appreciate input. I believe the meeting schedule is regular enough
that community members could already suggest topics (not sure if the chair
or secretary would be the best point of entry for that), so there would
only be an added benefit if also supporting documents would be shared in
advance. I can imagine however that this would come at a very significant
cost - it would affect probably a whole lot of deadlines and make it harder
to make last minute updates.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> Can board agendas, as well as slides and docs which are not security or
> privacy sensitive, be published 2 weeks in advance of meetings, please?
> This will allow community members to provide comments and ask questions
> ahead of board meetings that the board can take into consideration when the
> meeting occurs.
>
> Thanks,
> Pine
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Stephen LaPorte <slapo...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The agenda for the next Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees meeting on
> > June 16, 2017 is now available on Meta Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.
> > org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_agenda_2017-06
> >
> > Best,
> > Stephen
> >
> > --
> > Stephen LaPorte
> > Senior Legal Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > *NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and
> > ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
> > community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
> capacity.
> > For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
> >
> > ___
> > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ___
> > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-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,
> <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] Closure of Beta Wikiversity

2017-05-16 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Milosh,

I'm afraid your arguments are not getting across to me. I understand you
don't like the quality, but I don't see the connection at all with the
structure it is set up in.

Also, while I appreciate you make the attempt here, you didn't add any
argumentation at all to this page you linked. If you go to that page, you
mostly see discussion from 2013 and 2015. No indication whatsoever of what
is the request, why it matters and why it would be open. No summary of
arguments, or reasoning.

If you want people to take this inquiry seriously, I suggest you look into
providing more structured information first. Otherwise, it's not hard to
predict the outcome of this round: nothing. Add the key information on the
top of the page please, if you're linking to it.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the pointer. On the proposal page, I'm missing a somewhat
> clear
> > and straightforward summary of the arguments in favor and against closing
> > (why is the request made, and what was considered). That seems like
> > valuable information for such discussion.
> >
> > Would you see the opportunity to summarize your view (or of the views of
> > the proposers) on the top of the page?
>
> In a little bit different words, I would say that Wikiversity has big
> ratio of embarrassment per language edition (I would avoid naming
> them, as they could be easily traced to the particular persons).
> Having in mind that Beta Wikiversity is presently the incubator for
> those projects, my position is that we should normalize it by moving
> the incubating process to the Incubator.
>
> There are other reasons listed here [1], most of which could be
> applied for Multilingual Wikisource, as well, but I see no reason why
> to the same with it, as the community of Multilingual Wikisource is
> doing a good job.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_
> projects/Move_Beta_Wikiversity_to_Incubator#Arguments_in_favor
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> 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] Closure of Beta Wikiversity

2017-05-16 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Milos,

Thanks for the pointer. On the proposal page, I'm missing a somewhat clear
and straightforward summary of the arguments in favor and against closing
(why is the request made, and what was considered). That seems like
valuable information for such discussion.

Would you see the opportunity to summarize your view (or of the views of
the proposers) on the top of the page?

Thanks in advance!

Lodewijk

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is the proposal for moving Beta Wikiversity into the Incubator
> [1]. According to the Closing project policy [2], the decision about
> closing projects is something done by particular members of the
> Language committee (while the Board could veto the decision).
>
> However, this is an unusual request with the positive positive outcome
> and I would like to hear wider community explicitly again.
>
> My position is -- and unless I get good arguments against I would send
> it to the Board -- that Beta Wikiversity should be closed, as it's a
> generator of projects lead by lunatics. "Academic freedom" has not
> been fruitful and any new request for Wikiversity should pass regular
> Incubator rules, inside of the curator environment fully trusted by
> the Language committee.
>
> The decision would be to move relevant content to the Incubator and
> let Incubator curators decide if any of the Beta Wikiversity admins
> should have adminship transferred. Beta Wikiversity would be closed
> and after some time (a year or two), it should be deleted.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_
> projects/Move_Beta_Wikiversity_to_Incubator
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> 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] Recognition of the Wikivoyage Association

2017-05-03 Thread Lodewijk
Very pleased to hear that the Wikivoyage Association, which exists longer
than most chapters and predates the adoption of Wikivoyage as a Wikimedia
projects. Recognition well deserved! I hope this will help expand their
userbase and activities.

Lodewijk

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.loks...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> the Wikivoyage Association [1] as a Wikimedia User Group.  The group plans
> to support Wikivoyage in various ways, including fundraising, promotion,
> and technical development.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikivoyage_Association
> ___
> 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] machine translation

2017-05-03 Thread Lodewijk
Reading this, I get a strong impression the problem may very well be in
setting expectations for the users of this translation tool. If they expect
the automated translation to be rather good, they may get fed up more
easily than when they consider it primarily a glorified dictionary.

Lodewijk

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 1:06 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Perhaps it would be a good idea to compare the translated text to the text
> that the user wants to save.
>
> If they are more than 95% the same, that means that the user didn't take
> the effort to correct the text.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Wojciech Pędzich <wpedz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It does depend a lot on the engagement level of the human behind the
> > keyboard. When I deal with machine-translated text, I simply wonder
> whether
> > the someone behind the keyboard took efforts to actually read the piece.
> >
> > Now whether this would work if limited to namespaces outside "main" - I
> do
> > not want to demonise the issue, but if the person submitting the text for
> > machine translation does not read it, what will stop them from a quick
> > ctrl+c / ctrl+v? Just asking.
> >
> > Wojciech
> >
> > W dniu 2017-05-03 o 09:33, Yaroslav Blanter pisze:
> >
> > Creating machine translations only in the draft space (or in the user
> space
> >> in the projects which do not have draft) could help.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Yaroslav
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexand...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it all depends on the level of engagement of the human
> translator.
> >>>
> >>> When the tool is used in the right way, it is a fantastic tool.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we can find better methods to nudge people toward taking their
> time
> >>> and really doing work on their translations.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Pharos
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> >>> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Content translation with Yandex is also a problem in Bengali Wikipedia.
> >>>> Some users have grown a tendency to create machine translated
> >>>> meaningless
> >>>> articles with this extension to increase edit count and article count.
> >>>>
> >>> This
> >>>
> >>>> has increased the workloads of admins to find and delete those
> articles.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yandex is not ready for many languages and it is better to shut it. We
> >>>> don't need it in Bengali.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> On May 3, 2017 12:17 AM, "John Erling Blad" <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually this _is_ about turning ContentTranslation off, that is what
> >>>>> several users in the community want. They block people using the
> >>>>>
> >>>> extension
> >>>>
> >>>>> and delete the translated articles. Use of ContentTranslation has
> >>>>>
> >>>> become
> >>>
> >>>> a
> >>>>
> >>>>>   rather contentious case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yandex as a general translation engine to be able to read some alien
> >>>>> language is quite good, but as an engine to produce written text it
> is
> >>>>>
> >>>> not
> >>>>
> >>>>> very good at all. In fact it often creates quite horrible Norwegian,
> >>>>>
> >>>> even
> >>>
> >>>> for closely related languages. One quite common problem is reordering
> >>>>>
> >>>> of
> >>>
> >>>> words into meaningless constructs, an other problem is reordering
> >>>>>
> >>>> lexical
> >>>
> >>>> gender in weird ways. The English preposition "a" is often translated
> >>>>>
> >>>> as
> >>>
> >>>> "en" in a propositional phrase, and then the gender is added to the
> >>>>> following phrase. That gives a translation of  "Oppland is a county
> >>>>>
> >>>> in…"
> >>>
> >>>>   i

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Turn the extension for ContentTranslation off?

2017-05-02 Thread Lodewijk
Hi John,

Could you provide a bit more context? From which language are you drawing
these experiences? Did you consider filing a phabricator request for the
technical component that can be improved (if so, could you link to it)?
Could you also provide some links to these discussions that are causing the
internal fighting you refer to?

I'd be curious to understand better what you're talking about before taking
a position. Thanks!

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-05-02 17:20 GMT+02:00 John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com>:

> Yes, I wonder if the extension for content translation should be turned
> off. Not because it is really bad, but because it allows creating
> translations that isn't quite good enough, and those translations creates
> fierce internal fighting between contributors.
>
> Some people use CT, and makes fairly good translations. Some are even
> excellent, especially some of those based on machine translations through
> the Apertium engine. Some are done manually and are usually fairly good,
> but those done with the Yandex engine are usually very poor. Sometimes it
> seems like the Yandex engine produce so many weird constructs that the
> translators simply gives up, but sometimes it also seems like the most
> common errors simply passes through. I guess people simply gets used to see
> those errors and does not view them as "errors" anymore.
>
> Brute force solution; turn the ContentTranslation off. Really stupid
> solution. The next solution; turn the Yandex engine off. That would solve a
> part of the problem. Kind of lousy solution though.
>
> What about adding a language model that warns when the language constructs
> gets to weird? It is like a "test" for the translation. The CT is used for
> creating a translation, but the language model is used for verifying if the
> translation is good enough. If it does not validate against the language
> model it should simply not be published to the main name space. It will
> still be possible to create a draft, but then the user is completely aware
> that the translation isn't good enough.
>
> Such a language model should be available as a test for any article, as it
> can be used as a quality measure for the article. It is really a quantity
> measure for the well-spokenness of the article, but that isn't quite so
> intuitive.
>
> The measure could simply be to color code the language constructs after how
> common they are, with background color for common constructs in white and
> really awful constructs in yellow.
>
> It could also use hints from other measurements, like readability,
> confusion and perplexity. Perhaps even such things as punctuation and
> markup.
>
> I believe users will get the idea pretty fast; only publish texts that are
> "white". It is a bit like tests for developers; they don't publish code
> that goes "red".
> ___
> 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] Fwd: [PRESS] Turkish authorities block Wikipedia

2017-04-29 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks Juliet.

All: maybe it's good to wait with 'community statements' until the official
WMF statement comes with some more facts? That would probably help with
reducing mixed messaging. Especially in a volatile situation like this,
where pushing the wrong buttons could potentially make things... more
complicated.

Thanks,
Lodewijk

2017-04-29 23:11 GMT+02:00 Juliet Barbara <jbarb...@wikimedia.org>:

> Thank you, everyone, for your messages regarding the situation in Turkey.
> As you can imagine, this has been a very busy time for the Wikimedia
> Foundation's Legal, Communications, Technical Operations, and Community
> Engagement departments, and we apologize for not being able to respond to
> Wikimedia-l sooner.
>
>
> We are planning to publish a statement on the Wikimedia blog soon. In the
> meantime, we have been handling media and other inquiries with the
> following short statement, which we shared with the Communications
> Committee (ComCom) earlier this morning:
>
>
> "The Wikimedia Foundation has learned that access to Wikipedia has been
> blocked in Turkey as of Saturday, April 29th. Wikipedia is a rich and
> valuable source of neutral, reliable information in hundreds of languages,
> written by volunteers around the world. We are committed to ensuring that
> Wikipedia remains available to the millions of people who rely on it in
> Turkey. To that end, we are actively working with outside counsel to seek
> judicial review of the decision affecting access to Wikipedia. We hope the
> issue can be resolved promptly."
>
>
> We will continue to do our best to monitor this discussion, but I ask for
> your patience as we are managing inquiries coming in from multiple places.
>
>
> If you are receiving media inquiries about this, please contact
> pr...@wikimedia.org and we will be able to assist you. At this point, we
> believe that the most valuable point Wikimedians can make on behalf of
> Wikipedia is explaining its value as an educational resource.
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Juliet
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > False dichotomy
> > Cheers,
> > P
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 April 2017 9:46 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [PRESS] Turkish authorities block
> Wikipedia
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > Then you want to say "We the undersigned do not [etc]".  Of course the
> > implication is that everyone else does ...
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> > rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Primarily this is those who sign the statement  on meta.
> > >
> > > On 29 Apr 2017 20:41, "Rogol Domedonfors" <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > If you cannot say who "We" are who do not support terrorism, then
> > > > your statement is both meaningless and ineffectual.  If you are
> > > > specific, then "we" need to know why you feel able to speak for "us".
> > > >
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:33 PM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @ Richard Thank you. I have adjusted that sentence to "We do not
> > > support
> > > > > terrorism."
> > > > >
> > > > > J
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> > > > > rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "As a movement" is a phrase which I have trouble with.  WhiIe
> > > > > > left it
> > > > is
> > > > > > very easy to make apple pie statements with little fear of
> > > > > contradiction, I
> > > > > > think it misees the point.  We provide information, neutral
> > > > information.
> > > > > > Perhaps we hope as individuals this discourages rather than
> > > encourages
> > > > > > certain forms of behaviour. But if we provided the information
> > > > > > with
> > > the
> > > > > > goal of, for example, opposing terrorism we would cease to be a
> > > > neutral,
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Smile thinks WMF is in Washington, incorporated 2003.

2017-04-11 Thread Lodewijk
Perhaps because that is where the checks are being collected for the
fundraiser? https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-04-11 10:12 GMT+02:00 David Richfield <davidrichfi...@gmail.com>:

> If you look up "Wikimedia" in Amazon Smile, you find "Wikimedia foundation
> Inc., Washington DC, Incorporation year 2003". Any idea why that is so?
>
> --
> David Richfield
> Nabburgerstraße 19, 81737 München
> +49 176 72663368
> ___
> 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] Communicating plans and consultations

2017-03-20 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks Fae.

Aside from what the initiator of the communication can do (in this case,
the WMF/affiliates), what could the community do to make their life easier?
It sounds to me like you're answering that with 'nothing'. Fair enough,
thanks for the response. Anyone has some ideas what might be improvements
on the community side of the communications?

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-20 11:35 GMT+01:00 Fæ <fae...@gmail.com>:

> I did, it's not my job to teach Communications theory to the WMF or all
> affiliates by writing 50 words in an email. There are plenty of books for
> that. Most define what Communication is, and how to measure its success,
> perfectly well.
>
> Fae
>
>
> On 20 Mar 2017 10:24, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> Would you be so kind and answer the question Lodewijk asked. We are all
> aware that things are not perfect but what is it that can be done to
> improve it?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 20 March 2017 at 10:58, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In practice what we (Wikimedians) see from WMF communications programmes
> is
> > widely spread announcements and sometimes an anonymous survey, again
> widely
> > spread. This is literally not 'communication', it is 'broadcasting'.
> >
> > For communication to be meaningful, your message must not only be sent to
> > the right stakeholders, but it is essential for the communication to be
> > two-way. This is why I find it especially frustrating to see generic
> posts
> > from the WMF sent by bots with no named person being the contact point.
> At
> > least with most emails sent to email lists, these are from a named person
> > and community members can respond to it, often with later replies from a
> > WMF employee.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 20 Mar 2017 09:51, "Peter Southwood" <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Might it be useful to analyse the community before trying to get
> > communication out of them? Then efforts can be directed to be more
> > representative of the various parts. OK, I understand that to analyse
> them
> > it needs some communication. But that is a specific and directed
> > communication. Work out what might be useful to know and ask everyone.
> Put
> > a survey link on talk page for logged in users, and a banner  for IP
> users.
> > We get this anyway for fundraising. Before going full scale, test the
> > survey on a small group, to find out what is wrong with it, fix the worst
> > problems, and be sure to allow comments and feedback.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Lodewijk
> > Sent: Monday, 20 March 2017 11:04 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Communicating plans and consultations
> >
> > Hi Pine,
> >
> > it's always easier of course to tell other people what they have to
> change,
> > which is why I'm asking the opposite question too :) What can we change,
> on
> > our end, to make communications easier for the WMF, for community members
> > that want to reach out, for chapters and other affiliates. All these are
> > having a hard time to get useful input from the community.
> >
> > There seem very few generally accepted approaches to that:
> > - using some mailing list, or some kind of forum that serves a part of
> the
> > community you think would be most relevant (such as this mailing list,
> the
> > wikitech mailing list etc).
> > - Going all out and doing a full scale consultation/RfC with banners and
> > everything. Gives you lots of comments.
> > - Doing a broad and translated approach through village pumps etc - gives
> > you a broad reach over languages, but within those languages still
> reaches
> > a specific part of the community.
> >
> > Those methods are typically either very expensive, or not very effective.
> > And I'm only talking about getting input here, not even about 'informing'
> > everyone.
> >
> > So what can we, as a community, change to facilitate better exchange of
> > ideas, experiences and provide input?
> >
> > Best
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > PS: I apologize to the people who read this kind of email for the n'th
> > time, it's not the first time I talk about this, I guess :)
> >
> > 2017-03-20 7:40 GMT+01:00 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Attempting to summon Chris Schilling over here from the other thread.
> (:
> > >
> > &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Communicating plans and consultations

2017-03-20 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Pine,

it's always easier of course to tell other people what they have to change,
which is why I'm asking the opposite question too :) What can we change, on
our end, to make communications easier for the WMF, for community members
that want to reach out, for chapters and other affiliates. All these are
having a hard time to get useful input from the community.

There seem very few generally accepted approaches to that:
- using some mailing list, or some kind of forum that serves a part of the
community you think would be most relevant (such as this mailing list, the
wikitech mailing list etc).
- Going all out and doing a full scale consultation/RfC with banners and
everything. Gives you lots of comments.
- Doing a broad and translated approach through village pumps etc - gives
you a broad reach over languages, but within those languages still reaches
a specific part of the community.

Those methods are typically either very expensive, or not very effective.
And I'm only talking about getting input here, not even about 'informing'
everyone.

So what can we, as a community, change to facilitate better exchange of
ideas, experiences and provide input?

Best
Lodewijk

PS: I apologize to the people who read this kind of email for the n'th
time, it's not the first time I talk about this, I guess :)

2017-03-20 7:40 GMT+01:00 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>:

> Attempting to summon Chris Schilling over here from the other thread. (:
>
> I think that some kind of analysis about optimal use of consultations and
> surveys would be beneficial, and I'd welcome seeing something like that in
> the next Annual Plan. Perhaps there might even be a consultation or survey
> about consultations or surveys, which I know sounds ironic but may be
> helpful in figuring out how much is too much or too little, timing,
> locations, etc.
>
> Information management is a big deal. We have watchlists, email, social
> media channels, Echo, and lots of other tools, but even so -- or perhaps
> because -- there are so many channels, it's easy to drown. I imagine that
> holds true for both staff and community members, and I'd welcome some
> initiatives to improve the situation. Perhaps someone will have some ideas
> that they can submit to IdeaLab.
>
> 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,
> <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] Communicating plans and consultations

2017-03-18 Thread Lodewijk
(branching this into a new thread as it gets quite off topic)

Pine: Why do you think the solution lies with the Wikimedia Foundation?

Lodewijk

2017-03-18 22:52 GMT+01:00 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>:

> My point is more or less the same one that you're making. Communications
> (too much and too little) and information overload are both challenges. I
> don't think there's going to be a silver bullet solution, but I hope that
> WMF will invest effort into addressing this set of problems during the next
> Annual Plan. Some of this is WMF-specific, but some of it also relates to
> how we've organized ourselves in the community through organic growth and
> over time we've developed so many channels that one wonders if we would
> benefit from some consolidation and pruning.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You mean, "how to deal with people who complain they weren't consulted
> > then turn around and complain they were excessively consulted"? At
> > this point, the appropriate thing would be to put forward a plausible
> > solution rather than complain they did the thing you claimed they
> > hadn't sufficiently done.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18 March 2017 at 20:39, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > That last paragraph assumes that people (1) know where to look and (2)
> > have
> > > hours to spend watching countless channels for announcements. On the
> > other
> > > hand, there's also a problem of burying people in so many
> announcements,
> > > surveys, and consultations that people start to tune it all out. This
> is
> > > part of a larger set of communications and "information overload"
> > problems
> > > that I'm hoping that WMF will address, particularly during its next
> > Annual
> > > Plan.
> > >
> > > 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,
> > <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 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] Announcing the Hardware donation program

2017-03-17 Thread Lodewijk
Sounds like a nice thought :) But maybe first go through this round, and
see how that works out? It sounds like a big challenge, and I'm really
curious how they are going to limit overhead. It still sounds like a big
project to me. So lets reduce the amount of community requests that may
make it more complicated to a minimum :P

If it works well, maybe you could look for some community member(s) that
want to help in scaling it up a bit?

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-17 18:19 GMT+01:00 Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrak...@gmail.com>:

> I wonder if it would make sense to solicit 3rd party laptop donations for
> this program? E.g. some businesses may be happy to donate their old laptops
> to Wikipedia volunteers...  I am not sure how big of an overhead it would
> be, but if WMF is already doing it, 20 vs 200 might not be a significant
> difference (?) .
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:14 PM Michael Maggs <mich...@maggs.name> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Asaf.  Did you know that there is already a Commons page for
> > Community donations?
> >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Equipment_exchange
> >
> > It would be worth linking your new Meta page to the existing one.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > > Asaf Bartov <mailto:abar...@wikimedia.org>
> > > 17 March 2017 at 6:06 am
> > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > The Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce a small new program
> > called
> > > the Hardware Donation Program. In a word, it is a program designed to
> > > donate depreciated (but fully working) hardware from the WMF office to
> > > community members who would put it to good use.
> > >
> > > The program, including instructions on how to apply, is described on
> > Meta,
> > > here:
> > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hardware_donation_program
> > >
> > > Please read the information carefully. I especially encourage you to
> pay
> > > attention to the program's design considerations, which determine most
> of
> > > the decisions we'll be making.
> > >
> > > We currently have approximately 20 laptops ready to be donated.
> > > Applications are welcome.
> > >
> > > The upcoming Wikimedia Conference in Berlin (in about two weeks) would
> be
> > > an excellent opportunity to deliver some of those laptops in person to
> > > approved applications, so if you think you might be interested, I'd
> > > encourage you to apply as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > Please also help spread the word about this program, by forwarding this
> > > e-mail to other Wikimedia lists you're on, and posting the link to the
> > > program page on village pumps and *community* (not public) social media
> > > channels or other communication forms you use.
> > >
> > > Special thanks to User:Anntinomy from Wikimedia Ukraine, who had the
> idea
> > > of asking about possible donation of older machines from WMF, and
> > inspired
> > > this program.
> > >
> > > Mini-FAQ:
> > >
> > > Q: Why are you doing this?
> > > A: WMF's Office IT determines a lifetime for work machines, and
> regularly
> > > replaces older machines. This creates a stock of older, working
> machines,
> > > that are available for donation. We can donate them locally to San
> > > Francisco charities, but figure that if we can find low-cost ways to
> > > deliver them to our own community members, that's so much better.
> > >
> > > Q: Am I eligible?
> > > A: Read the fine program documentation.
> > >
> > > Q: If I'm eligible, am I guaranteed a donated laptop?
> > > A: no.
> > >
> > > Q: Once these 20 laptops are donated, will there be others?
> > > A: yes, eventually.
> > >
> > > Q: How can you ensure people would use the machines for Wikimedia
> > > purposes?
> > > A: We can't. We'll be making a good-effort assessment of the likelihood
> > of
> > > Wikimedia use, and make a decision to donate (or not) the equipment.
> Once
> > > donated, the equipment no longer belongs to WMF. We encourage, but
> can't
> > > enforce, reporting on impact achieved using the equipment.
> > >
> > > Q: I need a few laptops for my event in two weeks! Can I get them
> through
> > > this program?
> > > A: No. Read the fine program documentation.
> > >
> > > Q: I'm really happy about this!
> > > A: So are we! :)
> > >
> > > Q: I'm really angry about this!

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sambad's 100 Women Editathon

2017-03-17 Thread Lodewijk
Wow, thanks for sharing Sailesh! It's exciting to see such a collaboration
with a newspaper on this topic, and to involve journalists in the writing
process.

I'm really curious to how you came to work together, and hope you'll share
a bit more for learning purposes on that.  Will this collaboration focus on
the newspaper as employer of potential Wikipedians, or will there also be
an effort down the line to encourage the readers to follow the example?

Exciting!

Lodewijk

2017-03-17 5:04 GMT+01:00 Sailesh Patnaik <sailesh.patnaik...@gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
> Inspired by BBC's 100 Women Editathon, The Odia Wikipedia community is
> organising an "100 Women Editathon" [1]in collaboration with the Sambad
> newspaper. Sambad is one of the largest circulated newspaper in Odisha and
> its Eastern Media ltd. is also a popular media house. The event is going to
> be organised in Sambad Bhavan on 18th and 19th March 2017. [2]
>
> The theme of this event is to write articles on women achievers of Odisha.
> The Sambad is interested in organising regular events in bridging the
> gender gap in content and will also provide images of Women from its
> archive.
>
> 1. https://or.wikipedia.org/s/13hj
> 2.
> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/women2019s-history-
> month-sambad-collaborates-with-odia-wikipedia-for-a-two-day-edit-a-thon
>
>
> Media mentions:
> 1.
> http://sambad.in/news/state/sambad-wikipedia-to-host-
> first-ever-100-women-edit-a-thon-in-india/40857.html
> 2.
> http://odishasuntimes.com/2017/03/15/sambad-wikipedia-
> to-host-100-women-edit-a-thon-in-odisha/
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Sailesh
> --
> ---
> *Sailesh Patnaik* "*ଶୈଳେଶ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ*"
> Programme Associate, Access To Knowledge
> Centre for Internet and Society
> Phone: +91-7537097770
> *LinkedIn* : https://www.linkedin.com/in/sailesh-patnaik-551a10b4
> *Twitter* : @saileshpat
>
> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality"
> ___
> 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] [Wikitech-l] AMD petition

2017-03-13 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Jim,

Could you clarify the relationship with Wikimedia on this? I'm missing the
link.

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-13 23:03 GMT+01:00 James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com>:

> Please join me in asking AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in
> their chips -- a chance to regain secure x86 hardware.
>
> https://www.change.org/p/advanced-micro-devices-amd-
> release-the-source-code-for-the-secure-processor-psp
>
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

2017-03-07 Thread Lodewijk
I believe we already have that in the upload form - this user chose not to
use it.

Someone mentioned earlier that if someone is of bad faith, they will always
find a way to fool the system. So lets not worry too much - I'm just saying
that this is a social issue even more than a technical one.

Lodewijk

2017-03-07 14:53 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>:

>  Could we set it up so that the uploader could set their preferred
> "Attribute me as..." text, if they want something different from the
> default? And make the facilities for generating it automatically more
> prominent?
>
> That would both help good faith uploaders to get better compliance without
> a lot of hassle, and hinder bad faith ones from setting traps. I see that
> as good for everyone.
>
> On Mar 7, 2017 6:35 AM, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>
> > Well, that would technically violate the terms as stated in the template.
> > The result of those buttons would be:
> > "By Taxiarchos228 (Own work) [FAL], via Wikimedia Commons"
> >
> > According to the detailed description it has to be (I think):
> > "By Wladyslaw Sojka, www.sojka.photo"
> > (from the description it's not even 100% clear to me whether the license
> > has to be mentioned).
> >
> > I'm not sure whether this kind of 'trapping' is part of the bad
> practices,
> > but given the stories I read so far, I wouldn't be surprised.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> >
> > 2017-03-07 13:16 GMT+01:00 Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Also, the MediaViewer offers HTML and plain text attribution, if you
> > press
> > > the right icons.
> > >
> > > Jonatan Svensson Glad
> > > Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons
> > >
> > > > On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:01, "wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
> > > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Re: a second commons,prevent cease and desist business
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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 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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

2017-03-07 Thread Lodewijk
Well, that would technically violate the terms as stated in the template.
The result of those buttons would be:
"By Taxiarchos228 (Own work) [FAL], via Wikimedia Commons"

According to the detailed description it has to be (I think):
"By Wladyslaw Sojka, www.sojka.photo"
(from the description it's not even 100% clear to me whether the license
has to be mentioned).

I'm not sure whether this kind of 'trapping' is part of the bad practices,
but given the stories I read so far, I wouldn't be surprised.

Lodewijk


2017-03-07 13:16 GMT+01:00 Jonatan Svensson Glad <gladjona...@outlook.com>:

> Also, the MediaViewer offers HTML and plain text attribution, if you press
> the right icons.
>
> Jonatan Svensson Glad
> Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons
>
> > On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:01, "wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > Re: a second commons,prevent cease and desist business
>
> ___
> 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] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

2017-03-06 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Gnagarra,

(in case others try to open the same link unsuccessfully as well: this one
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed>should
work)
The discussion is from 2013, and good to look back at indeed.

I don't disagree that there may be occasions where legal action is the most
reasonable approach. Maybe it would be better to define a 'best practice'
in that field as a community, a path that we consider commonly accepted? It
is really the (perceived?) excesses that triggered this discussion, I
think, not the typical wikimedian that tries to get credit where credit is
due.

Respect may indeed be the term that should take center stage. It is fine
that people expect reusers to respect the terms - but I guess some may have
a disagreement what 'respect' really means, and whether or not it can be
accomplished by hefty 'penalties' and fearmongering.

Lodewijk

2017-03-06 2:01 GMT+01:00 Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com>:

> Lodewijk, I posted ​on the 4th,
>
> > Licensing and the choices have been discussed on Commons https://commons
> .
> > wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
> is
> > well worth a read to understand the issue
>
>
> the problem of no attribution is a real issue sometimes I just ask for the
> company to fix that and other times I just ignore.  On one occasion I went
> to a lawyer because the company had put their copyright mark on my photo
> and was offering it for sale. The cases highlighted are trivial and should
> normally be dismissed by courts but using predatory behavior of lawyers
> does get rewards.
>
> I agree that the predatory behavior needs to be addressed but in doing so
> we shouldnt be excluding the opportunity for recourse when malicious
> behaviors of the end user occur.   A part of the free sharing of knowledge
> is ensuring the under lying laws and conditions that enable it are also
> respected by all parties. ​
>
> On 6 March 2017 at 08:03, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steinsplitter. Thanks for mentioning this was discussed multiple times
> > on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion on the German Wikipedia was actually
> > the trigger of this discussion, so we were aware of that existing. I
> didn't
> > see a reference to the discussions on Commons yet. Do you have links by
> any
> > chance?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-03-05 13:33 GMT+01:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <
> steinsplitter-w...@live.com
> > >:
> >
> > > This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
> > thus
> > > i see no need to discuss it here again.
> > >
> > > The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> > > speaks for itself.
> > >
> > > --Steinsplitter
> > >
> > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag
> > von
> > > rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> > > An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> > > business
> > >
> > > case 1:
> > > 
> > > to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> > > "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> > > 
> > >
> > > personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> > > people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> > > separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> > > you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> > > include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> > > etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> > > not ready for proper online usage.
> > >
> > > rupert
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the
> materials
> > > in
> > > > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that
> wanted
> > to
> > > > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the
> Netherlands).
> > > > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

2017-03-05 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Steinsplitter. Thanks for mentioning this was discussed multiple times
on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion on the German Wikipedia was actually
the trigger of this discussion, so we were aware of that existing. I didn't
see a reference to the discussions on Commons yet. Do you have links by any
chance?

Thanks,
Lodewijk

2017-03-05 13:33 GMT+01:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com>:

> This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp, thus
> i see no need to discuss it here again.
>
> The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> speaks for itself.
>
> --Steinsplitter
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
>
>
> 
> Von: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag von
> rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> business
>
> case 1:
> 
> to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> 
>
> personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> not ready for proper online usage.
>
> rupert
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
> > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
> in
> > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
> > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> > <http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-
> aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> > of
> > hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
> or this
> > website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677> to
> > pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> > contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> > behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia"
> to
> > find more examples and stories.
> >
> > Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> >> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> >> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> >> what we're actually talking about here?
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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 mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

2017-03-05 Thread Lodewijk
I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials in
good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted to
see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
<http://www.gulli.com/news/19712-abmahnung-wegen-bild-aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
of
hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name or this
website that was asked <https://historischdenken.hypotheses.org/3677> to
pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild wikipedia" to
find more examples and stories.

Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.

Lodewijk

2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>:

> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> what we're actually talking about here?
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

2017-03-04 Thread Lodewijk
I get the impression that the majority of the people in this subcommunity
feel that this decision is well on its place with the technical community,
that would be most heavily impacted by it.

So I'd say, lets leave it at that.

Lodewijk

2017-03-04 21:27 GMT+01:00 Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>:

> Well, one of us is in the wrong place.  I'm posting to the list described
> as "Discussion list for *the Wikimedia community* and the larger network of
> organizations [...] supporting its work." – my emphasis.  It seems that
> "This mailing list can, for example, be used for: [...]
>
> The initial planning phase of potential new Wikimedia projects and
> initiatives
> Organizational issues of the Wikimedia Foundation, chapter organizations,
> others
> Discussing the setup of local Wikimedia chapters
> Developing and evaluating grant-making programs
> Planning elections, polls and votes
> Discussion of projects that don't already have a mailing list
> Finding ways to raise funds
> Other Wikimedia-related issues
>
> My post relates to items 1,2,5 and 8 on that list.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > This list is *a* community but it certainly does not constitute The
> > Community™ nor are we the community affected by this code of conduct.
> >
> > I suggest raising this in venues appropriate to the particular community
> in
> > question, in this case the technical community. Before bringing this
> topic
> > here it would have been far more appropriate to raise your concerns on a
> > more aligned mailing list such as wikitech-l. All of whom would be
> affected
> > by the code of conduct and who have been notified regularly about it.
> >
> > I also suggest you keep in mind that the technical community does have a
> > higher percentage of staff members from many organisations in comparison
> to
> > the number of volunteers. Simply being staff members does not preclude
> them
> > from being a part of that community and does not preclude their ability
> to
> > participate in their own self-governance.
> >
> > It would be hypercritical of us if we as the wikimedia-l list were to
> > parachute into the governance of a community relatively few of us are a
> > part of.
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:30 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This assumes the relevant Community is here now on this very list,
> > > which is an extremely questionable assumption. As has been noted ad
> > > nauseam already. At this point this thread appears hard to distinguish
> > > from forum shopping.
> > >
> > > On 2 March 2017 at 17:16, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > I'm not asking Matt.  I'm asking the Community – here, now, on this
> > very
> > > > list.
> > > >
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Rogol,
> > > >>
> > > >> Please don't assume that Matt thinks that the TCoC is now in effect.
> > Try
> > > >> asking him, preferably on the relevant talk page.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm well aware of the challenges with the TCoC, but let's not make
> it
> > > more
> > > >> difficult than it is already, OK?
> > > >>
> > > >> Pine
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Matt Flaschen has declared the final amendment to the code of
> > conduct
> > > for
> > > >> > Wikimedia technical spaces approved and although he has not said
> so
> > > >> > explicitly, I assume that his current position is that it is now
> in
> > > >> force.
> > > >> > Even asuming that is correct, and previous consensus was against
> > that,
> > > >> andI
> > > >> > there is still signficiant disagreement on this list, it can
> hardly
> > > have
> > > >> > any practical effect until it is published.  But first --
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Does the Community accept that this Code of Conduct is now in
> force?
> > > >> >
> > > &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

2017-03-03 Thread Lodewijk
Sure, and I suspect most reasonable people will agree with that.

However, in the current legal construct, the author can decide whether to
apply that principle or not.

The question remains: if people apply principles that go way beyond that,
what do we do? I think question that was put in the German community is a
very realistic one, and if we don't tackle the issue, that may bite us
later. There is no correct answer though - because both using and not using
such image (or even deleting it) will have a downside to free knowledge.
Either we don't show a piece of free knowledge, or we risk that people stop
trusting our repository as a safe resource to reuse from.

There are multiple alternative approaches to the issue, besides stopping to
use the image (or even deleting it). One is to add a warning to the
description page. Rupert's proposal on this list is the mirror of that:
adding a 'marked as safe' notice (which is what using a separate project
basically is), for a subset of licenses that are considered reuse-friendly
(not just in theory, but also in practice).

I personally feel that would go too far - and that we should tackle the
actual problem: bad faith uploaders. This is, presumably, a very small
percentage, and marking them as such may go a long way. I could even
imagine prohibiting those users under certain circumstances to upload
further material, as they are abusing the system. But that is rather a
question for the Wikimedia Commons community, I suspect.

Lodewijk

2017-03-03 3:10 GMT+01:00 James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>:

> Agree with Todd. People should be given a chance to either remove the image
> or comply with the license before legal action is taken.
>
> Peter does this work better
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=aQPMAwAAQBAJ=gbs_navlinks_s
>
> J
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
> >
> > I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try
> to
> > attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones
> James
> > mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it
> > quite right.
> >
> > If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know
> > about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good
> faith
> > effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find
> > acceptable.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Todd,
> > >
> > > as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
> > > wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is
> > indeed
> > > what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
> > > (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the
> hope
> > > that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of
> > the
> > > license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies
> to
> > > that use, and they send them a bill.
> > >
> > > If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to
> the
> > > caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes
> > still
> > > be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some
> licenses,
> > > you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL)
> > which
> > > is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
> > >
> > > The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask
> publishers
> > to
> > > attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
> > > images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention
> of
> > > using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.
> > >
> > > (again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
> > > discussion)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > 2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an
> > > acknowledgement
> > > > to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
> > > >
> > > > It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a
> > caption.
> > > It
> > > > takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I
> > can
> > > > see why people are a bit put out when 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

2017-03-02 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Todd,

as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is indeed
what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
(presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope
that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of the
license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to
that use, and they send them a bill.

If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to the
caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes still
be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses,
you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL) which
is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.

The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers to
attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of
using 'abuse' of their photo as a business model.

(again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
discussion)

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>:

> The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement
> to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
>
> It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption. It
> takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
> see why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
> things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> material.
>
> Todd
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> >
> > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > work.
> >
> > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > sides.
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> > [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> > [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> > interview-mit-simplicius/
> >
> > best
> > rupert
> >
> > ___
> > 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/mailm

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

2017-03-01 Thread Lodewijk
I didn't see the banner, but the page definitely looks... 'funny'.

I'm especially confused on what the purpose of the campaign/page is, even
after reading the different sections. It mostly feels either like a
political statement about refugees (which takes very clearly center stage)
or an 'unfinished' page which is work in progress. The landing page is
confusing (why am i taken there? What am I supposed to discover?), the
'refugees' banner is repeated on each page (which seems to emphasize it
should be the focus) and there's a few (minor) errors to be improved
(visible paragraph separator characters in the sustaining donor list, the
balance sheet is claiming to span a whole year).

Is this perhaps still work in progress?

On the visual end, it looks great though. I love the chatting group of
Wikipedians as a background.

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-03-01 20:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org>:

> Hi James.
>
> You can find out more about the Endowment here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
>
> Seddon
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:54 PM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The statements Yair quoted are appropriate unless you believe
> > "empower" in the Foundation's Mission statement merely means "enable"
> > or "facilitate," without regard to economic or political power, so I'm
> > very glad to see them, as I am to see all of the eleven sections in
> > https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
> >
> > Yair omitted mention of the descriptions of how, in each of those
> > eleven cases, our volunteers are using Foundation projects to address
> > the identified issues. Those who think discussion of these issues
> > should be suppressed or are cause to leave could talk with the
> > volunteers whose work has been profiled so that both sides can
> > understand the motivations and concerns of the other. Maybe Roxana
> > Sordo or Andreas Weith are on this list and can address the concerns
> > raised about the description of their work directly? In any case, free
> > culture isn't compatible with prohibition of discussion and
> > censorship. And the impulses toward such suppression aren't rational,
> > given the extent to which the human endocrine system regulates
> > personal, group, hierarchical, and reciprocal relationships, as shown
> > in Table 1 on page 192 of Daphne Bugental's (2000) "Acquisition of the
> > Algorithms of Social Life: A Domain-Based Approach," in Psychological
> > Bulletin 126(2):187-219, at http://talknicer.com/Bugental2000.pdf
> >
> > Regarding the Annual Report financials, it looks like the investment
> > income the Foundation is earning has fallen below 1%. I don't think
> > it's fair to donors to hold $47 million dollars in cash and
> > equivalents as per https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
> > -- Are people waiting for the Endowment Committee to meet before
> > investing? Does anyone know when the Endowment Committee will ever
> > meet?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Yair Rand <yyairr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > An unscheduled CentralNotice just started running, linking to a rather
> > > bizarre page [1]. Purporting to be the WMF's 2016 Annual Report, it
> > starts
> > > off with some text about refugees. "FACT: Half of refugees are
> > school-age",
> > > followed by some completely unencyclopedic text about the topic: "That
> > > means 10 million children are away from their homes, their communities,
> > and
> > > their traditional education. Each refugee child’s experience is unique,
> > but
> > > every single one loses time from their important learning years. Many
> of
> > > them face the added pressure of being surrounded by new languages and
> > > cultures." The linked page goes on to detail some of Wikimedia's vision
> > and
> > > how Wikimedia projects aid refugee populations. Following that, we have
> > an
> > > entire page on climate change and some of its effects, similarly
> written
> > in
> > > a style that is not befitting the movement: "In 2015, [Wikimedian
> Andreas
> > > Weith] photographed starving polar bears in the Arctic. As the ice
> > > declines, so does their ability to find food. “It’s heartbreaking,” he
> > > says." After all that, we finally have some pages on interesting
> > statistics
> > > about Wikimedia, mixed in with some general odd facts about the world,
> > > followed by a call to donate. There are also letters from the ED and
> > > founder linked.
&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee personal accounts in the same community discussions

2017-02-27 Thread Lodewijk
I don't see that reasoning at all, actually. If roles are clearly separate,
having separate accounts is justifiable in my opinion.

When doing so in a way that could suggest larger support for a proposal
than is actually the case, it could make sense to make the connection
explicit in a disclosure (unless the connection is obvious). After all,
that is the main reason why communities have a problem with sockpuppetry.
In general it would be good to stay away with your personal account from
staff discussions and vice versa - although roles can change, and the
interest in a topic can remain after a job is finished. Buut in such cases,
disclosure may be needed.

I'm not sure why Fae is asking this question through this venue though -
but that is a discussion I recall from a week or so ago, so he's probably
aware of that.

Lodewijk



2017-02-27 19:30 GMT+01:00 Olatunde Isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com>:

> Well, I don't think the WMF staffer is acting in bad faith but I do think
> they need to stick to a single account to avoid confusion. That being said,
> I don't think a discussion like this is necessary here.
>
> Best,
>
> Isaac
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com>
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Mon,
> 27 Feb 2017 10:22:54
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using WMF employee accounts and employee
> personal
>  accounts in the same community discussions
>
> A very, very small improvement to be sure. I think the guy in question gets
> at it when he says that he was no longer using paid time to contribute to
> the discussion.
>
> Mods, do you intentionally let the list be used as a platform for this
> constant flow of "omg the wmf is evil"? I seems to recall
> hearing about days when useful discussions happened here.
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 10:18 AM, "Fæ" <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They have been repeatedly asked to stick to one account and refused to
> > do so. I suggest you read the other contributions from the account(s)
> > on the same page.
> >
> > Having an improved sockpuppeting policy would clear up any future
> > confusion by WMF employees or those that happen to interact with their
> > multiple accounts in discussions. However improvement here would be
> > made a lot easier if WMF HR stated what was their expected mixed usage
> > of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
> > employee in the same discussion.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here.
> > You
> > > could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
> > > accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it
> continues.
> > > I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
> > > curtious.
> > >
> > > On Feb 27, 2017 9:32 AM, "Fæ" <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Could someone with an appropriate level of managerial authority within
> > >> the WMF, such as an HR manager, confirm that staff accounts, which are
> > >> supposed to be identified with "(WMF)", are intended to be used for an
> > >> employee's job or contract role, rather than for personal editing and
> > >> publishing personal views?
> > >>
> > >> I ask this question after a long term employee has recently caused
> > >> confusion in a consensus building discussion, but refuses to stick to
> > >> one account when voting and expressing their personal views, making
> > >> this not a legitimate use of a staff account as this is outside of
> > >> their employed role. As the personal and employee accounts would
> > >> appear to most participants to represent the views of two separate
> > >> people, this can be judged as a breach of the local policy on
> > >> sockpuppet accounts, as well as a misuse of a staff account.
> > >>
> > >> I'm raising this here as the local policy appears insufficient to
> > >> convince the WMF employee that they are not using multiple accounts in
> > >> a legitimate way, consequently a clearer statement from the WMF may
> > >> help to refine the wording of the sockpuppet policy on 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] community survey request

2017-02-15 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Rogol,

A pattern seems to be developing, suggesting that you grab any opportunity
to question or attack the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't see any foundation
for your accusation, nor do I see a relevance for it in this thread.

This thread was pretty straightforward about a proposal/question, and some
follow-up questions about that. Could we please stick to that, and not get
diverted in such unconstructive manner? This would, at least by me, be very
much appreciated. Thank you.

Lodewijk

2017-02-14 22:11 GMT+01:00 Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>:

> Nathan,
>
> These are indeed excellent questions which should be asked before starting
> any survey.  I wish I could be confident that it is universal practice for
> the Foundation to undertake this exercise before each of the rather
> numerous surveys they make of the community, and always able to view, as
> transparency would require, the documentation of these issues before and
> after every one of those surveys.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What would your intended use of the results of such a survey be? How do
> you
> > think the community, or any group of people, should interpret, value and
> > react to the results?
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Bill Takatoshi <billtakato...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When a contentious question about the community's opinion is
> > > preventing consideration of one or more proposals, what is the best
> > > way forward, in general?
> > >
> > > I am considering commissioning a survey of community opinion from a
> > > neutral and respected third party who has published a well-received
> > > survey of English wikipedians a few years ago.
> > >
> > > The Foundation is not willing to help, in part because, "Reaching
> > > consensus on what wording to use, the quality of the results, and how
> > > to interpret the results will be very challenging and take significant
> > > amount of time." I would argue that not doing such a survey, or
> > > relying on opt-in methods like RFCs, are both worse than obtaining a
> > > respected third party to perform a straw poll of recent editors with
> > > an established history of contributions composed of a few unambiguous
> > > opinion questions.
> > >
> > > If I did this, would anyone object to a gofundme intended to recover
> > > the cost of commissioning the survey on a voluntary basis?
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <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] community survey request

2017-02-14 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Will,

It seems I'm missing some context here. I still don't understand what type
of survey we're talking about, what the intended purpose is and what would
be accomplished by such survey. You're talking about commissioning the
survey - from which capacity would you do that? What infrastructures do you
intend to use to get responses?

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-02-14 2:40 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi <billtakato...@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What would your intended use of the results of such a survey be? How do
> you
> > think the community, or any group of people, should interpret, value and
> > react to the results?
>
> I only intend that the results be published as soon as possible. As I
> pointed out over a week ago, several different people on this have
> made more than ten proposals, most of which can not reasonably be
> acted on until we know the opinions of the volunteer community.
> Without that information, none of the remaining proposals are likely
> to go anywhere.
>
> -Will
>
> ___
> 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] Thank you for your service, Wikimedia Hong Kong

2017-02-08 Thread Lodewijk
As the chapter status of Wikimedia Hong Kong has come to an end, I would
like to thank the volunteers at Wikimedia Hong Kong for their incredible
work over the past years. It is easy to start discussions about the
validity of the decision, or to play a blame game - but lets at least agree
some pretty cool stuff has been done over the past years.

Most of us will remember the Wikimania conference that was organized in
Hong Kong in 2013 - an amazing conference with an incredible amount of
volunteers that were collected from all over society to help welcome these
Wikipedians. Especially in their earliest years, I believe that Wikimedia
HK was active in supporting other Asian chapters to collaborate better and
grow.

Thank you, Wikimedians from Hong Kong, for your service! You have helped
the Wikimedia movement in Hong Kong a lot over the past years, and I hope
that we will still hear a lot from you in this new phase. The end of the
organization will hopefully not mean the end of your impactful work.

Best,

Lodewijk

2017-02-08 12:48 GMT+01:00 Wong Rover <ro...@wikimedia.hk>:

> Hi all,
>
> On behalf of WMHK, I would like to say something.
>
> Some may think it is pity that WMHK has been de-recognized. But the board
> of WMHK has actually already decided to disband the chapter.
>
> Although WMHK will cease to exist, I still hope the other chapters will
> continue to try their best in the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Regards,
> Rover Wong
> the last president of Wikimedia Hong Kong
>
> 2017年2月8日 下午7:10 於 "James Heilman" <jmh...@gmail.com> 寫道:
>
> > Thanks Kirill
> >
> > In my opinion this is reasonable. We need to have criteria for what
> > affiliation with the movement means and what it requires from those
> > affiliated. If the requirements are consistently not met than removing
> > official affiliation until it is is simply common practice.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.loks...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic
> > > organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent
> > > group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the
> Wikimedia
> > > mission. While most affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards
> > set
> > > forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
> > > been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia
> movement
> > > affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued
> > > recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate presents a risk to the
> > > Wikimedia movement.
> > >
> > > On September 9, 2016, Wikimedia Hong Kong was notified of their
> > suspension
> > > as a Wikimedia affiliate due to long standing non-compliance with
> > reporting
> > > requirements, and was provided with an explicit list of tasks and
> > deadlines
> > > in order to return to compliance with their chapter agreement. The
> > chapter
> > > failed to complete these tasks by the deadline of November 1, 2016, and
> > was
> > > consequently notified that they would no longer be recognized as a
> > > Wikimedia chapter after the termination of their Chapter Agreement on
> > > February 1, 2017.
> > >
> > > If you have questions about what this means for the community members
> in
> > > Wikimedia Hong Kong’s geographic area or language scope, we have put
> > > together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_
> > > affiliate_de-recognition_FAQ
> > > .
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kirill Lokshin
> > > Vice-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 <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Gerard,

I don't believe that the Language Committee is an affiliated organization -
so I'm not sure why affiliate requirements would apply. Or did I miss
something there?

Lodewijk

2017-02-05 10:22 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:

> Hoi,
> I fail to see who you are targeting and on what basis. My impression is
> that it only has to do with money.. I understand this. For other parts like
> the language committee there are no reports except for the activity on its
> mailing list. I fail to see why it has to report to anyone. It is not the
> task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
> Wikimedia board.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 5 February 2017 at 00:06, Maor Malul <mao...@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization,
> > or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to
> > officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While
> > most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set
> > forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
> > been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia
> affiliate
> > does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition
> as
> > a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement. This
> > protocol is outlined at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_
> > Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
> >
> > In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of
> > chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the
> > coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable
> to
> > return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have
> > their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations
> > will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia
> trademarks,
> > including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those
> agreements.
> >
> > For a list of affiliates and their compliance status, please consult the
> > reports page on Meta; there is also a page that lists formerly active
> > affiliates. If you have questions about what this means for community
> > members in the affected affiliates’ geographic area or language scope, we
> > have put together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliate
> > s/Affiliate_derecognition_FAQ
> >
> > Regards,
> > M.
> >
> > --
> > "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> > junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> > Maor Malul
> > Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> www.wikimedia.org.ve
> > <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
> > Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il <http://wikimedia.org.il
> >
> > Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > Twitter: @maor_x
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Save the dates: WikiCite 2017 • Vienna, May 23-25, 2017

2017-02-02 Thread Lodewijk
Hey Dario,

great to see you're working on this! It's a very important and key topic to
our movement, and deserves the dedicated attention. Especially interested
in the policy discussions!

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-02-02 4:05 GMT+01:00 Dario Taraborelli <dtarabore...@wikimedia.org>:

> It's been a while since the last official WikiCite update but I am thrilled
> to announce that we have dates confirmed for *WikiCite 2017
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2017>*.
>
> *WikiCite 2017* is a 3-day conference, summit and hack day hosted in
> *Vienna* on *May 23-25, 2017* (back to back with the Wikimedia Hackathon
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Hackathon_2017>).
>
> It expands efforts <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite/Newsletter>
> that started last year in Berlin with WikiCite 2016
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016> towards the creation of a
> bibliographic repository to serve open knowledge.
>
> WikiCite 2017 will be a venue to:
>
>1. present on progress of existing and new initiatives around citations
>and bibliographic data across Wikimedia projects (day 1: conference)
>2. discuss technical, social, outreach and policy directions (day 2:
>summit)
>3. get together to hack on new ideas and applications (day 3: hack day)
>
> For a summary of what was accomplished last year, you can read our report
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016/Report>.
>
> Additional details on the event, the application process for prospective
> participants, travel support requests, and information about the venue will
> be posted shortly on Meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2017>
> and via the mailing lists, but we wanted to share the dates as early as
> possible so you can save them in your calendar.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you there.
>
> Dario
> on behalf of the WikiCite 2017 organizers
>
>
>
>
> *Dario Taraborelli  *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> <http://twitter.com/readermeter>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

2017-01-27 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks Danny for the elaboration.

I don't want to contest the value of this work at all - sorry if that
seemed implied. I think it's an effort that may be quite necessary -
especially in some communities.

The set of tools you're describing to be developed, seem all to be related
to a process that eventually leads to blocking people off our sites. That
is what triggered my response. This process may be necessary in a number of
cases (unfortunately), and helpful for the community health. But it is all
'after the fact' - once harassment has taken place.

What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are
focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner. I'm
not sure how that would work out in practice, I don't have the solution
(although some ideas have been bouncing around). This work seems related to
bullying in general - which happens unfortunately in schools and
communities around the world - and research on this topic may help identify
methods that could have a preventive effect. I have yet to see a 100%
effective program, but it may strengthen the efforts for a healthier
community.

I can see that where these approaches are still investigated, or
non-technical, the community tech team may be less suitable for
implementing them. But I do want to express my hope that somewhere in the
Foundation (and affiliates), work is being done to also look at preventing
bullying and harassment - besides handling it effectively. And that you
maybe keep that work in mind, when developing these tools. Some overlap may
exist - for example, I could imagine that if the
harassment-identificationtool is reliable enough, it could trigger warnings
to users before they save their edit, or the scores could be used in admin
applications (and for others with example-functions). A more social
approach that is unrelated, would be to train community members on how to
respond to poisonous behavior. I'm just thinking out loud here, and others
may have much better approaches in mind (or actually work on them).

Hope that clarifies a bit,

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-01-27 17:24 GMT+01:00 Danny Horn <dh...@wikimedia.org>:

> The project has four focus areas, and blocking is just one of them. Here's
> the whole picture:
>
> * Detection and prevention: Using machine learning to help flag situations
> for admin review -- both text that looks like it's harassing and
> aggressive, as well as modeling patterns of user interaction, like stalking
> and hounding, before the situation gets out of control.
>
> * Reporting: Building a new system to encourage editors to reach out for
> help, in a way that's less chaotic and stressful than the current system.
>
> * Evaluation: Giving admins and others tools that help them evaluate
> harassment cases, and make good decisions.
>
> * Blocking: Making it more difficult for banned users to come back.
>
> We'll be actively working on all four areas. There aren't a ton of details
> right now about exactly what we'll build, for a couple reasons. The product
> manager and the analyst haven't started yet, and the research that they do
> will generate a lot of new ideas and insights. Also, we're going to work
> closely with the community -- talking to people with different roles and
> perspectives, and making plans in collaboration with contributors who are
> interested in these issues. So there's lots of work and thinking and
> consulting to do.
>
> But here's one idea that I'm personally excited about, which I think helps
> to explain why we're focusing on tools:
>
> Right now, when two people end up at AN/I, the only way to figure out whose
> version of the story to believe is by looking at individual, cherrypicked
> diffs. You can also look through the two editors' contributions, but if
> they're both active editors and the problem has been going on for a while,
> then it's very difficult to get a sense of what's going on. Sometimes it
> really matters who did what first, and you have to correlate the two
> contributions logs, and pay attention to timestamps.
>
> The idea is: build a tool that helps admins (and others) follow the "story"
> of this conflict. Look for the pages where the two editors have interacted,
> and show a timeline that helps you see what happened first, how they
> responded, and how the drama unfolded. That could reduce the time cost of
> investigating and evaluating considerably, making it much easier for an
> admin or mediator to get involved.
>
> There are lots of UI questions about how that would work and what it would
> look like, but I don't think it would be too difficult on the tech side.
> The information is already there in the contributions; it's just difficult
> to correlate by hand.
>
> Assuming it works, that tool could have a lot of good outcomes. Admins
> would be 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

2017-01-27 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Johan,

Thanks for the link, very insightful indeed. Glad to see these documents
public

Do I understand correctly that this particular initiative will focus on
fighting harassment, and not necessarily on preventing it? Basically in a
similar pattern that vandalism is fought on most wikipedia projects?

I really hope that prevention, education and (social) training will become
a major point in the overall agenda, but I can imagine that we can't pay
all that from the single grant :) So I just would like to place it in the
proper context.

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-01-27 10:14 GMT+01:00 Johan Jönsson <jjons...@wikimedia.org>:

> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > These are all very nice sentiments. But they're phrased in very vague
> ways.
> >
> > Is there anywhere we can see the actual concrete plan for the use of
> these
> > funds?
> >
> > Todd
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> You can take a look at the grant proposal (also linked to from
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative) here:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/
> Wikimedia_Foundation_grant_proposal_-_Anti-Harassment_
> Tools_For_Wikimedia_Projects_-_2017.pdf
>
> Pages 6–14 should be relevant.
>
> //Johan Jönsson
> --
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off

2017-01-24 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Anna,

Thanks for the quote. I read that in the email as well - but it doesn't
answer the interaction between the two timelines though. It's mostly the
interaction between the two processes I'm interested in at this point.

The moment that the candidates join the board could be many months later
than when the decision has been made. This actually was suggested as a best
practice, if I recall correctly, for an effective transfer of knowledge to
the incoming board members before they take up their duties.

I hope the board took this interaction between processes into account while
planning, but I suspect it at least didn't end up being possible. But maybe
Nataliia sees other ways how the timelines can support each other. I hope
they are not being developed in vacuum.

Best regards,
Lodewijk

2017-01-24 19:09 GMT+01:00 Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org>:

> Hello Lodewijk,
>
> Good to hear from you.
>
> In Nataliia's original email she wrote:
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently has two vacant
> appointed seats. We also have a vacant community-selected seat, but this
> seat will be filled through the community selection process. *The Election*
> *Committee, who runs the election process for community-selected seats,
> will*
> *provide further information about the process and timeline at a later
> date.*
> We hope to have all three candidates join the Board no later than Wikimania
> in August.
>
> Hope that helps.
> Warmly,
> /a
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Nataliia,
> >
> > Thanks for the update. It's promising to see a closed timeline for the
> > board recruitment.
> >
> > I am wondering though, when do you expect to wrap up the process for the
> > appointed seats? There's always been a lot of talk that the community and
> > affiliates don't take the needs of the board in certain areas into
> account
> > - and it would probably be good if the board could communicate back
> before
> > the election process starts what kind of expertise they're looking for.
> >
> > I guess that is not going to fly this time around, as you will be in the
> > middle of a search for the expert seats? Any chance these timelines may
> > support each other?
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2017-01-23 19:44 GMT+01:00 Nataliia Tymkiv <ntym...@wikimedia.org>:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > We would like to announce that we are officially beginning recruitment
> > for
> > > two open appointed positions on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> > Trustees.
> > > This email will outline the process and timeline for the recruitment.
> > >
> > > The Board initially began discussions on recruitment in May-June 2016
> > [1].
> > > After a pause, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has renewed
> > recruitment
> > > for its vacant appointed seats and would love to share an update with
> you
> > > today.
> > >
> > > With support from Anna Stillwell (from the Talent & Culture department)
> > and
> > > Michelle Paulson (our interim General Counsel), the BGC developed four
> > > candidate profiles for the vacant and soon-to-be-vacant seats and gave
> > its
> > > recommendations to the Board in December 2016.
> > >
> > > During its December meeting, the Board decided that it hopes to find
> the
> > > following types of experience and expertise:
> > >
> > >
> > >1.
> > >
> > >Growing a global movement: apply
> > ><https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/567318?gh_
> > > src=3vh7tx1#.WIZGvrYrL-Y>
> > >[2]
> > >2.
> > >
> > >Engaging new communities: apply
> > ><https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/567342?gh_
> > > src=b1ftgs1#.WIZL_FyzlP1>
> > >[3]
> > >3.
> > >
> > >Social sector governance: apply
> > ><https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/567375?gh_
> > > src=5gwopi1#.WIZMoFyzlP1>
> > >[4]
> > >
> > >
> > > After that Anna, Michelle, and the Communications team integrated Board
> > > feedback and developed recruitment materials, which include background
> > > information about the Wikimedia movement and Foundation as well as the
> > > profiles describing the types of candidates we are looking for. These
> > > recruitment materials can be found at:
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=55283092 [5].
&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off

2017-01-24 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Nataliia,

Thanks for the update. It's promising to see a closed timeline for the
board recruitment.

I am wondering though, when do you expect to wrap up the process for the
appointed seats? There's always been a lot of talk that the community and
affiliates don't take the needs of the board in certain areas into account
- and it would probably be good if the board could communicate back before
the election process starts what kind of expertise they're looking for.

I guess that is not going to fly this time around, as you will be in the
middle of a search for the expert seats? Any chance these timelines may
support each other?

Best,
Lodewijk

2017-01-23 19:44 GMT+01:00 Nataliia Tymkiv <ntym...@wikimedia.org>:

> Dear all,
>
> We would like to announce that we are officially beginning recruitment for
> two open appointed positions on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
> This email will outline the process and timeline for the recruitment.
>
> The Board initially began discussions on recruitment in May-June 2016 [1].
> After a pause, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has renewed recruitment
> for its vacant appointed seats and would love to share an update with you
> today.
>
> With support from Anna Stillwell (from the Talent & Culture department) and
> Michelle Paulson (our interim General Counsel), the BGC developed four
> candidate profiles for the vacant and soon-to-be-vacant seats and gave its
> recommendations to the Board in December 2016.
>
> During its December meeting, the Board decided that it hopes to find the
> following types of experience and expertise:
>
>
>1.
>
>Growing a global movement: apply
><https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/567318?gh_
> src=3vh7tx1#.WIZGvrYrL-Y>
>[2]
>2.
>
>Engaging new communities: apply
><https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/567342?gh_
> src=b1ftgs1#.WIZL_FyzlP1>
>[3]
>3.
>
>Social sector governance: apply
><https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/567375?gh_
> src=5gwopi1#.WIZMoFyzlP1>
>[4]
>
>
> After that Anna, Michelle, and the Communications team integrated Board
> feedback and developed recruitment materials, which include background
> information about the Wikimedia movement and Foundation as well as the
> profiles describing the types of candidates we are looking for. These
> recruitment materials can be found at:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=55283092 [5].
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently has two vacant
> appointed seats. We also have a vacant community-selected seat, but this
> seat will be filled through the community selection process. The Election
> Committee, who runs the election process for community-selected seats, will
> provide further information about the process and timeline at a later date.
> We hope to have all three candidates join the Board no later than Wikimania
> in August.
>
> We will begin accepting applications and referrals for these positions
> today and will close the submission period on Monday, 06 March 2017 at
> 17:00 PST. A more detailed timeline of the full recruitment process is
> available on Meta here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10176203 [6].
>
> Applicants may apply online at:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Work_with_us#Wikimedia_Careers. We
> also accept applications and referrals by email at
> board-nominati...@lists.wikimedia.org.
>
> Over the next six weeks, we invite you all to tell us about people who are
> potentially interested in serving the Wikimedia community on the Wikimedia
> Foundation Board of Trustees. And we look forward to hearing from you.
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_
> Governance_Committee/2016_competence_matrix
>
> [2]
> https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/567318?gh_src=3v
> h7tx1#.WIZMiFyzlP1
>
> [3]
> https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/567342?gh_src=b1
> ftgs1#.WIZL_FyzlP1
>
> [4]
> https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/567375?gh_src=5g
> wopi1#.WIZMoFyzlP1
>
> [5]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017_Board_Recruitin
> g_Candidate_Packet.pdf
>
> [6]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_
> Governance_Committee/Board_Recruitment
>
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mail

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

2016-12-22 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Chris,

I'd argue instead that we should strive to a consultation model or
structure so that it doesn't cost so much time and energy, that we limit it
to huge and obvious issues.

This is a very broadly phrased resolution, that I cannot out of hand
oversee the consequences of. The core of the resolution is: "Resolved, the
Board hereby delegates the authority to adopt, alter, and revoke policies
to the Executive Director, who may further delegate such authority to
Wikimedia Foundation staff as they deem appropriate;". The balancing
statement only speaks of policies for the Wikimedia Foundation. A possible
reading of this would be that the board now delegated basically all
authority (which is mostly symbolic, I guess) over community and
affiliation issues to the ED. It is unclear if this, for example, includes
affiliation approval.

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-12-22 14:19 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>:

> Personally I'd argue that WMF should only spend their (and everyone's) time
> and energy on consultation when it's a substantive issue.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Christophe,
> >
> > I'm afraid that does not answer my question. If it changes absolutely
> > nothing, it would be an unnecessary resolution. So surely there is
> > *something* that changes (and that doesn't have to be a bad thing), such
> as
> > improved clarity or legal certainty. But probably you're right - and this
> > is more symbolic than anything else. And in that sense your response also
> > feels more symbolic than anything else.
> >
> > If your statement 'I fail to see what community input could have brought'
> > truly reflects your opinion, that is quite saddening, and what I feared
> but
> > did not want to assume. It would be honest though, because it implies
> that
> > you wouldn't have changed your mind no matter what unimagined facts and
> > arguments the community may have come up with.
> >
> > The argument that the decision makers cannot imagine what the
> stakeholders
> > could bring to the discussion reflects an attitude that you have all the
> > facts - a denial that there may be things that you don't know to not
> know.
> >
> > I hope this is an unfortunate glitch (which can happen).
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2016-12-22 8:13 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner <chen...@wikimedia.org>:
> >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > I feel there might be a misunderstanding here :)
> > >
> > > Legal team has, for a long time now, always worked with the community
> on
> > > policy updates.
> > >
> > > I don't see that changing.
> > >
> > > This is a technical / legal delegation. I fail to see what community
> > input
> > > could have brought. We needed to be able to make changes to policies
> more
> > > easily, it is now possible.
> > >
> > > Does this mean it changes everything else, no.
> > >
> > > Le 21 déc. 2016 11:24 PM, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > Hi Christophe, all,
> > >
> > > I wonder, was there an urgency to pass this resolution, or did I miss
> the
> > > invitation for community members to give input on this proposal? It
> > doesn't
> > > look particularly sensitive so that it couldn't be shared in advance.
> It
> > > has potentially direct impact on the functioning of the community.
> Seems
> > > like a typical example where requesting input could be valuable. So I'd
> > > like to understand the thinking behind the chosen process a little
> > better.
> > >
> > > Basically I'd have liked the discussion in this thread to have been
> part
> > of
> > > the considerations, rather than a response to the resolution.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > 2016-12-21 4:45 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner <chen...@wikimedia.org>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Pine,
> > > >
> > > > If you don't mind I will address your different points separately.
> > > >
> > > > First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is
> indeed a
> > > > board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management.
> That
> > > > resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more
> > efficiently.
> > > It
> > > > doesn't remove our duty of oversight.
> > > >
> > > > I f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

2016-12-22 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Christophe,

I'm afraid that does not answer my question. If it changes absolutely
nothing, it would be an unnecessary resolution. So surely there is
*something* that changes (and that doesn't have to be a bad thing), such as
improved clarity or legal certainty. But probably you're right - and this
is more symbolic than anything else. And in that sense your response also
feels more symbolic than anything else.

If your statement 'I fail to see what community input could have brought'
truly reflects your opinion, that is quite saddening, and what I feared but
did not want to assume. It would be honest though, because it implies that
you wouldn't have changed your mind no matter what unimagined facts and
arguments the community may have come up with.

The argument that the decision makers cannot imagine what the stakeholders
could bring to the discussion reflects an attitude that you have all the
facts - a denial that there may be things that you don't know to not know.

I hope this is an unfortunate glitch (which can happen).

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-12-22 8:13 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner <chen...@wikimedia.org>:

> Hey,
>
> I feel there might be a misunderstanding here :)
>
> Legal team has, for a long time now, always worked with the community on
> policy updates.
>
> I don't see that changing.
>
> This is a technical / legal delegation. I fail to see what community input
> could have brought. We needed to be able to make changes to policies more
> easily, it is now possible.
>
> Does this mean it changes everything else, no.
>
> Le 21 déc. 2016 11:24 PM, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> a
> écrit :
>
> Hi Christophe, all,
>
> I wonder, was there an urgency to pass this resolution, or did I miss the
> invitation for community members to give input on this proposal? It doesn't
> look particularly sensitive so that it couldn't be shared in advance. It
> has potentially direct impact on the functioning of the community. Seems
> like a typical example where requesting input could be valuable. So I'd
> like to understand the thinking behind the chosen process a little better.
>
> Basically I'd have liked the discussion in this thread to have been part of
> the considerations, rather than a response to the resolution.
>
> Thanks,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-12-21 4:45 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner <chen...@wikimedia.org>:
>
> > Hi Pine,
> >
> > If you don't mind I will address your different points separately.
> >
> > First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a
> > board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That
> > resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more efficiently.
> It
> > doesn't remove our duty of oversight.
> >
> > I feel like you think delegating negates ones ability to provide
> > supervision, I would tend to think otherwise as delegating free time and
> > energy to focus on the core roles of a board.
> >
> > Second, the requirements to answer the community. I'm sorry, here I
> > answered quite spontaneously, you are right nothing forces us to.
> >
> > But, as I've said in my candidacy and in public some time I believe we
> > have, as WMF board, a leadership duty. And I also believe you lead by
> > example. I've always believed, in the movement, we are all partners. We
> > need each other to push forward our mission. You treat partners the way
> > yourself want to be treated by them. That is why I believe it is
> important
> > to communicate. It doesn't mean we have to see eye to eye on everything
> but
> > that when a question rise we should answer as much as we can. That's
> > something I've said to nearly everyone who reached out to me in the past
> > few month privately, my answer perhaps won't be the one you want, but at
> > least there will be an answer and an explanation every time I can. Like
> > right now actually :D
> >
> > Finally, regarding board governance review, Natalia, as chair of the BGC,
> > published minutes of our meetings[1], and that is a key topic we address
> > and not push aside. That being said it will be a board review, not one on
> > that specific event. We will be able to provide more information on that
> > topic soon I think :)
> >
> > I hope I answered your questions.
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > Board_Governance_Committee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Christophe HENNER
> > Chair of the board of trustees
> > chen...@wikimedia.org
> > +33650664739 <+33%206%2050%2066%2047%2039>
> >
> > twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

2016-12-21 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Christophe, all,

I wonder, was there an urgency to pass this resolution, or did I miss the
invitation for community members to give input on this proposal? It doesn't
look particularly sensitive so that it couldn't be shared in advance. It
has potentially direct impact on the functioning of the community. Seems
like a typical example where requesting input could be valuable. So I'd
like to understand the thinking behind the chosen process a little better.

Basically I'd have liked the discussion in this thread to have been part of
the considerations, rather than a response to the resolution.

Thanks,
Lodewijk

2016-12-21 4:45 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner <chen...@wikimedia.org>:

> Hi Pine,
>
> If you don't mind I will address your different points separately.
>
> First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a
> board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That
> resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more efficiently. It
> doesn't remove our duty of oversight.
>
> I feel like you think delegating negates ones ability to provide
> supervision, I would tend to think otherwise as delegating free time and
> energy to focus on the core roles of a board.
>
> Second, the requirements to answer the community. I'm sorry, here I
> answered quite spontaneously, you are right nothing forces us to.
>
> But, as I've said in my candidacy and in public some time I believe we
> have, as WMF board, a leadership duty. And I also believe you lead by
> example. I've always believed, in the movement, we are all partners. We
> need each other to push forward our mission. You treat partners the way
> yourself want to be treated by them. That is why I believe it is important
> to communicate. It doesn't mean we have to see eye to eye on everything but
> that when a question rise we should answer as much as we can. That's
> something I've said to nearly everyone who reached out to me in the past
> few month privately, my answer perhaps won't be the one you want, but at
> least there will be an answer and an explanation every time I can. Like
> right now actually :D
>
> Finally, regarding board governance review, Natalia, as chair of the BGC,
> published minutes of our meetings[1], and that is a key topic we address
> and not push aside. That being said it will be a board review, not one on
> that specific event. We will be able to provide more information on that
> topic soon I think :)
>
> I hope I answered your questions.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_Governance_Committee
>
>
>
>
> Christophe HENNER
> Chair of the board of trustees
> chen...@wikimedia.org
> +33650664739 <+33%206%2050%2066%2047%2039>
>
> twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Christophe,
> >
> > I wish it was true that the Board is required to answer the community's
> > questions, but that isn't the case. WMF isn't a membership organization,
> > there isn't a policy that requires the Board to be responsive to
> community
> > input and questions, and the community has limited ability to influence
> the
> > Board (though I think it is wise for the Board to listen).
> >
> > My perspective is that the 2015 board was not particularly responsive to
> > community (or WMF employees') questions or input, including questions and
> > input regarding human resources and governance matters. (For example, I
> > still haven't seen a good explanation of why WMF shouldn't undergo a
> > governance review in the wake of Doc James' dismissal; WMF has appeared
> to
> > try to brush that issue under the rug rather than address it with the
> level
> > of transparency and rigor that I feel it deserves.) Thankfully the level
> of
> > responsiveness has improved since 2015, but it's incorrect to say that
> the
> > Board is required to respond to community questions.
> >
> > The vague nature of the resolution as MZMcBride quotes it makes me
> > uncomfortable. I would suggest revising the language of this resolution
> so
> > that it is clearer which kinds of changes the Board will require the
> > Executive Director to submit to the WMF Board for approval. I realize
> that
> > it may seem expedient to grant the Executive Director wide latitude, but
> I
> > feel that the Board should provide more specificity, particularly given
> > what happened when the Board was apparently so lax with the supervision
> of
> > the previous Executive Director.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] documentaries about Wikipedia

2016-12-14 Thread Lodewijk
There's also this movie made because of the Erasmusprize:
https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-129

It's quite short though (9min), so not sure if it fits your purpose.

Lodewijk

2016-12-13 2:00 GMT+01:00 Joseph Fox <josephfoxw...@gmail.com>:

> There's the GLAM-Wiki documentary that Rock drum and I put together back in
> 2013 with the support of Wikimedia UK:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlNT16gqHyo
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_GLAM-Wiki_Revolution.webm
>
> It has translatable subtitles in a bunch of languages too :)
>
> best,
> Joe
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 at 13:11 Mardetanha <mardetanha.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks indeed everyone, if you later find something, I would be the most
> grateful if you could add it to this thread
>
> Mardetanha
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Victor Grigas <vgri...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > And one more from Wikimedia Argentina:
> >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soy_Wikipedista.webm
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > PS: One more video in that collection that was used:
> > >
> > > Wiki Loves Libraries 2013
> > > https://vimeo.com/78005986
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > While this is not a documentary per se, this video is a “reel” of the
> > > best
> > > > videos of the Wikimedia movement strung together that in the US,
> we’ve
> > > > played before edit-a-thons and events. It’s about 25 minutes in
> total,
> > > and
> > > > there’s a countdown timer in the upper left hand corner that helps
> give
> > > > folks a sense of when an event starts.
> > > >
> > > > We’ve found this helps provide some energy to the room and is useful
> > for
> > > > people new to the movement to see human faces behind projects all
> > around
> > > > the world. It was used at Wikiconference North America, the United
> > > Nations,
> > > > and Wikimedia DC edit-a-thons. You’re welcome to use it and to give
> us
> > > > ideas on how to improve it.
> > > >
> > > > https://vimeo.com/191543645
> > > >
> > > > Videos used:
> > > >
> > > > Edit 2015
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm1LKcHD1VE
> > > >
> > > > Mexico edit-a-thon
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KtOE39Hyw
> > > >
> > > > #BlackLifeMatters Wikipedia Edit-a-thon in Harlem, New York City
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbSaPf-9B6Q
> > > >
> > > > Summer Wikicamp 2015 - Armenia
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12g9645x6gA
> > > >
> > > > What is Wikipedia Zero? - Jimmy narration
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaZf6h0Pus8
> > > >
> > > > Wikimania 2016
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SufXYsbMI8E
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Innovation Hub
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVIGfA0WqI8
> > > >
> > > > The 2016 Wikimedia Hackathon in Jerusalem
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFR2_4GEnoQ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Andrew
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Mardetanha <
> mardetanha.w...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Dear all,
> > > >> We (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Wikimedians_User_Group)
> > > have
> > > >>  been invited to talk about Wikipedia in one of Iranian well-known
> and
> > > >> respected academic gatherings.
> > > >> As part of this we have 40 minute time to show a film (preferably a
> > > >> documentary ) about our movement, I am aware of
> > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_about_Wikipedia but I
> > would
> > > >> like to know if you have anything else in your disposal?
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >> Mardetanha
> > > >> ___
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor safety and anonymity: ending IP address exposure?

2016-11-12 Thread Lodewijk
While it is tempting to start with cons, I think for most of the community
members, the question will be: 'what alternatives are there to accomplish
more or less the same' with regards to fighting vandalism and sockpuppetry.
And answering that question would start with describing how we actually do
make use of this data. Sounds like a good process to go through, but this
puts more emphasis on 2).

Lodewijk

2016-11-12 21:36 GMT+01:00 Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com>:

> Point #1, with current means, will simply imply the end of countervandalism
> with IPs.
>
> Vito
>
> 2016-11-12 21:02 GMT+01:00 Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org>:
>
> > The biggest privacy problem in Wikipedia has always been the permanent
> > public exposure of casual editors' IP addresses.
> >
> > Secondarily, we store logged-in editors' IP addresses for a limited time,
> > exposing all editors' IP addresses to access by staff and volunteer
> > accounts which could be stolen or misused as well as to any potential
> > attacker who gains sufficient access to the database systems.
> >
> > I would like to suggest that the Wikimedia editor community, along with
> the
> > Wikimedia Foundation as steward of the software and servers, have a
> serious
> > consultation about committing to fix this:
> >
> >
> > 1) Eliminate IP address exposure for non-logged-in editors. Those editors
> > should be either given a random, truly anonymous identifier, or required
> to
> > create a pseudonym as a login.
> >
> > 2) Seriously think about how this will affect workflows tracking and
> > fighting vandalism, and provide tools that do not depend on public
> exposure
> > of network addresses.
> >
> > 3) Avoid public exposure or long-term logging of any other
> > location-specific or network-specific information about anonymous users.
> >
> > 4) Consider stronger controls on storage of IP addresses in the databases
> > and how they are secured, in the face of possible attacks through social
> > engineering, security vulnerabilities, or state action. Think about what
> > really needs to be stored and what types of data recovery are possible
> when
> > storing truly personal-private data in shared databases.
> >
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
> > Lead Software Architect, Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

2016-11-05 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Nataliia,

It would have been nice if you could have shared this a bit earlier, given
that apparently the board meeting is next week. This gives little time for
discussion of your proposal, on a topic that has received wide interest
previously. Perhaps that could be considered a point for improvement,
especially on these non-urgent reform topics. That gives you more time to
incorporate the feedback into your proposal.

I destilled a few different topics from your email:
1) Better onboarding processes
- sounds great to me. Please feel free to invite community members in
setting up such processes as well. I understood that something like that
was aimed to happen at past Wikimania, and that sounds like a good move!
Getting a clear 'synopsis' would probably also help, something that can
serve as a reference point to make sure that nothing is missing. I would
also advise the method I have seen some WMF employees use (but this may be
more time consuming), and that is to have the new board members do some
'interviews' or in general structured conversations with community members,
staff members and other stakeholders during their first months. Wikimania
is a great opportunity for that.

2) Changing the 'entry point' for appointed board members from January to
Wikimania
- May be sensible or not. The upside is that more things happen at once,
which means less repetition. The downside is that everything happens.. at
once. You'll have potentially a board meeting where 40% is brand new.
That's a lot. I don't have a strong preference either way, but whatever you
choose, I think it'd be good to introduce an observer status for upcoming
board members in the months leading up to their formal appointment - if
that doesn't exist yet - especially for people with less of a Wikimedia
background. You could use the January-Wikimania gap for that.

3) you propose longer terms
- 3 year terms are already quite long in my opinion. Continuity can happen
in two ways: because you force it to happen (i.e. by longer terms), or
because people get re-appointed/re-selected. In the past years there was a
lot of turnover in the community and chapter seats because the latter did
not happen: board members were not re-selected. There is probably some
relationship with how the board performance was appreciated by the
electorate. And one could argue that in such a case, it might maybe be
better to not force more continuity - because it also results in less
opportunity to improve the board when there's an observed need for that. In
this light, I would definitely not be in favour for lengthening the term
lengths other that the occasional 6 months to make entry points fit
together better.

I hope this caught the changes you're proposing? Please correct me if I
missed something.

Thanks for sharing though, and I hope that you'll engage in a constructive
discussion despite the short time left before the board meeting :)

Best,
Lodewijk



2016-11-05 13:07 GMT+01:00 Nataliia Tymkiv <ntym...@wikimedia.org>:

> Hi all,
>
> I am forking a discussion on Wikimedia Foundation Board of trustees vacant
> appointed seat(s) and turnover at this point.
>
> == The Board members start and end terms (Turnover) ==
> I have drafted here three charts indicating the starting and ending of the
> terms of the Board members:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_
> Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_terms
>
> The first chart shows how it will go now, if nothing is changed.
>
> As you can see we have a lot of onboarding / offboarding even without
> anything extraordinary happening, and it means that the Board has scarcely
> any time to work as a team and concentrate on things beyond looking for new
> people and onboarding them.
>
> The picture is "darkened" by the fact that the onboarding process is not
> formalized enough and I would rather concentrate on working on improving
> the onboarding process, so we have it in place when new members join,
> rather then rush to appoint new Trustees.
>
> We had a discussion about it in the Board Governanace Committee (BGC), and
> it seems that having less on- and off-boardings-points per year (f.ex., at
> Wikimania) should be something to plan for. And less people joining per
> year.
>
> The second and third charts illustrate this idea: every year three new
> trustees join the Board, with the community-, affiliates- and appointed
> seats joining in different years (well, one appointed seat join together
> with the affiliates).
>
> Of course the transition period will be a challenge. But it should improve
> the workflow.
>
> == Continuity ==
> The second and third charts also suggests that the terms are extended. WMF
> had a really turbulent last two years, this Board (from my perspective)
> needs some time to work together as a group, so (again, my perspective) I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 - 2016 Fundraising Report just published

2016-10-01 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Sam,

Thanks. One question that I keep hearing from our volunteers, from our real
life organisers and other stakeholders, as well as the press is how the
amounts are broken up by country. This would be very helpful information,
and would help us to place best practices better. It has been asked for
several years in a row now, and it would be great if this information could
be released. I understand there are some privacy concerns for some of the
smaller countries, where you could perhaps round it off to the nearest
round number or something? Both number of donors and amount would be very
helpful! Or is this already being published somewhere?

Thanks,

Lodewijk

2016-10-01 3:14 GMT+02:00 Lucas Teles <telesw...@gmail.com>:

> Wow... the increasing donation on Latin America is really impressive!
>
> Is there any specific country that helped more on that?
>
> Teles
>
> Em sexta-feira, 30 de setembro de 2016, Samuel Patton <
> spat...@wikimedia.org>
> escreveu:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > My name is Sam and I'm part of the online fundraising team. I'm writing
> to
> > let you know that we just published our 2015 - 2016 Fundraising Report,
> and
> > would love for you to check it out.
> >
> > Link here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2015-2016_
> > Fundraising_Report
> >
> > I've been a happy and small part of the fundraising team for almost two
> > years. And I think I speak for everyone when I say *thank you* for the
> time
> > and energy you put into making the Wikimedia projects the vibrant,
> > priceless resources that they are for millions of people around the
> planet.
> > It's a joy to help share your work with the world.
> >
> > Let us know what you think and what we can clarify.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sam
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Steward for Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and
> Wikimedia Commons.
> Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.
>
> +55 (71) 99707 6409
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FW: My final email

2016-08-17 Thread Lodewijk
And, I presume, password reminders, Wikipedia system emails, talkpage
notification emails, incidental invitations for research participation etc?
That would at least be the by me expected behaviour.

I guess there's a more accurate description for the unsubscribe link
imaginable in that case though :) (for future improvements)

Lodewijk

2016-08-17 14:39 GMT+02:00 Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org>:

> Hey Peter,
>
> So you can unsubscribe from the fundraising and WMF newsletter emails via
> that form and you will remain on lists such as Wikimedia-l.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > That link says "Unsubscribe from Wikimedia Email" I am subscribed to a
> > whole lot of email from Wikimedia. I only want to unsubscribe from that
> > specific one.
> > Problem? Vague and unspecific information and suggestion of possible
> > unspecified consequences. Unfortunately this is the kind of language I
> have
> > come to expect from Jimmy, and why I don't take anything he writes at
> face
> > value.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of John Mark Vandenberg
> > Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2016 11:31 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] FW: My final email
> >
> > What is https://www.pages04.net/ ?
> >
> > WMF has given them a copy of (a subset of..?) the donor email list, as
> > this link has Peter's email address on the page:
> >
> > https://www.pages04.net/wikimedia/WMFUnsubscribe/
> Unsubscribe?spMailingID=
> > 52077018=Mzk5NjI0Mzk2ODUS1=OTgyOTg3MDUyS0=
> > OTgyOTg3MDUyS0
> >
> > If you dont want to try that link, the following will give you a general
> > idea of the form donors are being directed to:
> >
> > https://www.pages04.net/wikimedia/WMFUnsubscribe/
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > -
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4647/12824 - Release Date:
> 08/17/16
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Israel received a grant to work with Arabic speaking gifted students

2016-08-08 Thread Lodewijk
Always glad to see more external grants kick in :) Not only because of the
funding, but because it represents a level of appreciation for good
programmes and directions.

Keep up the good work!

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-08-07 8:34 GMT+02:00 ido ivri <idoi...@gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> We are pleased to announce that Wikimedia Israel received a grant from an
> Israeli Charitable Foundation to replicate its successful program of
> working with gifted students on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and expand it to
> gifted Arabic speaking students in Israel to edit Arabic Wikipedia.
>
> We're excited by the opportunity to support work in more languages spoken
> in Israel, as well as expand our reach to new audiences.
>
> In preparation for this grant, Wikimedia Israel team has performed some
> exploratory work in an Arabic speaking school in Israel for the past year,
> and translated the instructional materials to Arabic. This great work has
> been carried on by Shay Katz and Dror Kamir (respectively), and we want to
> take this opportunity to thank them. Last but not least, we want to thank
> Michal who made it through some pretty stressful deadlines for writing and
> submitting the request.
>
> On behalf of the WMIL Board,
>
> Ido Ivri,
> Board Secretary
> Wikimedia Israel
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Israel and the Israeli News Company bring new video content to the Wikimedia projects

2016-07-07 Thread Lodewijk
Hey Itzik,

very nice, thanks for sharing!

Can you confirm that the music used is also free? It is so generally
appliccable, that the raw music files might also be useful to upload as
such.

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-07-07 9:53 GMT+02:00 Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <it...@wikimedia.org.il>:

> Hi,
>
> We happy announce a new partnership with the Israeli News Company, which
> produces the primetime news program on Israel’s Channel 2. For the past 23
> years, Channel 2 News has covered the history of Israel and the Middle
> East, as well as events around the world.
>
> The partnership is aiming to introduce a hundred new video files
> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Israel_-_Channel_2_videos
> >
>  on current affairs to be added, remixed, and shared on the Wikimedia
> projects. Videos cover footage from important historical events like the
> Oslo
> Accords
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Channel2_-_Oslo_Accords.webm>,
> the Israel–Jordan
> peace treaty
> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Channel_2_-_Israel%E2%80%93Jordan_peace_treaty.webm
> >
> ,Jerusalem and the Western Wall
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Channel_2_-_Jerusalem.webm>, the
> Dead
> Sea <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Channel2_-_Dead_Sea.webm> and
> even videos of Japan
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Channel_2_-_Japan.webm>and India
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Channel_2_-_India.webm>, footage
> of Israeli leaders such as Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu
> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Channel_2_-_Benjamin_Netanyahu.webm
> >
> , President Reuven (Ruvi) Rivlin
> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Channel_2_-_Reuven_(Ruvi)_Rivlin.webm
> >,
> former *President *Shimon Peres
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Channel2_-_Shimon_Peres.webm> and
> more
>
> You can read more about it on the Wikimedia blog:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/07/06/israel-video-wikimedia/
> Our volunteers already started to embed this video on Wikipedia articles in
> many languages. You are welcome to help in your language!. See project page
> on HEWP for more information:
>
> https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94:%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%96%D7%9D_%D7%95%D7%99%D7%93%D7%90%D7%95_%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA_2
>
> You are welcome to visit the project page on Commons to see what video
> files are available and request other videos!
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Channel_2_(Israel)_project
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Damage compensation to photographer for violation of license of a photo taken from Commons

2016-06-28 Thread Lodewijk
lol, I thought you were talking about another 'event' until I saw the
link... (A)

Lodewijk

2016-06-28 16:51 GMT+02:00 Cristian Consonni <kikkocrist...@gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Last week a small case of copyright violation come to a positive
> conclusion.
>
> Niccolò Caranti [[User:Jaqen]] is a Wikipedian and as a professional
> photographer also a very prolific Commons contributor to the point
> that he is a sysop both on itwiki and Commons.
>
> He recently discovered that one of his photos was used for an event
> without respecting the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, i.e. without
> proper attribution to him and reference to the license.
>
> Supported by Simone Aliprandi - a lawyer specializing in intellectual
> property and author of a number of (free/libre) books on the topic of
> licenses and Creative Commons in particular - they sent a formal
> request to the organizers of the event.
>
> The issue has been resolved amicably with all legal costs paid by the
> agency that was working for the organizers of the event (who admitted
> their mistake) and a compensation for the author.
>
> You can read more about this case here:
>
> https://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2016/06/photo-from-wikipedia-violation-license-caranti.html
>
> Cristian
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clarifications on 2014 Form 990

2016-06-08 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks Patricio for the clarifying answer. These specified numbers put the
whole story in a different perspective. While I'm sure that many people
still find these numbers to be very high (including myself), the WMF is
currently operating in a context of San Francisco, and that pushes numbers
up. Activity expectations for a 50k compensation compared to a 300k
compensation are also quite different, so this updated information puts to
rest quite a bit of questions.

The 40h statement in the 990 remains odd, but I'm indeed confident that Sue
made many more than those in the first months of 2014... I guess we can't
really blame the WMF for how the 990 form is set up.

I do hope that in the future the board will indeed make it explicit if an
advisory role, that could be confused for a totally volunteer role, is
compensated. Perhaps you could confirm still that this was quite a
one-of-a-kind situation (as Sue is also quite one-of-a-kind with all her
experience!) and that no other 'advisors' are paid compensation for their
time? (I'm thinking about advisory board, endowment advisors, FDC, AffCom
and what else).

Thanks!

Lodewijk

2016-06-08 7:31 GMT+02:00 Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgr...@gmail.com>:

> Thanks Patricio for the detailed answer which fully eliminated my concerns.
> One thing that bothers me all the time is the very late answer from the
> board. I'm pretty sure so many comments about Sue wouldn't be said if you
> sent this response earlier. We've been through this that these statements
> needs to be checked by the board, legal, probably comms, etc. and I
> understand it's time consuming but this is another case of a publicity
> crisis that could've been avoided by a faster response.
>
> Do you have any plans to improve this?
> Best
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:40 AM Kat Walsh <k...@mindspillage.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:50 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > > Patricio Lorente wrote:
> > >>We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
> > >>provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation
> during
> > >>this time.
> > >
> > > Thank you for this e-mail.
> > >
> > >>One point of confusion is for the period this compensation covers. This
> > is
> > >>reasonable, this confused even some of us involved in preparing this
> > >>response. Although the majority of activities reported on the Form 990
> > >>cover the Foundation’s fiscal year (specifically, the six months
> between
> > >>July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015), the IRS requires that details about
> > >>compensation for certain highly-paid individuals are for the full
> > calendar
> > >>year in which the fiscal year begins or ends.
> > >
> > > This parenthetical confused me. Six months from July 2014 to June 2015?
> > >
> > >>(2) Retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost opportunities during the
> > >>transition period: $165,000.
> > >
> > > This is the key piece that I think most people didn't understand or
> > > realize. Was this information published anywhere previously (e.g., in
> the
> > > Board minutes)? I wouldn't expect to see an exact amount, of course,
> but
> > > this is a pretty substantial amount of donor money, so I'd expect at
> > least
> > > a "we approved a retention bonus for special advisor Sue Gardner"-type
> > > notice somewhere, typically on wikimediafoundation.org.
> > >
> > >>Sue’s special advisor status with the Foundation ended on May 31, 2016,
> > >>and she is no longer on contract with the Foundation or receiving any
> > >>compensation from it.
> > >
> > > I can't help but think about the tempestuous past year that the
> Wikimedia
> > > Foundation has had, including issues with Sue's immediate successor.
> >
> > I left the board in the middle of this process, so I was present for
> > part of the discussions around what would happen but not all of it,
> > and my understanding may be out of date.
> >
> > The understanding I left with is that the Special Advisor role would
> > be created and would be paid regardless of whether she was actually
> > being consulted--so that the outgoing ED would continue to reserve
> > time to be available, and the new ED would not have a financial
> > incentive to end the relationship early. However, this doesn't
> > guarantee that the relationship would continue to any significant
> > degree, only that the consulting time was already reserved and paid
> > for.
> >
> > -Kat
> >
> > ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

2016-06-06 Thread Lodewijk
From Sue's response to a similar question in 2009 I found the following
link with some stats:
http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/knowledgebase/detail.php?linkID=214=118=2579

it seems it is quite common to get the extensions, and I'm assuming the WMF
did that again in the past years. But someone from admin can probably
confirm.

Lodewijk

2016-06-06 19:20 GMT+02:00 James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>:

> Upon reviewing this 990 form:
>
> It says May 9th 2016 on the bottom which I assume is the date of filing.
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/27/Form_990_FY_2014-2015_-_Public.pdf
> Publication was the 18th of May
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Financial_reports=revision=105825=104020
>
> This form was for the period ending June 30, 2015. Now the IRS states on
> page 5 of this document that these forms are to be filled by the 15th day
> of the 5th months after that date which would be Nov 15th, 2015.
> https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i990.pdf
>
> Why was this form published 6 months late? Did we pay the $18,000 late fee
> or were multiple 3 month extensions applied for? Do we expect next year's
> 990 to be published by the deadline?
>
> Best
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

2016-06-04 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Greg,

Thanks for the eventual answer - I can understand that salaries/HR are a
complicated issue to comment on. I'm sorry I have to press on a bit more to
get an answer to my questions though.

I did note the answers Patricio gave to the Signpost
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-05-28/Special_report>.
I did miss your answer on my question whether this was a full time, or near
a fulltime position (for the period concerning this salary) - quite an
important figure to estimate the meaning of 'a role of this nature in
organizations of similar size to the Wikimedia Foundation'.

The information available does suggest however that this was quite a steep
salary increase with a decrease in responsibilities. I'm not sure that is a
fair representation of the situation (I hope not), but that is what it
looks like to me, based on the available information.

Based on the compensation size, Sue played continued to play a very
significant role in the WMF. I'm glad that she remained available for that,
as the board apparently felt a need for it. However, despite that important
role and significant compensation, she was not mentioned on the list of
'staff and contractors' since she was replaced by Lila in June 2014
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AStaff_and_contractors=revision=96993=96984>
.

This remains contradictory, and that is why I'm trying to get some clarity
on the role Sue played in the past two years. The tasks described by
Patricio in his response to the Signpost sound to me (but I might be naive
in this) to be mostly relevant to the initial transition period, and not to
span 2 years. Is Patricio underselling Sue's involvement and was there a
reason not to mention her as contractor? Am I somehow misunderstanding the
compensation issue (i.e. was there a compensation for earlier years, or was
it lowered)?

Maybe I'm missing something here - if so, please point it out! Thanks in
advance.

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-06-05 0:18 GMT+02:00 Greg Varnum <gvar...@wikimedia.org>:

> Greetings,
>
> Apologies for our delay in this response. In addition to the holiday
> weekend, questions related to HR issues require extra care and verification
> on our part. But again, I do want to apologize for that process taking all
> week.
>
> Regarding Lodewijk's questions about Sue's special advisor role, including
> the timeline and how compensation was set, Sue served as a special advisor
> until May 31, 2016. Her pay included compensation for her extended role
> during the ED transition, and to match market rates for a role of this
> nature in organizations of similar size to the Wikimedia Foundation. Our
> Board Chair, Patricio Lorente, gave a response to the Signpost that
> provides more information[1].
>
> John asked about filing and other fees paid by Jones Day, and if the fees
> were separate from consulting costs. Unfortunately, we don’t have an easy,
> quick way to divide the Jones Day expenses into registration fees and legal
> fees, but we can provide more information about where the costs came from.
> Each trademark application costs about $1,000–5,000 (sometimes more),
> including filing fees and attorney’s fees. The cost for each application
> depends on the country’s application fees, the country’s administrative
> hurdles, the breadth of protection we are seeking, whether we can reuse
> materials prepared for previous applications, and whether we encounter
> resistance from trademark offices or other trademark holders.
>
> Finally, regarding John's question about non-program service investment in
> Europe (page 35), this represents our foreign currency bank accounts with
> JP Morgan in the UK. The purpose of this holding is to retain donations
> received in EUR, GBP, CAD and AUD in their original currency to minimize
> currency exchange risks.
>
> I hope that clarifies the remaining questions, and again, thank you for
> your questions and feedback both on this list and elsewhere.
>
> -Gregory Varnum
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 1.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-05-28/Special_report
>
>
> > On May 31, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Greg Varnum <gvar...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I just wanted to verify that we will be sending out answers to these
> additional questions. This past weekend was a holiday in the United States,
> and so we have not yet finished gathering the information to give accurate
> response.
> >
> > Thank you for your patience, and please let me know if you have any
> additional questions.
> > Gregory Varnum
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> >> On May 31, 2016, at 4:16 AM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

2016-05-31 Thread Lodewijk
Hi,

Unfortunately I haven't seen an answer to my questions. Could you please
acknowledge the receipt of the question if you're investigating? Or could
you just say it is a ridiculous question and that you refuse to answer, if
you think so? From the more elaborate answer on the Signpost questions, I
understand that the role continues to this day - which makes it probably
more relevant.

Please don't retreat in silence again.

Lodewijk

2016-05-25 14:39 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>:

> Thanks Greg for the responses.
>
> As for the ED team, that answers part of my question. That Sue was
> appointed as special advisor, was indeed public knowledge - but for what
> duration was that? And was that a full time position (or anything near full
> time), given that her compensation was as high as that of the ED herself?
> People suggested that this included compensation for earlier years - was
> that the case? That would explain again a bit more.
>
> Also part of the question was why the raise was so steep - was this simply
> matching the reality of the current job market, or was there something else
> behind it (i.e. a bonus mechanism etc).
>
> It would be great if you could clarify! Thanks!
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-05-25 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Varnum <gvar...@wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Greetings,
>> >
>> > Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the
>> Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990.
>> >
>> > Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling
>> US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our
>> global reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to strengthen
>> the trademark portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s marks
>> globally. In December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our global
>> trademark filings, registrations, and oppositions. During the 2014-2015
>> fiscal year we filed 1,500+ new trademark applications for 35 different
>> trademarks in 100+ countries. A significant portion of the legal services
>> expenses in 2014-2015 went toward the mandatory government trademark
>> application filing fees.
>> >
>> > These new trademark applications contained expanded coverage and
>> revised descriptions to ensure better protection of Wikimedia's marks and
>> projects, including countries where readership was growing through targeted
>> programs or distribution (such as Wikipedia Zero and mobile readership).
>> Going forward, we anticipate (and are beginning to realize) a decrease in
>> trademark expenses year over year, now that we have this initial foundation
>> is in place. This investment immediately benefits Wikimedia and its
>> communities by ensuring that our trademark portfolio reflects the maturity
>> and breadth of the Wikimedia movement, and protects us against certain
>> forms of infringement or misuse.
>>
>> Hi Gregory,
>> Just to confirm, the stated US$1.7M stated on page p.61 includes
>> filing and other fees paid by Jones Day to relevant government bodies
>> around the world?
>> If so, any chance you can separate it into such fees paid *through*
>> Jones Day, vs the consultation fees of Jones Day.
>> You say it was a 'significant portion', but that is very vague
>> terminology, meaning very different things to different people; it
>> would be nice to have a ball park figure.
>>
>> Also there was a USD ~5.2 M investment in Europe listed on p. 35 as
>> not being program services.  I didn't see any reference to it in the
>> FAQ; apologies if I missed it (It would be lovely if the source
>> document was posted on meta for easier navigation, etc.).  Could we
>> have a little more info about this line item?
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Tech survey on watchlist use

2016-05-27 Thread Lodewijk
Yeah, I don't guess this is a matter of whether it is technically possible,
but rather if the community would like to allow such functionality (what
would then stop a troll to selectively disable all admins to watch his/her
talkpage?)

Lodewijk

2016-05-27 6:31 GMT+02:00 James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>:

> Talk pages are for communication. If people were unable to watch these
> pages they would become less useful.
>
> J
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Talkpage watcher" would do fine.
> >
> > Newyorkbrad/IBM
> >
> > On 5/26/16, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > talk-page stalker is not necessarily an unfriendly term. It's meant as
> an
> > > explanation for why the person saw the question, and posted there. But
> > > perhaps we could find a better term for this, as stalker does have
> > > unfortunate connotations.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage <
> > trillium2...@yandex.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> My English Wikipedia talkpage is watchlisted by a surprising number of
> > >> users that I have no cooperative or friendly editing relationship
> with.
> > >> Some of them refer to themselves as "talkpage stalkers." Might it be
> > >> possible for a user to prohibit such persons from watchlisting him or
> > her?
> > >> If it's not possible to selectively prohibit, how about an on/off
> > switch,
> > >> i.e. *no-one* may watchlist an editor's individual talkpage.
> > >>
> > >> Trillium Corsage
> > >>
> > >> 21.05.2016, 02:20, "Johan Jönsson" :
> > >> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Danny Horn <dh...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>  Hi everyone,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  WMF's Community Tech team is starting to work on a Cross-wiki
> > >> watchlist,
> > >> >>  one of the top 10 wishes in the Community Wishlist Survey that we
> > >> conducted
> > >> >>  at the end of last year. [1]
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  We're running a survey on how people use their watchlists, to help
> > >> inform
> > >> >>  our work.
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi everyone,
> > >> >
> > >> > A couple of months ago, the Community Tech team ran a survey to
> gather
> > >> > information on how Wikimedians use their watchlists. You can see the
> > >> > results here:
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Survey_results
> > >> >
> > >> > If you're interested, there are also some very early and rough
> > >> > wireframes available on the project page:
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Current_work.2C_for_discussion
> > >> >
> > >> > //Johan Jönsson
> > >> > --
> > >> >
> > >> > ___
> > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Goodman
> > >
> > > DGG at the enWP
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsub

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

2016-05-25 Thread Lodewijk
Thanks Greg for the responses.

As for the ED team, that answers part of my question. That Sue was
appointed as special advisor, was indeed public knowledge - but for what
duration was that? And was that a full time position (or anything near full
time), given that her compensation was as high as that of the ED herself?
People suggested that this included compensation for earlier years - was
that the case? That would explain again a bit more.

Also part of the question was why the raise was so steep - was this simply
matching the reality of the current job market, or was there something else
behind it (i.e. a bonus mechanism etc).

It would be great if you could clarify! Thanks!

Lodewijk

2016-05-25 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Varnum <gvar...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the
> Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990.
> >
> > Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling
> US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our
> global reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to strengthen
> the trademark portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s marks
> globally. In December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our global
> trademark filings, registrations, and oppositions. During the 2014-2015
> fiscal year we filed 1,500+ new trademark applications for 35 different
> trademarks in 100+ countries. A significant portion of the legal services
> expenses in 2014-2015 went toward the mandatory government trademark
> application filing fees.
> >
> > These new trademark applications contained expanded coverage and revised
> descriptions to ensure better protection of Wikimedia's marks and projects,
> including countries where readership was growing through targeted programs
> or distribution (such as Wikipedia Zero and mobile readership). Going
> forward, we anticipate (and are beginning to realize) a decrease in
> trademark expenses year over year, now that we have this initial foundation
> is in place. This investment immediately benefits Wikimedia and its
> communities by ensuring that our trademark portfolio reflects the maturity
> and breadth of the Wikimedia movement, and protects us against certain
> forms of infringement or misuse.
>
> Hi Gregory,
> Just to confirm, the stated US$1.7M stated on page p.61 includes
> filing and other fees paid by Jones Day to relevant government bodies
> around the world?
> If so, any chance you can separate it into such fees paid *through*
> Jones Day, vs the consultation fees of Jones Day.
> You say it was a 'significant portion', but that is very vague
> terminology, meaning very different things to different people; it
> would be nice to have a ball park figure.
>
> Also there was a USD ~5.2 M investment in Europe listed on p. 35 as
> not being program services.  I didn't see any reference to it in the
> FAQ; apologies if I missed it (It would be lovely if the source
> document was posted on meta for easier navigation, etc.).  Could we
> have a little more info about this line item?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

2016-05-24 Thread Lodewijk
I do hope btw that the unfortunate derailing doesn't mean the questions
won't get an answer... I hoped those would be fairly obvious and easily
clarified.

Lodewijk

2016-05-20 0:52 GMT+02:00 Neil P. Quinn <m...@neilpquinn.com>:

> I totally second this. I apologize for engaging with him earlier; I didn't
> realize at the time that he was such a pathetic troll.
>
> *Neil P. Quinn*
> +1 (202) 656 3457
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jake Orlowitz <jorlow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Seconding Lodewijk here. I can already count at least 5 phrases or
> > statements that David Emrany has said which made me cringe and wonder why
> > hasn't this been blocked/moderated already?
> >
> > Hostile, accusatory, and vulgar behavior degrades this entire forum
> (beyond
> > its already damaged capacity for inclusion of multiple voices).
> >
> > Please do something.
> >
> > Jake Orlowitz (User:Ocaasi)
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-09 Thread Lodewijk
Nope, I don't have the feeling there is such broad agreement on those four
points indeed. The only thing I heard broad agreement on, is that the
removal of James was painful, and clumsily handled. Probably there is also
broad agreement that with the facts on the table as they are, others would
not quickly agree with that decision.

But after all that has passed, I'm really not sure how constructive it
would be to reappoint James to the board at this point. This is a different
decision than the one to remove someone. You can disagree with removal, and
then also disagree with reappointment. I don't say it /shouldn't/ happen,
but I'm rather unsure about it. What we need right now at the WMF is a
functional board of trustees, and forcing someone down their throat would
probably take away energy and attention to what they should really focus
on.

I also don't think there is any agreement on 'never remove a community
trustee'. I do feel there is agreement that the process is flawed, and
needs improvement. There are many people who asked for an additional step
in that process. I'm not so sure if that is legally possible without
turning the structure of the WMF upside down.

The elimination of the Founder seat, I'm also not so certain there is broad
agreement. There are doubts though, for sure. And there is also no broad
agreement to keep the seat as it is.

And finally, yes, I do think there are many people who want to 'truly
elect' community representatives. But again, I'm uncertain whether that is
legally possible without turning the structure of the WMF upside down. In a
foundation, the board has the ultimate authority, so to include a rule that
delegates that authority to an vaguely defined group of people is...
tricky.

As many of these points are tricky, legally speaking, I would rather
suggest to re-evaluate the setup of the WMF in general, and take these
points as part of that process. Lets do that after the ED search is at
least well underway. These processes tend to take more energy than you
expect. And there's no board approval necessary to make a proposal from
community input of course!

Lodewijk

2016-05-09 5:41 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:

> Hoi,
> Sorry Pete, there is not.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 9 May 2016 at 01:30, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Keegan, thank you for clarifying; I understand better now. I agree about
> > the dynamics; I wouldn't say Jimmy Wales' role on the Board is unrelated,
> > though, as Denny's message was intended to shed light on a dynamic that
> has
> > clearly involved Jimmy Wales in a central role.
> >
> > All:
> >
> > It seems (as is often the case) that we have gotten a little off track
> with
> > some details, where there is some disagreement; but I suspect there is a
> > pretty high degree of agreement on most of the steps Todd recommended
> > above. I'll summarize them again here:
> >
> >
> >1. Restore James Heilman to the board (in Denny's now vacant seat)
> >2. Never remove a community trustee
> >3. Eliminate Founder's Seat, with various future possibilities for
> Jimmy
> >Wales' role.
> >4. (expressed as optional) Make Community seats truly elected;
> increase
> >number.
> >
> > I pretty much agree with all of this, and I feel it would be helpful if
> > others would briefly state if they do too. My comments:
> >
> > 1. We'd be lucky if James Heilman stays willing to serve. He was a good
> > trustee to begin with, and it seems apparent the reasons for his removal
> > were vastly insufficient. Jimmy and Denny have both made various efforts
> to
> > justify the decision, which is appreciated, but I find the results
> entirely
> > lacking. Guy Kawasaki, Frieda Brioschi, Alice Wiegand, and Patricio
> Lorente
> > remain on the board, but have said almost nothing on the topic. At least
> > one trustee has stated that he "voted with the majority" as though that
> is
> > compatible with good governance (which it obviously isn't, as no trustee
> > should be able to know others' votes for certain prior to deciding their
> > own); and as though the upgrade from "majority" to "two-thirds majority"
> > (required under Florida law for not-for-cause removal) isn't significant.
> >
> > 2. I agree with both Dariusz and James. I don't see an explicit need for
> > changes to policy, but some articulation of process, or commentary on
> what
> > kind of things could trigger expulsion could be very helpful.
> >
> > 3. Eliminate Founder's Seat: Yes. The board should vote to remove Jimmy
> > Wales from the Founder's Seat (because there is still more than 2.5 years
> > left 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Lodewijk
Indeed only two or three candidates were present in Berlin (unfortunately
we were not allowed to join, not even at our own expense). It would become
quite problematic if 40 organisations would all want to chat for an hour -
but at the same time, I do believe in being approachable. I'm more than
happy to chat with anyone who wants to, if the agenda permits. Now, and
through the year. Chapter or no chapter. If you think a chat will give you
something helpful (insight or whatever), just schedule something! Be bold.

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-05-03 19:30 GMT+02:00 Ilya Korniyko <intra...@gmail.com>:

> Dear Sam,
> dear all,
>
> It was mainly my idea that we decided to talk to all candidates.
>
> I was under impression that we would have the opportunity to talk with all
> candidates in Berlin.
> I did get the reasoning that it would be too expensive to do it (in fact,
> all you have to do to get to WMCON is to apply for BoT and be endorsed by
> some chapter), but I really wanted to make the decision at least fairly...
>
> If we are not interested in people who may be our future members of WMF
> Board, how can we expect that they are interested in us?
> There are some excellent people nominating themselves, asking for our trust
> that they can do better,
> but we do not know them at all. And if we are voting only based on our
> personal connections, we would always vote for the same people. I thought
> it was wrong.
>
> We have struggled to find the balance between talking to people via
> skype/hangouts and not doing that.
> And this is the best solution we came up with.
> Maybe if I did not have the idea that we are going to have all candidates
> present during WMCON,
> I would try to do something else... But I did have that impression.
>
> We understand the difficulties of the process we decided to follow. I
> understand the concerns.
> But some crucial things about the candidates you can learn only in such a
> way:
> - are they willing to communicate with affiliates?
> - how they answer in real life?
> - how clearly they explain their thoughts?
> etc.
>
> And even the level of English is important. These people are going to
> represent (to some extent) our movement.
>
> Best regards,
> Ilya /  ILLIA KORNIIKO
> Chair
> Wikimedia Ukraine
>
> З повагою,
> Ілля Корнійко
> Голова Правління ГО «Вікімедіа Україна»
> +38 067 65 66 177
> http://ua.wikimedia.org
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Sam Klein <sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, attolippip <attolip...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
> > > candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2]
> > [3]
> > > [4] [5] [6]
> > > And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
> > > people.
> > >
> >
> > Does this mean that each candidate is expected to have 40 different 1-hr
> > Skype chats, one with each chapthorg?  That sounds grueling. I thought
> the
> > value of public questions was that candidates could answer once instead
> of
> > 40 times.
> >
> > Sam
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-23 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Jimmy,

Thanks for the general pointer, but given the high amount of discussions on
your talkpage, I'm uncertain which comment you are referring to?

Lodewijk

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:

> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
>
> > But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>
> Diff, please.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

  1   2   3   4   >