[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Mario Gómez]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:14 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> “the block message only shows up when I try to save the page”
>

Block messages generally appear when opening the editor. However, support
is lacking in some cases for mobile web and apps [1]. There may be other
issues depending on the editor, registered/unregistered, or type of block.
Also it is possible that the warning was displayed, but it was easily
ignored because of the lack of visibility in some scenarios.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mobile_communication_bugs

Best,

Mario
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5LSGKOMVCAFR27TFEBET5MG53IHIAEUC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Mario Gómez]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:32 AM Lane Chance  wrote:

> A 'liberalization' of IPBE can easily be enabled by allowing WMF
> funded projects to add this group to any participants that request it


I think it makes sense to quickly grant temporary (e.g. 6 months) GIPBE +
IPBE to every participant in an editathon. I thought this was already
happening to some degree?

Best,

Mario
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4NJV4LNPBHDTXZ2CR4ILBAEB7MY5UKS3/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Mario Gómez]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:32 PM K. Peachey  wrote:

>
> Is there any reason we are creating multiple blocks, which is causing
> multiple rows created in the backend?
>

I'm not aware of the number of rows in the backend being currently a
problem here. There's a few logistic reasons to do it this way. If stress
on the backend becomes a problem, I'm sure we can figure out a solution.

Best,

Mario
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/R7L4SWTPWMNTX4YD5KCNK66G3HHIUGMS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Mario Gómez]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:53 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:

>
> +++.  We are raising these barriers to [apparently] try to stave off
> vandalism and spam.  But hard security like this can put an end to the
> projects, for good.  There is no more definitive end than one that seems
> mandated from within.  We need better automation, MLl models, sandboxing,
> and triage to help us *increase* the number of people who can edit, and
> can propose edits to protected pages, while decreasing the amount of
> vandalism and spam that is visible to the world.
>

For the P2P proxy blocks, vandalism was a factor (AFAIK spam wasn't), but I
think the strongest trigger was the amount of harassment, death threats or
other physical harm threats, and doxxing attempts coming out from this
particular proxy service.

I agree that we should increase the number of people who can edit. But we
should also maintain a reasonably safe space for contributors. There are
trade-offs that need to tune at every corner.

For this kind of abuse, we have a toolbox:
- IP blocking
- Page protections
- Edit filters
- Bots and other post-edit analysis tools
- Manual patrolling (assisted with various tools) + reporting to
admins/oversighters/stewards.

Each of them has its own caveats, we should improve them all, and find some
balance in the usage of each tool. IMHO, complete removal of any of these
tools will be harmful to our projects and contributors.

Best,

Mario
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PUL24LJ5LYQKXXEMCT5OOKCMLFOICMJX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Mario Gómez]

Hello Florence,

Thank you for bringing this up and collecting all this feedback.

Here's the announcement of the new P2P proxy blocks on English Wikipedia,
it includes information about the origin of the blocks for this particular
proxy service:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive335#Recent_proxy_blocks

These blocks from English Wikipedia are now also imported to Spanish
Wikipedia, as well as global blocks (the ones by Tks4Fish). The blocking
system has received some tuning over time to decrease the number of
affected users, but it's clear that it's not enough, in particular for some
countries like Ghana or Benin. So we need further tuning, or rethink
how/when we apply the blocks.

This is not meant to be a definitive answer, but I hope the additional
context is useful.

Best,

Mario


On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 8:21 PM Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Hello friends
>
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
> *
>
>
> Long version :
>
> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in
> the past couple of weeks/months.
>
> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies
> policy [1]
> In particular africans.
>
> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and
> all other Wikimedia projects.
>
> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies
> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While
> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may
> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
>
> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies
> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely
> the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or
> the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
>
> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by
> way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on
> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
>
>
> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those
> are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy
> with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an
> open proxy
>
>
> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They
> do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
>
> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being
> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing.
> New editors just as old timers.
> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups,
> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives.
> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or
> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
>
> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a
> regular occurence.
> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week.
> Several complaints per week.
> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is
> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities
> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking
> place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy
> for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
>
>
> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly
> blocked, it is recommended
>
>- * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
>- * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
>editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to
>desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
>- * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
>contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and
>is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
>
>
> So...
> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or
> not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to
> IP block exemption list.
> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to
> look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a
> new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated
> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
>
> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay
> blocked several days.
>
> We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But
> it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
>
> We s

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Mario Gómez]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:57 AM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> This is a horribly problematic election. Not only does it take hours to go
> through the candidates if you actually want to rank them, but you would
> also need to be willing to spend about a lot of time to enter them into the
> broken voting interface (which works great for up to 5 candidates - not for
> 70).
>

I filled about 14 candidates and it was not extremely bad, but for anyone
looking to rank more candidates, I guess it might have been daunting. I
agree that the dropdowns are a very inconvenient UI for this kind of
votation. I can imagine something more efficient like having chips for
every candidate (no dropdown), and then sequentially click on them to add
them to the ballot in order, then maybe supporting drag and drop to
re-order. Changing the order of candidates once the ballot is prepared is
particularly cumbersome.

Best,

Mario
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B5KAHUEMXXPSFBDPM2ZQC6OFHUNVPUQS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Mario Gómez]

Thank you for the Election Compass!

While the quantitative ranking was not very useful for me, these clear
statements and concise answers by all candidates helped me a lot in the
decision, and also the Election Compass tool was quite decent to explore
them. The process of wider community input to draft questions and upvoting
them has clearly led to a much more useful set of questions than what we
had at the Board of Trustees election.

So, while tooling could be improved in the future, I think the general
approach to questions was great, and next elections (for Board of Trustees
or whatever other body) should do it in a similar way.

Best,

Mario

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter drafting
> committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are
> running for seven seats in these elections.
>
> As recommended by the Movement Strategy recommendations, the goal is to
> assemble a Drafting Committee that will draft a Movement Charter to ensure
> a common framework for decision making in the Wikimedia movement
> .
> The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities
> vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates
> through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the
> Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1,
> 2021.
>
> Voting is open from October 12 10:00 UTC to October 24, 2021 23:59 (Anywhere
> on Earth ).
>
>
>
> Learn more about the candidates
>
> Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn
> about each candidate to inform your vote
> .
> The statements are translated to a number of languages, so you can have
> access to the information in many of your preferred languages.
>
> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
> ” for this election. Click
> yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you will
> see which candidate is closest to you! The tool is available in ~9
> languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Arabic,
> Indonesian, Hausa).
>
>
>
> Voting
>
> Similar to the previous Board elections, we have chosen Single
> Transferable Vote
> 
> for the voting system. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices
> in order of preference. Learn more about voting requirements
> ,
> how to vote
> ,
> and frequently asked questions about voting
> 
> .
>
>
> To cast your vote, please go to SecurePoll
> 
> .
>
>
> We also offer two question and answer times, if you have any questions
> regarding the Movement Charter and the voting process:w
>
>-
>
>Wednesday, 19:00 UTC, on Google Meet
>-
>
>Thursday, 13:00 UTC, on Zoom (that’s the Conversation Time with Maggie
>Dennis)
>
> Please write a short message to answ...@wikimedia.org if you want to
> participate in one of these.
>
>
>
> Please help select people who best fit the needs of the movement at this
> time. Vote and spread the word so more people can vote for candidates. Our
> aim is to have a committee with Wikimedians that combine the diversity of
> the Wikimedia Movement as well as a great mix of competencies.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Kaarel Vaidla, on behalf of the Movement Strategy & Governance team,
> Wikimedia Foundation
> --
>
> Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)
>
> Movement Strategy 
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/O6EYQSHWXT5JH7DZZDNLD4BRPEYPQZTF/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lis

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Mario Gómez]

Fully agree with Mike.

Also, rather than focusing on how different voting schemes would have
affected some candidates to be one position up or down, wider diversity and
representativity could be achieved by just electing 8 seats from community
elections.

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:47 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> I don't get these kinds of arguments.
>
> I'm pretty much equally very active on enwiki + Wikidata + Commons -
> which should I chose as my 'resident' project? Most bytes (Commons),
> most edits (Wikidata), longest editing time (enwiki) - or something
> else? Or language for that matter - most of my editing right now is
> multilingual.
>
> I've lived in UK + Brazil + Spain (islands - off the coast of Africa) -
> am I global north or south?
>
> I've worked with two small affiliates: Wikimedia UK (back when it was
> founded), and Wiki Movimento Brasil - does that count as developed or
> emerging?
>
> What happens to others that fall on both sides of these arbitrary lines?
>
> Obrigado,
> Mike
> P.S., huge congrats to Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz and Lorenzo, who I know
> will do great jobs!
>
> On 8/9/21 05:36:41, Anupam Dutta wrote:
> > Congratulations to the winners and the participants also !
> >
> > Further to the ongoing discussions, my idea is as follows :
> >
> > In this Wikimedia land, a person is the resident of the project
> > s/he/they have most contributed No arguments
> >
> > Now the person can chose to be a worker in 'n' number of projects.
> > The definition of worker must be clearly defined as per certain number
> > of contributions made.
> >
> > Below that you a tourist..
> >
> > In this way elections can have votes from residents and tourists
> >
> > Anupamdutta73
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 09:16 Butch Bustria  > > wrote:
> >
> > Congratulations to the 4 winners.
> >
> > I saw that the STV system unveiled how the 4th and 5th positions
> > (appears to be from a G7 country and a non G7 country) had switched.
> > I am interested to know from which sector/s or Wikimedia project
> > brought the switch of those two positions (starting from the 8th
> > iteration).
> >
> > I also observed that I have no option to choose which wiki I will
> > represent. It appears that the system only allows which wiki I first
> > clicked the central notice link. I tried to go to the other projects
> > and vote, it allowed me to change my vote (still one eligible
> > ballot) but it did not change the project I will represent. I am
> > saying this because it would allow people reading the statistics
> > which project the eligible voter truly represents.
> >
> > Despite all the consultations made prior to the elections to bring
> > the emerging communities/ global south to the board it had not
> > accurately painted the picture. I would personally suggest in the
> > future not all candidates vie for the same set of seats. So for
> > instance, there are 4 seats up for grabs, two seats must be reserved
> > for sector A and two seats for sector B. Candidates must select
> > which sector they represent and cannot be both. Then the whole
> > electorate votes for candidates for Sector A board seats and Sector
> > B board seats using the same STV system. Qualifications for Sector A
> > and Sector B seats shall be different and will be decided by the
> > board of trustees with consent from an advisory/ electoral
> > committee. I personally suggest developed communities (from big
> > chapters and wiki projects with large edit participation) and
> > emerging communities (small to medium sized affiliates and wiki
> > projects with medium to small edit participation).
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Butch
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:52 AM Alice Wiegand  > > wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Jackie!
> > That is indeed different from what I understood and I’m glad
> > about the change :-)
> >
> > Alice.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Am 07.09.2021 um 23:42 schrieb Jackie Koerner
> >> mailto:jkoerner-...@wikimedia.org
> >>:
> >>
> >> Hi Alice,
> >>
> >> Thanks for asking! The way we are intending "contended" is
> >> that it was the election everyone was waiting for. :) It was
> >> "pushed for" by the community for more than a year and now we
> >> gladly announce: it happened and here are the results!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Jackie
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:29 PM Alice Wiegand
> >> mailto:me.ly...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >> congrats to the elected Board members. It’s great to see
> >> people stepping up and taking responsibility, especially
> >> in times where leadership is needed.
> >>
> >> Jackie, may I ask for some elaboration on the subje

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Paid editing dashboard and metrics?

[Mario Gómez]

You might want to discuss this topic at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam

This page is watched by many people working against UPE in various
projects. Many are familiar with large-scale UPE operations. Some of us
already work with tools for automated and semi-automated detection. So it
might be more fruitful to discuss it with contributors experienced in that
area.

Best,

Mario

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:22 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Hi Steven :)  Good points.  I agree with Adam that this is a major energy
> and enthusiasm drain for eitors.
>
> As to how we could start with data collection:
>
> * Monitor the market.
>   a) Work with groups that are in the market and completely transparent
> about their work to maintain a sense of rates and volume
>   b) Search general contracting sites, general search engines, and
> specific reputation brokers for new options; maintain a catalog
>   c) Spot-check and commission work. As with Böhmermann
> 's show - he spent
> under 500 Euros and identified two networks of UPE.
>
>  * Build better tools for tracking and countering undisclosed paid editing
>   a)  Tracking: automated scoring, as with ORES
>   b)  Countering: As you say: tools to help people coordinate work, making
> it more fun and collaborative to take on UPE. Especially for often-targeted
> categories -- politicians + companies..
>   b)  Both: Focus on tools for detecting large farms over time, and
> cleaning up the mess left by a farm.
>
> You're right about community size being a defense.  But only for a time --
> the growing demand for this actively subverts community members. Olaf was
> one!  So we also need to think of ways to reduce and divert that demand
> into constructive channels.
>
> SJ
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:11 PM Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
>> Given that it’s completely trivial to make new pseudonymous accounts how
>> would you propose even remotely accurate data collection to measure paid
>> editing?
>>
>> If we are worried about the impact of paid editors on the integrity of
>> content, we are much better served investing even more in efforts to
>> dramatically strengthen our volunteer community’s ability to defend the
>> projects. That means better software to help each editor do more, making it
>> fun, easy and welcoming for new contributors, and fighting the attrition in
>> admins and other functionaries. If our volunteer community was larger and
>> healthier, the threat of paid interference would be less scary.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 7:20 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>
>>> Aha -- I was pointed to en:wp's List of paid editing companies
>>> .
>>> (thanks!)  This is a great resource and deserves to be better linked.   The
>>> page is semi-active - 4 additions in the last month, including the Olaf
>>> case. I've cleaned it up a bit and linked it to the German page. This
>>> really needs some automated scripting and tracking, at the scale of ORES...
>>>
>>> Is there any routine analysis / stats compiled of edits associated with
>>> these orgs, or of their activity online?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 2:19 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>>
 Jan Böhmermann 
 published an amazing expose on political WP editing in Germany; it gets
 good around 15 minutes in
 . In the video he
 exposed the workings of a paid editing farm run (by Olaf Kosinsky (
 Wikidata ; CheckUser
 discussion
 
 ; archived PR-services site
 ), an
 excellent long-time editor with over 3 million edits.

 *We need to distinguish paid editing from general COI editing*.  Paid
 editing is COI editing by professionals, who have strong external
 incentives to persist, no leeway in the outcome they are aiming
 for, experience in doing this in dozens of cases, and may have colleagues
 who can drop in as 'uninvolved' editors to forge consensus or social
 proof.[1]

 This is one of our great recurring challenges, siphoning off both our
 reputation and our community.  There are many things we can do about paid
 editing, starting with maintaining *paid-editing metrics and a
 dashboard* of known and estimated paid editing.  We can estimate its
 prevalence by the availabiity of services online[2]; and look for patterns
 of such editing on wiki.  Even with large error margins, this would be a
 step above simply waiting for outbreaks to be discovered and reacting to
 the visible bits of the iceberg.

 What sort of metrics like this do we have already?  Who is work

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

[Mario Gómez]

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 8:18 AM Fæ  wrote:

>
> "What do you think about the Wikimedia Foundation using funds for
> purposes not related to Wikimedia projects?"
> - The WMF uses funds for all sorts of things unrelated to the specific
> projects, for example, the Commercial paid-for API is an external
> commercial service, it is not intended as a service to the projects
> and the projects never asked for it. It's weird to have an 'official'
> question that implies other stuff does not exist.
>

Just pitching in here since I originally wrote that question. In
retrospect, it could have been more clear.

The question was not about structural costs, or any cost that cannot be
attributed to a single project. I'm referring to things like awarding
grants to organizations that are unrelated to Wikimedia projects for
purposes that are also unrelated to Wikimedia projects.

During the Wikimedia Strategy 2030 process there were quite some
discussions about doing this in the future. Also the Knowledge Equity Fund
could fall into this category, although it's still early to say if it
actually will.

Best,

MarioGom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PN7GRXNSH7JR6LZK2SDTNDO2NL2UUQD2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF transfers $8.7 million to "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund"

[Mario Gómez]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 2:00 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> > A portion of our grant to Tides Advocacy will be used to launch the
>> Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund, a new fund that the Wikimedia Foundation
>> is establishing this fiscal year to invest in new grant-making
>> opportunities in support of groups that are advancing equitable, inclusive
>> representation in free knowledge.
>
>
> Does this mean that funds will be used for work not related to Wikimedia
>> projects?
>
>
> since our goal is to "freely share the sum of all knowledge"  anything
> that leads to that goal does benefit the projects, there are place and
> reasons thats not happening because of other issues so if this is a
> solution to some of those then its worth the effort.  Everything that is
> freely licensed becomes available to the Movement anyway
>

I assumed that was the rationale behind the wording. It's just an
assumption, so I'm asking for clarification.

During the Strategy discussions it became clear that part of the community
is concerned about the WMF moving from support to the Wikimedia movement to
a grant-making organization for external projects.

Best,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF transfers $8.7 million to "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund"

[Mario Gómez]

Hi,

> A portion of our grant to Tides Advocacy will be used to launch the
Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund, a new fund that the Wikimedia Foundation
is establishing this fiscal year to invest in new grant-making
opportunities in support of groups that are advancing equitable, inclusive
representation in free knowledge.

Does this mean that funds will be used for work not related to Wikimedia
projects?

Best,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism

[Mario Gómez]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 8:51 AM Fæ  wrote:

>
> Could you, or the responsible member of your management team, please
> explain exactly how this happened?
>
>
As far as I know, criticism of political lobbying by the WMF is generally
frowned upon here. Including aspersion casting against critics.

I don't think these lobbying activities would get a wide community
consensus. Even the blackout for the EU produced a fair share of
controversy within some Wikimedia projects, and it was actually related to
our core mission.

Best,

Mario Gómez
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
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] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

[Mario Gómez]

The recommendations from the second iteration are available now:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations

Looking at the formatting with discussion links and so on, I assume
community feedback is still welcome. It would be good to announce this in
wikimedia-l, meta main page, etc.

Best,

MarioGom

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have
> been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future
> of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the
> working groups.
>
> If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give
> feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
> ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing
> the recommendations.
>
> Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the
> documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much
> more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda
> volunteers.
>
> There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one
> sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to
> back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least
> at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
>
> The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through.
> There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how
> that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement
> that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC
> content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After
> years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content
> organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?
>
> And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed
> about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change
> has negative connotations to some members of the community."
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9
>
> I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents
> before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving
> a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very
> same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
>
> This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations
> are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested,
> as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for
> me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean.
> And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on
> this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who
> feels this frustration.
>
> Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If
> these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will
> not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the
> working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the
> Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback
> again.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> 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] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Mario Gómez]

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 11:58 AM Mario Gómez  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:49 AM Zack McCune  wrote:
>
>>
>> From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
>> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
>>
>>
> * Opposition percentage is set at 0.6% for informed (reached) users, it
> would be 38% of reviewing users.
>
>
With respect to the what would be considered a high opposition rate, do you
realize that 20% of _reached_ users means that the bar was set to 1,800
users to voice their opposition explicitly?

Best,

MarioGom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
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 feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Mario Gómez]

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:49 AM Zack McCune  wrote:

>
> From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors and
> 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
>
>
The benchmark is completely twisted to make opposition impossible:

* Support and Opposition are measured by different metrics: Support is
measured by "reviewing affiliates support" and opposition by "informed user
opposition".
* Support percentage is set at 38% for reviewing affiliates (24
affiliates?), it would be roughly 19% for reached affiliates and 15% of
total affiliates.
* Opposition percentage is set at 0.6% for informed (reached) users, it
would be 38% of reviewing users.

On the other hand:

* Opposition from reviewing affiliates is 9.5%.
* Support from reviewing users is 13% (vs 38% oppose)
* Support from reached users is around 0.2% (vs 0.6% oppose).

The support and opposition metrics seem to be cherry-picked to force a
strong support result, but that is not the case when comparable metrics are
used.

I agree that a proper RFC should be created, possibly at the initiative of
the community, to get a clearer result.

Best,

MarioGom
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
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] Possible abuse of Wikipedia ToS by SurveyMonkey

[Mario Gómez]

Thank you Elena!

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 7:59 PM Elena Lappen  wrote:

> Hi MarioGom,
>
> Thanks for outlining these concerns. The Legal Team is currently looking
> into the issue and has reached out to SurveyMonkey for additional
> information. I will provide an update here when the matter is resolved.
>
>
> Best,
> Elena
>
> --
> Elena Lappen (she/her)
> Community Relations Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 2019, at 8:40 AM, Mario Gómez  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Since the WMF has an ongoing partnership with SurveyMonkey [1][2], the
> WMF
> > could review their possible abuse of Wikipedia ToS and, if confirmed,
> > require them to cease this activity.
> >
> > SurveyMonkey's possible use of undisclosed paid editing service was
> already
> > brought to your attention on this mailing list in July 2018. SurveyMonkey
> > was by then suspect of hiring Go Fish Digital to edit their Wikipedia
> > article.
> >
> > In November 2018, the article started receiving edits from EastWestern
> [4],
> > an account that was blocked from Wikipedia for sockpuppetting and whose
> > behavior is very close to the Go Fish Digital sockpuppet farm uncovered
> > last year. Suspicious activity resumed after the block by another user,
> who
> > is pending a sockpuppet investigation.
> >
> > Given the WMF relation to SurveyMonkey, is it possible to do something
> > about this?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/January_2018_Fundraising_Banner_Survey_Privacy_Statement
> > [2]
> >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Fundraising_Banner_Survey_Privacy_Statement
> > [3]
> >
> https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg30648.html
> > [4]
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SurveyMonkey&offset=&limit=500&action=history
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > MarioGom
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> 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] Possible abuse of Wikipedia ToS by SurveyMonkey

[Mario Gómez]

Hello,

Since the WMF has an ongoing partnership with SurveyMonkey [1][2], the WMF
could review their possible abuse of Wikipedia ToS and, if confirmed,
require them to cease this activity.

SurveyMonkey's possible use of undisclosed paid editing service was already
brought to your attention on this mailing list in July 2018. SurveyMonkey
was by then suspect of hiring Go Fish Digital to edit their Wikipedia
article.

In November 2018, the article started receiving edits from EastWestern [4],
an account that was blocked from Wikipedia for sockpuppetting and whose
behavior is very close to the Go Fish Digital sockpuppet farm uncovered
last year. Suspicious activity resumed after the block by another user, who
is pending a sockpuppet investigation.

Given the WMF relation to SurveyMonkey, is it possible to do something
about this?

[1]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/January_2018_Fundraising_Banner_Survey_Privacy_Statement
[2]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Fundraising_Banner_Survey_Privacy_Statement
[3]
https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg30648.html
[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SurveyMonkey&offset=&limit=500&action=history

Best,

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

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

[Mario Gómez]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Yair Rand  wrote:

> The new website highlights "Advocacy" as one of the three areas that the
> Foundation deals with, along with Research and Technology. From the page
> linked, it promotes the WMF's misguided and unauthorized venture into
> trying to influence US immigration law, now claiming it to be something the
> WMF does "routinely". These statements do not belong on the WMF website.
>

Completely agree. But given that there is no sign of WMF willing to keep
advocacy within its core mission, I would like to know where can we propose
and discuss advocacy areas? There is a number of issues that affect the
work of Wikimedians that would need to be prioritized.

Best,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Inc. working with Go Fish Digital, a company that whitewashes Wikipedia

[Mario Gómez]

Thank you for the update!

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 4:19 AM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thank you to everyone that has provided thoughtful and constructive input
> on this discussion, and to the volunteers who are investigating the
> possible policy violations. We have some additional information on this
> vendor relationship and on steps being taken that we believe will be
> helpful to this discussion.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation entered into a short-term contract with Go Fish
> Digital to conduct a search engine optimization (SEO) audit on Wikipedia.
> They were contracted to provide information needed by the Audiences
> department to improve how our sites communicate with search engines and
> services which provide data to devices like artificial intelligence (AI)
> assistants. Overall, SEO performance is a strength of our projects, but we
> were able to identify areas for improvement, and the audit was helpful for
> Audiences to more effectively focus their efforts. During discussions about
> Wikimedia values and activities that were held in selecting the vendor,
> they did not disclose anything which raised suspicion, and we failed to
> identify this specific concern and question them about it more.
>
> The Foundation's Legal department received the proposal after it had been
> approved by Audiences and drafted a contract for this agreement following
> standard procedures. This included a privacy review, which resulted in the
> inclusion of extra privacy and security protections in the contract. Their
> activities did not involve reputation management services, and they did not
> request or receive access to any Wikimedia user data. The contract
> concluded last month.
>
> As we are now aware of the vendor's possible violations and feel they
> should have shared this information with us during discussions, we will not
> be pursuing any future working relationship with Go Fish Digital and will
> be requesting that they honor our contractual agreement by not discussing
> their past relationship with us for promotional purposes. Additionally, we
> are reviewing the way that this vendor was selected in an effort to see if
> we can identify what led to this issue and better identify these types of
> concerns when identifying future vendors and executing agreements with
> them. Finally, as they regularly do, our Trust and Safety team in Community
> Engagement are working with the functionaries investigating the possible
> policy violations.
>
> Again, we appreciate the attention provided to this by the functionaries
> and others who raised these concerns. We agree that the Foundation should
> avoid working with vendors who violate our policies, and hope the
> discussion around this will help reduce the chances of this happening in
> the future.
>
> Thank you,
> -greg
>
> ---
> Gregory Varnum
> Communications Strategist
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> gvar...@wikimedia.org
> Pronouns: He/Him/His
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Mario Gómez 
> wrote:
> >
> > I have gathered more evidence and opened a sockpuppet investigation,
> > omitting any parts involving personal data:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_
> investigations/BurritoSlayer
> >
> > Personal data sent to functionaries-en@ is still relevant to verify some
> > details, but I think that it is not crucial anymore to prove Go Fish
> > Digital ongoing and undisclosed paid editing.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Mario Gómez 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of
> >> Sunday are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on
> it
> >> themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet
> >> investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to
> >> continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM,  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here,
> please
> >>> bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to
> do
> >>> it
> >>> on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
> >>>
> >>> i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Mario,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Inc. working with Go Fish Digital, a company that whitewashes Wikipedia

[Mario Gómez]

I have gathered more evidence and opened a sockpuppet investigation,
omitting any parts involving personal data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BurritoSlayer

Personal data sent to functionaries-en@ is still relevant to verify some
details, but I think that it is not crucial anymore to prove Go Fish
Digital ongoing and undisclosed paid editing.

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Mario Gómez 
wrote:

> I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of
> Sunday are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on it
> themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet
> investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to
> continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here, please
>> bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to do
>> it
>> on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
>>
>> i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Mario,
>> >
>> > I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
>> posted
>> > here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and this
>> is
>> > not English Wikipedia mailing list.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Isaac
>> >
>> > On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 PM, "Mario Gómez"  wrote:
>> >
>> > There, is at least, one user that works for Go Fish Digital with a
>> > sockpuppet account in English Wikipedia and has denied conflict of
>> interest
>> > or paid editing disclosure even if he was asked too, since some user was
>> > suspicious. Should I send this privately? I don't want to incur in
>> spurious
>> > ousting/doxxing.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Mario
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:24 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi.
>> > >
>> > > Go Fish Digital is a company that whitewashes Wikipedia. From its own
>> > site:
>> > >
>> > > >The primary platforms that define your online reputation include:
>> > > > [...]
>> > > > * Wikipedia
>> > > > [...]
>> > > >
>> > > > With Online Reputation Management, we work hard to make all of the
>> > > >positive information easy to find.  At the same time, we use many
>> > > >different strategies and tactics to diminish the visibility of
>> negative
>> > > >content, or in some cases, remove it from the web altogether.  The
>> end
>> > > >result is a positive online reputation because when people search
>> your
>> > > >name or brand, they immediately find positive content.
>> > >
>> > > Source: https://gofishdigital.com/online-reputation-management
>> > >
>> > > Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has been working with this company on search
>> > > engine optimization: <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198970>. I
>> > have a
>> > > few questions about this work.
>> > >
>> > > How was this vendor chosen? Which other vendors were considered?
>> > >
>> > > Why is this work being undertaken? At least the English Wikipedia has
>> > some
>> > > of the best search engine results placement of any site on the Web, so
>> > I'm
>> > > curious to know who's prioritizing Wikipedia's search engine
>> optimization
>> > > and for what reason.
>> > >
>> > > How is it appropriate for Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to work with a
>> > company
>> > > that is, by its own admission, whitewashing Wikipedia? Doesn't this
>> give
>> > > Go Fish Digital a ton of legitimization by now being able to say it
>> works
>> > > directly with Wikimedia Foundation Inc. ("with Wikipedia")?
>> > >
>> > > Is it appropriate to give a company that sells whitewashing Wikipedia
>> > > services access to private user data, as was done in
>> > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192893> and
>> > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193052>? The Wikimedia Foundation
>> > Inc.
>> > > legal department apparently approved this access, bu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Inc. working with Go Fish Digital, a company that whitewashes Wikipedia

[Mario Gómez]

I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of Sunday
are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on it
themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet
investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to
continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM,  wrote:

> Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here, please
> bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to do it
> on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
>
> i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mario,
> >
> > I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
> posted
> > here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and this
> is
> > not English Wikipedia mailing list.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> > On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 PM, "Mario Gómez"  wrote:
> >
> > There, is at least, one user that works for Go Fish Digital with a
> > sockpuppet account in English Wikipedia and has denied conflict of
> interest
> > or paid editing disclosure even if he was asked too, since some user was
> > suspicious. Should I send this privately? I don't want to incur in
> spurious
> > ousting/doxxing.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Mario
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:24 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Go Fish Digital is a company that whitewashes Wikipedia. From its own
> > site:
> > >
> > > >The primary platforms that define your online reputation include:
> > > > [...]
> > > > * Wikipedia
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > With Online Reputation Management, we work hard to make all of the
> > > >positive information easy to find.  At the same time, we use many
> > > >different strategies and tactics to diminish the visibility of
> negative
> > > >content, or in some cases, remove it from the web altogether.  The end
> > > >result is a positive online reputation because when people search your
> > > >name or brand, they immediately find positive content.
> > >
> > > Source: https://gofishdigital.com/online-reputation-management
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has been working with this company on search
> > > engine optimization: <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198970>. I
> > have a
> > > few questions about this work.
> > >
> > > How was this vendor chosen? Which other vendors were considered?
> > >
> > > Why is this work being undertaken? At least the English Wikipedia has
> > some
> > > of the best search engine results placement of any site on the Web, so
> > I'm
> > > curious to know who's prioritizing Wikipedia's search engine
> optimization
> > > and for what reason.
> > >
> > > How is it appropriate for Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to work with a
> > company
> > > that is, by its own admission, whitewashing Wikipedia? Doesn't this
> give
> > > Go Fish Digital a ton of legitimization by now being able to say it
> works
> > > directly with Wikimedia Foundation Inc. ("with Wikipedia")?
> > >
> > > Is it appropriate to give a company that sells whitewashing Wikipedia
> > > services access to private user data, as was done in
> > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192893> and
> > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193052>? The Wikimedia Foundation
> > Inc.
> > > legal department apparently approved this access, but I'm curious to
> know
> > > why, given the company's role in selling an "Online Reputation
> > Management"
> > > product. This looks bad to me.
> > >
> > > MZMcBride
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Inc. working with Go Fish Digital, a company that whitewashes Wikipedia

[Mario Gómez]

I sent initial research notes to functionaries-en@ with evidence of
potential undisclosed COI by Go Fish Digital employee(s). The actual scale
of it would require quite more research as well as CheckUser.

Best,

Mario

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> I'd like to distinguish between *monitoring* Wikipedia for changes that
> could affect PR, which is fine (so long as they don't put unreasonable
> loads on WMF's technical infrastructure), and *editing* Wikipedia in a way
> that breaks any number of community rules and/or the WMF TOS. If they were
> monitoring without editing, or were editing in ways that were compliant
> with our policies around disclosure and handling COI, that might be
> manageable. However, if the reports in this thread are true (I have not
> personally verified them), then that's a big problem. I am adding Legal to
> this thread, but in general my view is that they WMF pays almost no
> attention to enforcing the TOS regarding COI issues, and I don't know
> whether they will do anything about it in this situation. :( I wish that
> they would get energized about COI enforcement.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Inc. working with Go Fish Digital, a company that whitewashes Wikipedia

[Mario Gómez]

Actually, it took just a couple of hours to find:

* Two obvious Go Fish Digital sockpuppets.
* One article with high amount of evidence of COI / paid editing.
* A few other articles with possible COI / paid editing.
* Possible links to multiple big sockpuppet farms that were already blocked.

Since this involves a lot of research outside Wikipedia itself, as well as
personal details of Go Fish Digital employees, I'll wait for guidance about
how can this be disclosed. Also, with this evidence, it seems clear to me
that legal should be involved as soon as possible and consider stop sharing
Wikipedia data with this company.

Best,

Mario




On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Mario Gómez  wrote:

> There, is at least, one user that works for Go Fish Digital with a
> sockpuppet account in English Wikipedia and has denied conflict of interest
> or paid editing disclosure even if he was asked too, since some user was
> suspicious. Should I send this privately? I don't want to incur in spurious
> ousting/doxxing.
>
> Best,
>
> Mario
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:24 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Go Fish Digital is a company that whitewashes Wikipedia. From its own
>> site:
>>
>> >The primary platforms that define your online reputation include:
>> > [...]
>> > * Wikipedia
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > With Online Reputation Management, we work hard to make all of the
>> >positive information easy to find.  At the same time, we use many
>> >different strategies and tactics to diminish the visibility of negative
>> >content, or in some cases, remove it from the web altogether.  The end
>> >result is a positive online reputation because when people search your
>> >name or brand, they immediately find positive content.
>>
>> Source: https://gofishdigital.com/online-reputation-management
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has been working with this company on search
>> engine optimization: <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198970>. I have
>> a
>> few questions about this work.
>>
>> How was this vendor chosen? Which other vendors were considered?
>>
>> Why is this work being undertaken? At least the English Wikipedia has some
>> of the best search engine results placement of any site on the Web, so I'm
>> curious to know who's prioritizing Wikipedia's search engine optimization
>> and for what reason.
>>
>> How is it appropriate for Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to work with a company
>> that is, by its own admission, whitewashing Wikipedia? Doesn't this give
>> Go Fish Digital a ton of legitimization by now being able to say it works
>> directly with Wikimedia Foundation Inc. ("with Wikipedia")?
>>
>> Is it appropriate to give a company that sells whitewashing Wikipedia
>> services access to private user data, as was done in
>> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192893> and
>> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193052>? The Wikimedia Foundation
>> Inc.
>> legal department apparently approved this access, but I'm curious to know
>> why, given the company's role in selling an "Online Reputation Management"
>> product. This looks bad to me.
>>
>> MZMcBride
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 Foundation Inc. working with Go Fish Digital, a company that whitewashes Wikipedia

[Mario Gómez]

There, is at least, one user that works for Go Fish Digital with a
sockpuppet account in English Wikipedia and has denied conflict of interest
or paid editing disclosure even if he was asked too, since some user was
suspicious. Should I send this privately? I don't want to incur in spurious
ousting/doxxing.

Best,

Mario

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:24 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Go Fish Digital is a company that whitewashes Wikipedia. From its own site:
>
> >The primary platforms that define your online reputation include:
> > [...]
> > * Wikipedia
> > [...]
> >
> > With Online Reputation Management, we work hard to make all of the
> >positive information easy to find.  At the same time, we use many
> >different strategies and tactics to diminish the visibility of negative
> >content, or in some cases, remove it from the web altogether.  The end
> >result is a positive online reputation because when people search your
> >name or brand, they immediately find positive content.
>
> Source: https://gofishdigital.com/online-reputation-management
>
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has been working with this company on search
> engine optimization: . I have a
> few questions about this work.
>
> How was this vendor chosen? Which other vendors were considered?
>
> Why is this work being undertaken? At least the English Wikipedia has some
> of the best search engine results placement of any site on the Web, so I'm
> curious to know who's prioritizing Wikipedia's search engine optimization
> and for what reason.
>
> How is it appropriate for Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to work with a company
> that is, by its own admission, whitewashing Wikipedia? Doesn't this give
> Go Fish Digital a ton of legitimization by now being able to say it works
> directly with Wikimedia Foundation Inc. ("with Wikipedia")?
>
> Is it appropriate to give a company that sells whitewashing Wikipedia
> services access to private user data, as was done in
>  and
> ? The Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
> legal department apparently approved this access, but I'm curious to know
> why, given the company's role in selling an "Online Reputation Management"
> product. This looks bad to me.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 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 Israel joins the nationwide strike to protest the exclusion of gay couples the right to become parents

[Mario Gómez]

I don't want to engage in endless political flamewars, so this is my last
email on this list discussing the political substance of surrogacy, I
could, and I could do it with reliable sources, which were not asked in the
first place to justify WMIL statement.

But I don't meant to lobby here, because that's exactly what I'm opposing:
using the WMF and affiliates to lobby for political positions beyond its
mission.



On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Mario Gómez  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>>
>> The anti-surrogacy movement may not be anti-LGBT, I basically said
>> that in my previous email. If you want to lobby against surrogacy,
>> there is no problem with doing so in the right forum, and as all legal
>> surrogacies over the last 22 years in Israel have been *100% for
>> heterosexual couples* as enshrined in the wording of the 1996 act, you
>> should be lobbying against that existing act, which by definition has
>> involved not one single same sex couple, so the only legal surrogacy
>> cases you can possibly discuss and lobby against have nothing to do
>> with LGBT+ parental rights or access.
>>
>
> As I said, I'm opposed to surrogacy regardless of gender of intended
> parents. I'm against legalization of surrogacy, as well as any law
> expanding it. This is consequential with the position of considering
> surrogacy as exploitation. I understand you do not share this position, but
> for those of us who do, what you call non-discrimination, is simply
> expanding the population who can exercise a form of human exploitation.
>
> I don't ask you to share my views on surrogacy, and I don't want WMF to
> take sides with mine either. I think I have been clear about this from the
> start. It was never my intention to speak up against surrogacy in any
> Wikimedia venue. But I was not the one who officially brought up the topic,
> so I think it is completely reasonable to debate political matters that are
> brought up by WMF or its affiliates.
>
>
>>
>> Your actions hijacking a statement by WMIL for LGBT+ equality, are
>> anti-LGBT+ as was your nasty stereotype of those that dare to speak
>> openly about LGBT+ equality as being right-wing supporting rich white
>> men.
>>
>
>> This same stereotype has been used against LGBT+ rights discussion my
>> entire life, long before #fakenews was invented. It is untrue,
>> insidious, offensive, closes down civil discussion and deliberately
>> marginalising. I have no doubt that your purpose in being here is not
>> to help our open knowledge movement but to use any convenient soapbox
>> to be offensive and disruptive.
>>
>
>
> I'm really sorry I offended you with this example. I'm completely aware
> that this stereotype is used that way, and that's why I compare it to an
> equally insidious stereotype that is used against some people defending
> women rights. In retrospective, it was not a good way to make my point,
> since by no means I want to imply what you interpreted from my words.
>
> Best,
>
> Mario
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Mario Gómez]

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Fæ  wrote:

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

As I said, I'm opposed to surrogacy regardless of gender of intended
parents. I'm against legalization of surrogacy, as well as any law
expanding it. This is consequential with the position of considering
surrogacy as exploitation. I understand you do not share this position, but
for those of us who do, what you call non-discrimination, is simply
expanding the population who can exercise a form of human exploitation.

I don't ask you to share my views on surrogacy, and I don't want WMF to
take sides with mine either. I think I have been clear about this from the
start. It was never my intention to speak up against surrogacy in any
Wikimedia venue. But I was not the one who officially brought up the topic,
so I think it is completely reasonable to debate political matters that are
brought up by WMF or its affiliates.


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

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


I'm really sorry I offended you with this example. I'm completely aware
that this stereotype is used that way, and that's why I compare it to an
equally insidious stereotype that is used against some people defending
women rights. In retrospective, it was not a good way to make my point,
since by no means I want to imply what you interpreted from my words.

Best,

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

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

[Mario Gómez]

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Fæ  wrote:

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

Best,

Mario
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Mario Gómez]

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Fæ  wrote:

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

Yes, it is not the first point that I read this "you look anti-LGBT". It
will probably be the case for some people. I could say that proponents of
these positions _look like_ rich white people, predominantly male, who are
classist and anti-women right. Is that characterization fair? I don't think
so, but it might look like it for some people.

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

Best,

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

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

[Mario Gómez]

Hi Fæ,

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> In Wikipedian fashion, let us stick to the published statement by
> Wikimedia Israel without making unnecessary inferences.


That is what I do as a Wikipedia editor. But I don't find it reasonable
when it comes to WMF and affiliates activities. This would effectively mean
"stick to what WMF and affiliate says and don't complain".


> WMIL made a
> positive statement to support equality, and we know that equality is
> repeated in the Wikimedia Values and echoed in the developing future
> strategy
>

It is probable obvious from my previous emails, but I don't agree with this
framing of the issue. Taking surrogacy as simple issue of equality is
missing most of the debate about it.

My fellow colleages against surrogacy include a majority of women
(including L*BT) and a quite a few men too (including *GBT). I assure you
that for us, surrogacy is a form of exploitation of women, primarily women
of lower social classes and specially from less-developed countries.
Following the the trend of simplifying things to fit the Wikimedia Values,
I would say that, in order to promote equality, we should support all women
rights. And in doing so, in case of conflict, we should prioritize the
right to live, and live free of violence and exploitation. Hence, the WMF
should be clearly positioned against surrogacy regardless of who the
intended parents are. But no, I'm not proposing this, because of the
reasons in my previous emails.

And yes, just in case you were wondering, I strongly support the movement
for LGBT rights, but I don't think this is a simple case of LGBT _rights_
and it also involves women rights, which are largely ignored.

Best,

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

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

[Mario Gómez]

I see.

Yes. Part of the LGBTQ collective considers surrogacy to be related to
their rights. I completely acknowledge that.

Best,

Mario


On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 4:01 AM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> I think you misunderstood my point there. ;)
>
> I was speaking to your comment that it was incorrectly labeled a LGBTQ
> issue because of adoption. I did not mean to suggest no one is against
> surrogacy or that they are not promoting adoption as an alternative. I was
> indicating that to my knowledge those organizations are not telling
> non-LGBTQ people that the laws are not of interest to them because they can
> adopt. Looking at their sites, they seem to want all people (LGBTQ and
> non-LGBTQ) to see it as related to their lives and rights.
>
> Again, I am not commenting here on if organizations should engage, just
> pointing out that regardless of someone’s stance on the issue or this
> action, the issue remains one of relevance to LGBTQ rights (and others) and
> WMIL labeling it as a LGBTQ rights issue was accurate. :)
>
> -greg
>
> ___
> Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.
>
> > On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:25 AM, Mario Gómez  wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:56 AM, Gregory Varnum <
> gregory.var...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> As far as it being an alternative, that is usually true, but it is also
> >> true for non-LGBTQ families and I am not aware of viable political
> >> movements successfully suggesting non-LGBTQ families should not worry
> about
> >> surrogacy laws as adoptions are an alternative option for them.
> >>
> >>
> > Well, so you just met someone who suggests exactly that for non-LGBTQ
> > families and who actively participates in campaigns against legalization
> of
> > surrogacy in his country.
> >
> > This is actually a position held by many organizations, just to name a
> few:
> > the "National Network Against Wombs for Rent" and the  "We are not Pots"
> > campaign in Spain or the "Mexican Feminists Against Wombs for Rent" in
> > Mexico.
> >
> > These positions are also held by some feminist authors such as Kajsa Ekis
> > Ekman, Sylviane Agacinski or Silvia Federici.
> >
> > My point is not trying to convince you of my position. I do not think
> this
> > is the right forum to debate politics beyond WMF mission. My point is
> that
> > if the WMF or its affiliates take such positions beyond its mission, it
> > will be extremely damaging to the community, since this is just
> alienating
> > to all members of the community whose political positions do not match
> > exactly WMF's framework (heavily influenced by US narrow ideological
> > spectrum).
> >
> > I'm not asking for the WMF or its affiliates to be against surrogacy,
> just
> > the same way I don't ask for them to condemn apartheid policies against
> > Muslims in Israel or the genocide in Gaza. I'm just asking the WMF and
> its
> > affiliates to acknowledge that we are a global and diverse community
> united
> > for a mission, and that entering into political advocacy beyond its
> mission
> > is detrimental to this global perspective and diversity.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Mario
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 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 Israel joins the nationwide strike to protest the exclusion of gay couples the right to become parents

[Mario Gómez]

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:56 AM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

>  As far as it being an alternative, that is usually true, but it is also
> true for non-LGBTQ families and I am not aware of viable political
> movements successfully suggesting non-LGBTQ families should not worry about
> surrogacy laws as adoptions are an alternative option for them.
>
>
Well, so you just met someone who suggests exactly that for non-LGBTQ
families and who actively participates in campaigns against legalization of
surrogacy in his country.

This is actually a position held by many organizations, just to name a few:
the "National Network Against Wombs for Rent" and the  "We are not Pots"
campaign in Spain or the "Mexican Feminists Against Wombs for Rent" in
Mexico.

These positions are also held by some feminist authors such as Kajsa Ekis
Ekman, Sylviane Agacinski or Silvia Federici.

My point is not trying to convince you of my position. I do not think this
is the right forum to debate politics beyond WMF mission. My point is that
if the WMF or its affiliates take such positions beyond its mission, it
will be extremely damaging to the community, since this is just alienating
to all members of the community whose political positions do not match
exactly WMF's framework (heavily influenced by US narrow ideological
spectrum).

I'm not asking for the WMF or its affiliates to be against surrogacy, just
the same way I don't ask for them to condemn apartheid policies against
Muslims in Israel or the genocide in Gaza. I'm just asking the WMF and its
affiliates to acknowledge that we are a global and diverse community united
for a mission, and that entering into political advocacy beyond its mission
is detrimental to this global perspective and diversity.

Best,

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

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

[Mario Gómez]

Hi,

"a legal change on that would have given the LGBT community the right to
become parents"

If I read correctly, this is simply not true. It denied the right to use
gestational surrogacy. They can adopt though.

Note that gestational surrogacy is not a simple issue and it is highly
political. I'm sure many wikimedians oppose it, among which I include
myself. Surrogacy has nothing to do with LGBT rights, and everything to do
with exploitation of women, and more particularly, women of less advantaged
social classes.

It is sad to see a Wikimedia chapter to take this official position. I hope
WMF never follows these steps.

Best,

Mario




On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Open Law Book project on Wikisource

[Mario Gómez]

Hi Michal,

Congrats for the initiative, that is, indeed, an awesome achievement!

Just some nitpicky points:

* It would be desirable to clarify to Hasadana [1] that Wikimedia Israel is
an independent organization, and that they are jointly working with
"Wikimedia Israel", not "Wikimedia". [1]
* It is also important that they do not say that Wikisource is their
website [2], because it is not.


[1] ".This is what Hasada and Wikimedia’s joint project, Open Law Book
"
http://www.hasadna.org.il/en/2015/03/5728/
[2] " It is a Wikisource based website, making Israel’s laws open,
accessible and free. Needless to say – we published the Tax Ordinance on
our website, and it can be found here" (link points to Wikisource)
http://www.hasadna.org.il/en/2015/03/5728/
http://www.hasadna.org.il/en/projects/

Best,

MarioGom


On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Michal Lester 
wrote:

>  Hi all,
> Together with the Public Knowledge Workshop[1], a non-profit organization
> whose mission is to release public information, we signed a Declaration of
> Principles with the Israeli Parliament regarding the Open Law Book project
> on Wikisource[2]. This project began in 2004 and is an initiative to make
> all the laws and regulations passed by the parliament accessible to the
> public in a clear and reliable manner. Recently, the Israeli Parliament
> launched the National Legislation Database, which contains all information
> and data regarding the state's laws. In the  collaboration agreement signed
> between the three stakeholders, it is agreed that the Nationals Legislation
> Database will include links to the corresponding information in the Open
> Law Book, while vice versa the database may freely use any information from
> the Open Law Book. This collaboration will allow the public to have the
> most up-to-date information in a clear and understandable way, and thus
> also increase the transparency of legislation in Israel. This
> groundbreaking achievement is an example to the kind of impact that open
> knowledge initiatives can have on civil life.
>
> *Michal Lester,*
>
>
>
> *Executive DirectorWikimedia Israel*
> *http://www.wikimedia.org.il   *
>
>
> * [1] http://www.hasadna.org.il/en/about/
> [2]
> https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%
> D7%98%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98:%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%94%D7%97%
> D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%97
>  D7%98%D7%A7%D7%A1%D7%98:%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%94%D7%97%
> D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%97>
> *
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 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] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[Mario Gómez]

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the
> Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation
> was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining
> the right.
>

Not really. IMHO, the choice is between 1) acknowledging that we have a
diverse community where everyone may choose to support an organization
(other than the WMF) that matches their political position, or 2) imposing
a very specific political position upon the community.

I consider the "best candidate" point a fallacy, since it works with the
premise that human talent is so scarce that for every position in an
organization there is a single or very few people in the world fit for it.
I have seen the exact same point used so often to justify positions against
diversity, equality or economic independence policies that I don't buy it
anymore. There are many organizational policies that are more effective to
increase the pool of candidates, such as being globally distributed rather
than forcing relocation to the US, and they do not involve this kind of
lobbying.

PS.- In order to avoid thread hijacking, I will not answer here your points
about the other thread.

Best,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[Mario Gómez]

I find these activities by the WMF really disturbing for the community.
Looking at previous discussions, I am not the first one to voice these
issues, but here is my summary:

== It is cherry-picking ==

The WMF has no long-term commitment to immigration issues. This leads to
the appearance that the WMF is cherry-picking an issue against a specific
US administration while ignoring both previous administrations and
established bipartisan trends in US foreign policy. When I read these
communiqués, there are immediate questions that arise about its consistency:

* Why does the WMF remain silent about US immigration policies towards
Mexicans, which have been going on for more time?

* Why does the WMF position itself against religious discrimination on
immigration policies, but ignores ideological discrimination?


== It is not necessary ==

A lot of us in the community support organizations that engage in advocacy
on immigration issues. We chose to support organizations that match our
political positions and I encourage other members of the community to get
involved in organizations matching theirs. But it does not make sense that,
when I support the Wikimedia Foundation, I get to support an organization
sustaining political positions that enter in conflict with mine.


== It does not respect ideological diversity in the community ==

As an extension of previous point: the WMF position does not respect the
ideological diversity in the community. We signed up for free knowledge,
not to promote a very narrow and particular political position. Some
example of issues that raise political conflicts for some members of the
community:

* When the WMF says "the U.S., where we have unique freedoms that are
essential to supporting the Wikimedia projects", what unique freedom are
they referring to? Some of us find that plainly offensive from a country
that we consider to have severe problems for freedom, and that we consider
that play an international role that is damaging to freedom worldwide.

* When the WMF specifically refers to Libya: why doesn't it condemn NATO
invasion of Libya, which destroyed the country and caused a major
immigration crisis in Europe? Some of us find this kind of position
offensive too.


== It alienates the community ==

If the WMF wants to get involved in advocacy activities beyond its core
mission, at least, it should perform a global consultation process with the
community to approve it. Otherwise, a lot of us are alienated by the fact
that we are supporting a project that performs advocacy activities that we
might not share, and we didn't even had the chance to get out voices heard.


Best,

MarioGom


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

> *This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068
> *
> *Please consider supporting with translations. *
>
> Dear friends,
>
> On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
> ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
> travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
> found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
> the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
> comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis
> for some of these restrictions.
>
> Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia
> communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user
> group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our
> movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in
> these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
>
> To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in
> affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this
> outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone,
> everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We
> believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely
> collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free
> knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen
> when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is
> limited, the world is a poorer place.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier
> versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early
> 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a
> series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have
> posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most
> recent outcome of this case. [6]
>
> We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual
> staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The
> Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Response to recent developments of United States travel ban

[Mario Gómez]

Hello,

I would suggest to update Wikimedia sites to reflect the fact that
Wikimedia Foundation is active in lobbying in the area of immigration
public policies:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_policy
https://policy.wikimedia.org/

Best,

MarioGom

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

> *This letter is also available on Meta-Wiki here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10631068
> *
> *Please consider supporting with translations. *
>
> Dear friends,
>
> On Tuesday, the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court,
> ruled in favor of the current U.S. administration’s restrictions[1] on
> travel and immigration from seven countries.[2] In a 5-4 ruling, the Court
> found that the restrictions were lawfully created, despite their breach of
> the longstanding ideals of the U.S. immigration system and disturbing
> comments [3] made by the current administration about the religious basis
> for some of these restrictions.
>
> Of the seven countries named, at least three have active Wikimedia
> communities. The Wikimedia chapter in Venezuela, Iranian Wikimedians user
> group, and proposed Libyan user group represent the reality that our
> movement has no borders. Our mission does not discriminate, it unites: in
> these and other countries, we have friends, allies, and fellow Wikimedians.
>
> To our fellow Wikimedians, particularly those from or with family in
> affected countries: we stand with you and reject the premise of this
> outcome. Our movement is possible because of the belief that everyone,
> everywhere, should be able to contribute to shared human understanding. We
> believe in a world where every country, language, and culture can freely
> collaborate without restriction in our shared effort of making free
> knowledge accessible to every person. Wikipedia is proof of what can happen
> when these freedoms are unrestricted. When our ability to come together is
> limited, the world is a poorer place.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has opposed the restrictions since earlier
> versions were first introduced. We responded to an executive order in early
> 2017[4] by joining many other organizations and companies in signing a
> series of amicus briefs before the courts hearing these cases.[5] We have
> posted an update on the Wikimedia blog detailing our position on the most
> recent outcome of this case. [6]
>
> We are mindful that these restrictions may have real impacts on individual
> staff and community members, as well as our families and communities. The
> Wikimedia Foundation rejects the spirit of this ban and similar
> restrictions in place around the world that treat some more equally than
> others. Our commitment to our global ethos and shared vision will continue
> to guide our policy efforts into the future, as we strive to uphold the
> values that make our movement possible.
>
> Katherine
>
> [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13780
> [2]
> https://www.apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf53539
> 3b/High-court-OKs-Trump's-travel-ban,-rejects-Muslim-bias-claim
> [3]
> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-
> calls-halt-muslims-entering-151207220200817.html
> [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/
> [5] See
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-
> restrictions/,
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/03/15/amicus-brief-us-travel-restrictions/
> ,
> and
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/amicus-brief-us-travel-immigration/
> [6]
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/07/02/supreme-court-
> immigration-wikimedia-values/
>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
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] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

[Mario Gómez]

Please, don't:

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:11 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> I propose that the Executive Director ask donors to
> support other organizations which are working for free college,[1-4]
> single payer universal health care,[5] shorter work weeks,[6-7]
> payroll subsidies,[8] and two-bracket taxation.[9]
>
> I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
> wikimedians,


There may be wide support for these goals (or not). But there is not
necessarily wide support for some specific approaches.

--- Here's an example. My point is that what you conceive as a
quasi-universal political posiition among wikimedians... it's not.

Taking your proposal for free college, a lot of us support a fully public
education system accessible to everyone. And a lot of us strongly oppose
private sector meddling with the education system.

What would mean your proposal to donate for "free college"? Reading your
links, I assume it might be donating to the Foundation for California
Community College, and I think that would be definitely a no for a part of
the community for different reasons:

1. Why should Wikimedia promote lobbying specific to California? I would
rather support governments in Latin America to improve public education.
And that's just one of the possible possitions.
2. Those of us who oppose private sector in the public education system, do
NOT want to support an organization that promotes those kind of practices:
advertising education materials of their private donors, promoting private
sector involvement in the education system.

There is another problem: the WMF has insisted that funds it receives from
corporate donors do not influence WMF decisions. If WMF starts promoting
donations to organizations that promote private interests of WMF corporate
donors... that would be a vicious relation that would undermine WMF
credibility.

Best,

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