Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism

2020-04-25 Thread 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!

2019-09-25 Thread 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

2019-09-07 Thread 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

2019-09-07 Thread 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

2019-05-21 Thread 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==500=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

2019-05-11 Thread 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==500=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!

2018-08-02 Thread 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

2018-07-31 Thread 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
> >>> posted

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

2018-07-27 Thread 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, but I'm curious to
>> know
>

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

2018-07-26 Thread 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>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l maili

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

2018-07-22 Thread 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

2018-07-22 Thread 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

2018-07-22 Thread 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

2018-07-21 Thread 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

2018-07-21 Thread 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

2018-07-21 Thread 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

2018-07-21 Thread 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

2018-07-21 Thread 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

2018-07-21 Thread 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

2018-07-20 Thread 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

2018-07-20 Thread 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

2018-07-12 Thread 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

2018-07-08 Thread 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

2018-07-07 Thread 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
> 

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

2018-07-07 Thread 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

2018-07-07 Thread 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,