On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They
> have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not
A lot of different issues are being conflated by commenters on-wiki and
here, muddying the issue. The WMF responses and some others think that this
is about policing conduct, and the perennial difficulty of doing that
against people who have entrenched support and lots of positive
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these things? I
have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted the
entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers so
deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
Philip - as can be seen from the group's meta page, this is the former
Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil. Originally founded in 2013, this
organization was de-recognized by AffCom about one year ago.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
d be a recommendation that gets included in the
> final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it or
> who pays for it.
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan wrote:
> > The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain co
The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity. Additionally,
the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to its
projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites and
I'll ask the obvious question - why is it not Wikimedia South Korea?
And congrats to the participating Wikimedians on their achievement and
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 6:11 PM María Sefidari
> Hi everyone,
> I am happy to share that earlier this year, the Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM phoebe ayers wrote:
> Dear all,
> I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question
> underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public
> awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates
of them by
glaringly public flaws.
To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is
maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly
unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ wrote
"Deleting Wikipedia?" was the subject line of the e-mail I received as
well. It also, as usual, included the claim that if enough donations were
received the campaign would end early. That hasn't been the case in the
past when campaign goals are met.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:04 PM Pine W wrote:
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact that
AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a resolution. It
doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant is a
single individual and the other is a community of people led by those
I can't tell which part of this situation is the more sad; is it the events
themselves, the total absence of any comment from AffCom, or the very
limited interest evinced by the rest of the folks subscribed to this list?
It seems if we follow the AffCom model described here, we should take WMPT
Mike, the "soft" part of the launch is that it is available only in
English, has not been heavily promoted and every link and reference
elsewhere has not been transitioned. This info was in Gregory's initial
post about the soft launch on the 1st.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:50 PM Michael Peel
I think Andrea's post perfectly illustrates the risk to WMF and WM
affiliates of embracing political positions outside the core mission of the
projects. The number of worthy causes is near infinite; every time you
endorse one you please some people and make many other people wonder why
I agree with Ad and keyed on the same objection when reading Pine's
complaint. The WMF has been the primary organization responsible for
developing the community since the inception of the Wikimedia movement.
That isn't changed by the titles of any particular position. To the extent
Congrats Charlotte and WMFr for everything you have done and achieved in
such a short period of time. A truly impressive and meaningful
accomplishment and demonstration of the capacity of Wikimedians to use the
movement's tools and ethos to effect positive change.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:04 PM
I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia should adhere to this
law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France passed a law banning
Internet-published photos of living people, how would we approach that law?
If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, date of birth or religious
I get hundreds of these a year (my user name, Nathan, seems to be a popular
target). It would nice to be able to use some sort of multi-factor
authentication, which is actually supported by OAUTH. However, it seems
most projects (including en.wp) restrict use to accounts with elevated
The site visit report is disturbing, especially with respect to the
potential for hundreds of thousands of euros to be missing or unaccounted
for since 2015. How is it that the FDC provided any funds to WMFR while
that issue was still unresolved? Was the FDC aware of the legacy payable
Everything else aside, the apparent fact that the ED of WMFr hired her
husband in any capacity is a clear sign of serious dysfunction and poor
governance controls. If the association has had half its board resign and
is accusing Anthere and Christophe Henner of misconduct, it suggests that
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> When individuals are discredited in this way, your option, you are judging
> these people. That is in my opinion a mistake. You may judge a situation
> and determine because of what you consider your
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Anna Stillwell
> Hello everybody,
> I want to thank everyone for offering their considered thoughts. I mean
> that genuinely. There are many legitimate views expressed in this thread,
> many by generous, constructive, wise, and
It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of
"everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the policies
of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and
supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Pine W wrote:
> How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with
> community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that
> is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is
What would your intended use of the results of such a survey be? How do you
think the community, or any group of people, should interpret, value and
react to the results?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Bill Takatoshi
> When a contentious question about the
I generally share Yair's reluctance to see the WMF engage in political
activity outside the scope of the Wikimedia mission, but I'd like to
express my support for the WMF taking action specifically in pursuit of
maintaining the freedom to travel and work of its employees and volunteers
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Rogol Domedonfors
> On 20 December, you wrote
> > Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need to do
> > small and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the whole
> > resolution process
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> I fail to see who you are targeting and on what basis. My impression is
> that it only has to do with money.. I understand this. For other parts like
> the language committee there are no reports except
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Andrea Zanni
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Yair Rand wrote:
> > "Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park.
> > is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all
illuminate why WM AM is
in compliance but others are not, I would appreciate it!
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
I did not see many arguing that the WMF must be neutral; the debate is not
about political neutrality, but about political activity outside the
mission of the WMF. Few argue, on the substance or even principle, that the
WMF's statement about the travel ban is wrong or misplaced - merely that
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Natacha Rault wrote:
> ...After all there is a notion called "freedom of speech" Katherine
> Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent wikipedians from
> editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV (actually there is no
It might be more effective, and certainly more courteous, if you could
avoid making essentially the same set of advocacy posts almost every day.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:38 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> I propose that the Foundation issue a statement in support of striking
Romaine makes some good points. There is a legitimate concern that the turn
to populism and unpredictability threatens the environment in which
Wikimedia operates, and its only reasonable to consider a move of core
assets somewhere safer from the unspooling of Western social fabric.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:39 PM, John wrote:
> Im not sure you are reading section 14 correctly. It makes reference to
> agencies involved in immigration enforcement and law enforcement agencies.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> Not going to North Corolina is absolutely fine with me. We do not gain
> anything by going there arguably not to any state in the United States.
> What Wikimania is, is a platform for propaganda for what
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Pine W wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also
> apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result
> of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6
I find Trillium's denied e-mail to be off-topic but hardly so objectionable
that a moderator reviewing it should deny it. If it is the case that a
moderator suggested minor stylistic changes (couple days to couple of
days), that seems a bit distasteful and probably not what list members
How hard would it be to ask for search feedback on search results, perhaps
piloting with some small subset of zero-result searches? For 1/1000 ZRRs,
prompt the user to provide some type of useful information about why there
should be results, or if there ought to be, or what category of
Congrats Geoff on your new and extraordinarily challenging role! Best of
luck and thank you for all of your hard work on behalf of the WMF.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Geoff Brigham <gbrig...@wikimedia.org>
> Hi all,
> Over the past five years, I’ve been h
Paid editing is addressed in the WMF terms of service and is a problem that
has confronted or will confront most of the prominent projects in the
movement. An alert to an RfC regarding principles of broader import, and a
small amount of linked discussion, seems to be a perfectly reasonable use
Experiences described by a new editor are valid and meaningful even if, in
relating them, the new editor shows some lack of familiarity with Wikipedia
customs and established doctrines. It's certainly true that the process of
patrolling pages for quality can be, from the perspective of a newbie
Congrats all, and thank you Patricio. I'll observe that it is interesting
that the Board chose Christophe as Chair on his first day as a member, I
think that is unprecedented in the short history of the WMF Board.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Patricio Lorente <
Marc - just wanted to thank you for using "begging the question" properly!
Chris - thanks for your insight. To Anders' point, perhaps not all insights
offered will be new to everyone. But where some problems or potential
solutions have been identified by some, it will be nice for them to have
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Denny Vrandečić
> Just a few points of clarification:
> * I have, to the best of my memory, passed on information only with the
> understanding of my sources. If any of my sources disagrees with that,
> please send me a message - I
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> While *some* of research ethics comes from the medical world -
> particularly from the Belmont report and the Western-centric research
> atrocities of the last century - much of it does not. Things like the
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Justin Senseney wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> > +1 to that question, which is the biggest flag I have here.
> > "The highest standards of confidentiality" is nice but, as you note,
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage >
> > Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically,
> > "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Also, no, the United States is explicitly not a democracy. It's a republic.
> And no, the Wikimedia movement is not a democracy - but it's *also* not a
> dictatorship or a banana republic with a President For Life.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:53 AM, James Salsman wrote:
> Doesn't that mean that the Foundation has the legal standing to see all
> three of those projects published?
Where do you see legal standing being a factor here, and how would the WMF
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:54 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Are there any reasons that trying to do this might be a bad idea?
Because the WMF is not, at least as far as we know,
FWIW, it's clear that the trademark policy is intended to apply to users
other than the WMF. This is all a bit overblown, considering the tiny scale
of use and money involved.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Fæ wrote:
> Tim, thanks for raising the Trademark Policy.
of those individuals who
> are directly affected. Privacy should win.
> On 14 March 2016 at 12:50, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's an easy question to ask in a non-specific way:
> > In the last six months, has the WM
It's an easy question to ask in a non-specific way:
In the last six months, has the WMF approved severance agreements with
departing employees with language that, in effect, prevented them from
publicly criticizing the WMF, its management or the Board on matters of
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Marc A. Pelletier
> On 16-03-14 10:33 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
> > Per commons Policy's the RFC is valid.
> Then the policy is broken. It seems more than a little insane to me
> that an opinion poll having had participation of a
Great work, Pete, all very interesting and useful. Thanks for dedicating
your time to do this.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> As many of you are aware, it's always been difficult to navigate
> information about the proceedings of the Board of
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chris Keating
> I'm really glad that Guy is able to bring this kind of insight to the Board
> HR committee.
> OK, in possibly good news and trying to be fair to Guy, it looks like the
> @guykawasaki bears very little
If the board is choosing not to participate for a particular reason, or
Jimmy is choosing not to release e-mails for a particular reason, then they
should say so. Nothing keeps them from offering that information
themselves. It isn't necessary for other people to speculate on whether the
Would it be wildly wrong to infer from this message that you are assisting
the WMF by taking on some or all of the duties of the ED?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Geoff Brigham <gbrig...@wikimedia.org>
> Hi everyone,
> I’m writing to let you k
What do we want? We want to understand what board members think about major
issues, we want some sense of the direction of the organization as driven
by the board, we want to be able to see and verify that issues important to
stakeholders throughout the movement are being considered and addressed
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Chris Sherlock
> Do you serve on any non-profit boards Chris?
Chris Keating is on the board of the WMUK.
In any case, it seems like there are many deliberative or legislative
bodies that see themselves as
Is there any actual connection between Susanna and the high-level
government interest or effort around the Armenian Wikipedia? What I'm
asking is if there is anything here, other than supposition that because
she is Armenian and the Armenian government is interested in Wikipedia that
Jimmy - the limit is a "soft limit" of 30 posts per month. If someone goes
well over you might get an e-mail from Austin or another moderator to cut
back, but otherwise there is no need to ask for an exception.
Chris Sherlock - It is certainly not "unambiguous" what qualifies in that
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jimmy Wales
> One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I
> think of the possibility of James running for the board again.
> First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Fæ wrote:
> Ownership of Wikia is a relationship where loyalty will be perceived
> by the public as questionable, and there may be indirect financial
> gains, even though there is no traceable direct benefit.
Is there any evidence
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yuri Astrakhan
> I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be
> a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share
> movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of
Tilman, are these quarterly reports no longer being released?
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
> Hi all,
> please find the Wikimedia Foundation's report for the first quarter of
> this fiscal year at
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Jake Orlowitz wrote:
> Oliver wrote:
> "The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat
> structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like
> this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or
the OP here struck me as the best and most complete
statement of this vision that I have read. If you are aware of a better one
that I have missed (completely possible, even likely!), could you please
provide a link?
Lila's statement of her vision for WMF is compelling and attractive. If
properly and faithfully executed, it seems like it would make just the
right adjustments to the culture of the WMF and its interaction with and
support of the Wikimedia community. I have long been concerned that a
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker wrote:
> Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one
> because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the movement.
> Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime", but
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> Spending and fundraising are two sides of the same coin. I remember that it
> was strongly suggested that money had to go through the WMF for all kinds
> of political reasons. At the time it was the Dutch
Thanks Maria for agreeing to join the Board in this manner and at this time.
On the subject of advantages vs. disadvantages... I imagine one of the most
important is that a new election may have seen the community elect James
Heilman again, requiring the board to publicly pass over him in favor
Is the question of whether the bylaws ever automatically created an actual
class of members relevant? Is there something in either the bylaws or
Florida law that would prohibit the board from changing the str
Thank you Patricio and Arnnon, and good luck and best wishes to Arnnon.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
It's unfair of anyone to expect Arnnon to comment about the legal case or
the circumstances surrounding it. I'm sure he has a stack of legal advice
and corporate policies that specifically prevent him from answering Todd's
questions or others. Even though I don't support the corporate collusion
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak
> The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
> 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
> have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
the staff missed it entirely. If they were doing even a cursory
review and reference check of the candidates through the very last stage,
it's hard to imagine how that could happen. Perhaps more likely is that the
staff happened upon the issue but didn't forward it to the Board?
I hope some day someone will be bold enough to tell the rest of us what
this is all really about. I'm sure I'm not alone (though perhaps in the
minority!) in not having inside staff contacts to provide the straight
Wikimedia-l mailing list,
t. We plan to make an
> announcement on the roadmap for filling that seat by early next week.
Patricio, I wish you and your colleagues the best of luck in recovering the
trust and confidence of the many people who supported James' bid to
The 30 post limit came about in a different era, when the list had problems
at a greater scale. I don't see any issues with post frequency recently
that should have received moderator response. You are referring to GerardM,
but the majority of his posts have been to a single thread. I can't speak
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac
> I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as
> at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a
> silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2015 12:33 AM, "Craig Franklin"
> > but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal
> > with the fallout of that decision.
> That, at
"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in
the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision
*against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to
do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:00 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
> >In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's
> >lack of transparency or failure to be forthcoming in a timely manner.
> The removal resolution
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
> talkpage. Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
I don't think all the legal speculation here is very helpful. I'm sure the
Board or someone else will sagely advise us that the board is
self-governing and self-perpetuating and no other legal authority is
In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:39 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> As Patricio stated the "Board has a responsibility to ... ensure that the
> Board functions with *mutual confidence*"
> My fellow trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me to justify my
> removal. No reason
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
> Surely there must be a board resolution that needs to be pubished regarding
It was published. It contains no information beyond the OP.
Add my voice to those waiting for the Board to provide something closer to
the minimum necessary context for this decision.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:
The reply every year is that the banners are keyed for maximum
effectiveness, even if they are intrusive, in order to make the overall
fundraising drive as short as possible. Fundraising has made small tweaks
to various banners, but generally have not been willing to significantly
The purpose of "privacy" on a mailing list with hundreds of subscribers is
to avoid easy scrutiny and to bar participation from those who aren't an
approved member of the club. Note that affiliates can't simply add
subscribers; they have to request them. So the questions are - is a private
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> 2) Greg Kohs was banned from attending. I think that was a mistake. He is a
> fierce critic of Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia. I am aware of the lines he has
> crossed in the past (and the seemingly sincere apologies).
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> I think that this is a very unhappy wording; there is nothing wrong
> with the bid or the city by itself. As much as I find the wasted
> effort scandalous, it is not the fault of our friends from Montreal.
Can you describe the source of your authority, and that of the committee,
to make such a decision? Do you have the approval of Lila and/or the Board?
Which movement organizations, including those responsible for funding
endeavours like Wikimania, did you consult?
On Sun, Oct 4
Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has
been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that
completed this past August. 
It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method
before it was a done deal.
I don't know how Wikimedia engineering tracks project resource usage - is
there a number out there for the total cost to the WMF associated with the
Flow project? At a basic minimum, the number of developer and other hours
dedicated to Flow (including fully dedicated contractors)? Is it likely
Very sorry to hear that, Philippe. From the perspective of an outsider to
the WMF and many of the "interior processes" of the Wikimedia community,
you have always been a ray of light and a source of insight, knowledge and
order. Your presence in a discussion, debate or process has always elevated
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com
And I forgot to mention, this same issue existed in 2014 as well, with also
there the downside effects.
This subject is of banners has been discussed internally with the local
Wiki Loves Monuments
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
What I would hope for is guidance from the WMF Board that specifically
outlines when WMF invocation of superprotect is and isn't appropriate ,
and which I believe is already being discussed internally by the Board.
1 - 100 of 407 matches
Mail list logo