Is all this stuff somewhere on Meta?
From: Isaac Olatunde [mailto:reachout2is...@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 May 2021 01:07
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Affiliations Committee Call for Candidates - June
2021
To add to Risker's question, which subcommittee is responsible
In what way would this clarify anything? Common sense is not so common, and
sometimes is not even rational. Reasonable person at least provides some
conditions for testing, though is also clearly not very useful in a
multicultural environment.
Cheers,
Peter
From: Wikimedia-l
If things are as bad as that then there should be and might already be an
offshore backup, possibly more than one, as it is a no-brainer, and I don’t
think WMF tech management and the board are stupid, and nor are those who
would wish to prevent it from happening. But plausible deniability.
Good points.
Are these maybe covered in a future stage of the project?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Samuel Klein
Sent: 26 September 2020 19:26
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l]
Unfortunately I think all these points are valid. These behavious do not
improve communication for many of us. There seems to be a choice between
freedom of expression and effective communication in a multicultural group.
There is theoretically the option of asking for clarification, but it is
This is the point I was working on. I also have no confident answer to this
problem, but have a gut feel it is somewhere in between the extremes. There is
also the point that most people have some choice in where they live, though I
do not have any useful suggestion of how that should be
tter? When measuring
internal equity, do we measure based on how expensive of a lifestyle each
employee leads?
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:46 AM Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Should they? Their cost of living expenses may vary considerably.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
There was no clear statement of "this is the problematic text and this is why
it is considered unacceptable", which is a thing that I consider a reasonable
expectation, as it is possible to learn from it, understand it, pass
constructive criticism or agreement, and use as it a precedent for
Should they? Their cost of living expenses may vary considerably.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Nathan
Sent: 11 September 2020 13:39
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and
I would call this fair comment, and parallels can be drawn between how the UCoC
may be used and the current discussion. Without clear statement on why a
decision is made it cannot be properly understood, accepted or improved, and we
end up in the usual spiral of speculation, accusation and bad
he broader audience.
Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
without effort.
As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
to be heard.
A.
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 1
Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
expressions, and how they are determined?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Wennersten
Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
To:
It is not yet clear that the use of the words "fart" or "flatulence" are the
actual issue. Context matters, but we do not know the full context yet, as the
reasons have not been explained, leaving us with little option but to
speculate. We are experiencing a failure of communication as much, or
Good luck to all of you
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Rocío Consales
Sent: 10 September 2020 20:39
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] New board of Wikimedia Chile / Nuevo directorio de
18:19 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
> Is the objection to the words he used or to the way he used them?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
>
Is the objection to the words he used or to the way he used them?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Asaf Bartov
Sent: 09 September 2020 21:57
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice
For a UVoC to be helpful, it would have to be sufficiently clear about what is
unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable, and would itself have to be
sufficiently clear and acceptable to be seen as fair by the communities who
would be bound by it. This is not easy to do, and the talk page
Anders, I think you are referring to jargon. I agree that it should be avoided
in the interests of clarity and ease of reliable translation.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Anders Wennersten
Sent: 10
the opportunity to be a
list administrator :D
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 19:41, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Good judgement is often such a subjective thing, Everyone thinks they have
> it. A bit like the Dunning-Kruger effect.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
&
Are those things not already covered by the terms of use?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Amir Sarabadani
Sent: 10 September 2020 13:22
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code
misconduct, need not
apply.
A.
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020, 12:58 Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Asaf,
> What are the criteria for eligibility as moderator for this list?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikim
Asaf,
What are the criteria for eligibility as moderator for this list?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Asaf Bartov
Sent: 10 September 2020 11:07
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l]
Is there a record somewhere of what unacceptable language was used and
against what standard it was judged to be unacceptable?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Asaf Bartov
Sent: 09 September 2020 21:57
To:
Maybe you could take on an official historian.
Cheers,
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Delphine Ménard
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 19:06
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @
This is the sort of information that should be in the official history.
Cheers,
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Pete Forsyth
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 22:37
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l]
always feel free to let us know of other ideas to improve the
process for community feedback gathering!
Best regards,
Christel
Christel Steigenberger (she/her)
Trust and Safety Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 8:44 PM Peter Sou
Hi Christel
I am glad to hear that, and I hope that proper consultation will occur with all
potentially affected parties, in places where they can comment and point out
problems on user friendly or at least familiar software, over at least a
reasonably representative range of languages, and
for participation
Hoi,
So what is your alternative, what do you have as an alternative?
Thanks,
GerardM
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 20:24, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Hi Christel,
> I wish the committee well, and success in coming up with a workable
> policy. This is fine as long as no a
Hi Christel,
I wish the committee well, and success in coming up with a workable policy.
This is fine as long as no assumption is made that these people represent the
communities in any way other than for themselves. They may be fine people and
may even have excellent ideas and skills suited to
Could even be that no-one has gotten around to writing any policies and
guidance, and everyone is just winging it with very little oversight. How
could we know?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Dennis
List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
Hoi,
How can OTRS be part of Wikipedia, it is there for any and all projects.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wik
Seems to me that if someone does not specify a motivation, we leave it as that
- no motivation. It you want to know what it is, you ask. You may get an
answer, but sometimes it is not particularly relevant, as the question may be
worth asking for whatever reason because the answer could be
List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia?
I don't understand that question.
The cited answer was received from .
If not, Which ANI?
>
Context is necessary to understand this.
If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Aron Manning
Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re:
If it was just a matter of money to keep the servers running, I would say yes,
but if they have no editors there would not be a lot of point. We could offer
an archive, and assimilation.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
it seems this problem is localised on
our Africa based users?
Regards
Seddon
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:05 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> I get this:
>
> The connection has timed out
>
> The server at en.wikipedia.org is taking too long to resp
, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:24 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> Is anyone else unable to get through to the Wikimedia servers?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>
Is anyone else unable to get through to the Wikimedia servers?
Cheers,
Peter
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to:
Dunning and Kruger identified the effect, unfortunately they did not identify a
cure.
Cheers,
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 29 June 2020 12:36
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re:
So far it has been an ongoing process. No obvious reason to expect a change.
Cheers,
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Dan Szymborski
Sent: 28 June 2020 18:13
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board
It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit for
purpose, regardless of how many people have responded. It is ethically
questionable to continue using a survey which simply does not allow for the
possibility of being completely wrong when this possibility has been
That is a really poorly designed survey unless it has been changed since I last
saw it.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Zack McCune
Sent: 27 June 2020 02:37
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re:
Of course not, we have a strong bias in favour of freedom of information,
accuracy, and verifiability to reliable sources. Also, officially, civil
discourse and decision by consensus. It is written into our basic policies
(speaking as an en: Wikipedian, other projects may differ). Most policy
The entertainment industry has more influential lobbyists?
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
James Salsman
Sent: 20 April 2020 23:40
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Yaroslav Blanter
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comment Open on
One of the advantages of this project is that the best of each Wikipedia can be
used, allowing smaller Wikipedias to concentrate on topics of local interest
and importance which are not in the other language wikipedias, and these can be
used in the major wikipedias, expanding their diversity if
I agree. It did not seem to say anything much.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Fæ
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 3:06 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Summary of the Brand Project
A very interesting proposal for a new wiki by Denny Vrandečić at
https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04733 (What's making me happy this week)
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Pine W
Sent: 15 April 2020 08:36
To:
Based on my first read-through of the paper, I think this would be something
worth doing.
Cheers,
Peter.
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Denny Vrandecic
Sent: 14 April 2020 02:53
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject:
; > > untiil thats taken place.It's like asking the fox to rebuild
> the
> > > hen
> > > > > house, I just dont see how I could support anything they
> recommend.
> > > > >
> > > > > After the dollars, and t=volunteer time that has been pumped int
about Wikimedia for the last 15 years
[1] and I learned that documentation may be relevant but it is unlikely to
make people see what is in front of them.
Thanks,
GerardM
[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:16, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> It is grossly unrealis
its positive *and* negative
benefits. Often the negative benefits seem to outweigh the positive,
unfortunately.
Aron
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:17, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing
> community for what you appear to co
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300
> projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia
> with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other
&
Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about 300
projects and make several good points about how people confuse Wikipedia with
English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other projects, and
then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to be
I put a reply on the "What does free knowledge mean to you" questionnaire, but
it did not turn up on the list below the edit box. Is the set of published
replies being censored or cherry-picked to remove anything that someone does
not like?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From:
Perhaps you do, but do the volunteer communities of the projects you would like
to rename share this enthusiasm?
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Dennis During
Sent: 14 March 2020 00:20
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far, it looks
like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we operate, or they
have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin their way
through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of buzz,
I am not getting your point here. Could you try to explain more clearly. It
would help if you used the correct words, or if you are do not know them, give
the equivalent in your own language so we can get a meaningful translation. It
is not even clear which Wikipedia you are complaining about.
Also, overworked groups with large backlogs struggling to maintain high quality
tend to have less patience with the inexperienced and not-yet-competent than we
might like. It is also possible that some of the workers in those groups are
not as competent as we would like them to be, but at those
This does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons?
This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it is
jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related.
For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do not
think this
I think I agree with this.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 21 February 2020 15:50
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space
Hoi,
There are too
Agree about the 3 features, have not given sufficient though to the rest yet to
comment.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Aron Manning
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 4:04 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
This seems a reasonably prudent path.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Pine W
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 6:14 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations
A big part of the problem is when these things are implemented, and people ask
questions because they don't know what is going on, they are often met by
complete absence of response from anyone at WMF, or in the case of the
strategy, whoever it was that published the stuff for comment. I agree
Hi Nick,
That is quite a lot to read to try to find where the scope is mentioned, could
you be a bit more specific? I do not want to read all about three events in the
hope of finding where the scope is defined. It was not obvious in the places
that I looked.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original
Thanks for the heads-up, Mike,
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Mike Peel
Sent: 20 January 2020 00:29
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Snøhetta and Wikimedia
This meta RfC might be of interest:
Joe, What would "experience with advanced wikitext markup" mean in this context?
Also "responsiveness to email outreach"?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Joe Sutherland
Sent: 11 January 2020 01:28
To:
I have also been told that Wikipedia is closing down because it is out of money.
Again.
Happens every year about this time.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Joseph Seddon
Sent: 12 December 2019 20:39
To:
James
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:25 PM James Salsman
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kul,
> > > >
> > > > Would you please send a few or more paragraph description of the
> > > > accomplishments and costs of the Wik
Gerhard,
I am also interested in what the impact of Wikipedia Zero was, but it is not
obvious to me how it would be measured.
The board members are unlikely to have personally researched this, but might
know if there is or was a project and if so what they are or were trying to
measure.
Hi Pine,
I look at it like I look at the Signpost. I find much of it interesting, and
usually read it through from end to end. I click on links when they look
interesting and I have the time. I am happy to see it exists, but in most cases
I do not feel the need to add any comments, because it
If the changes get staff more directly and personally involved in communicating
with the rest of the community it could be helpful to both groups,
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Dariusz Jemielniak
Sent: 16
Hi Gerard,
Do you have a better suggestion? Something practical and less expensive, that
could actually work to make conferences more widely accessible?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Gerard Meijssen
Sent:
It would be more meaningful to derive a net value to the world ecosystem due to
such travel, but that is not easily amenable to calculation. However it is
probably more positive than your regular punter's vacation in the Caribbean.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l
Perhaps this is something that should be left as the choice of the volunteers
who contribute the content? Whatever they feel comfortable with and are
competent in. It may vary between contributors for the same language.
Once content is published, anyone with the skills and desire can
Todd,
We can recover from the loss of those admins eventually, but that recovery may
be delayed by further blows, and somewhere along the line is the last straw.
This may be welcomed by some groups, not so much by others. Otherwise I agree
with your point, though do not necessarily agree with
r that is
> best
> > to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> > consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines
> of
> > how we could improve upon them.
> > Thanks
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, 2
This appears to be a reasonable and balanced comment by Dariusz. The
recommendations in their current state were opened for discussion and are being
discussed. Where commentators have seen problematic issues they have pointed
them out. The working groups have in some cases entirely failed to
g the need for change,
consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
how we could improve upon them.
Thanks
GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Gerard,
> It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it
> is
ng the best possible quality.
So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
as an abstraction.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Benjamin,
> Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
>
Benjamin,
Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the
board might overrule the community in this matter?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Benjamin Ikuta
Sent: 24 August
This!
This piece by Agnes Caillard should be required reading for Wikimedians
debating policy.
Very well expressed
Thanks, Pine, It is also making me happy this week.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Pine W
I think that is very much the point Andy is making. To be reasonably
representative of the "Movement" the recommendations should be accepted by the
wider community, otherwise all legitimacy falls away, and it becomes the
political games of a clique.
Cheers
P
-Original Message-
From:
, that are absolutely
necessary to be taken into account. Good progress, I'm quite positive about
it.
Aron
ᐧ
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 17:35, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta.
> You don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when
uot;.
Kind regards
Ziko
Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
> I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these
> items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may
> differ, so why n
I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these items
can be considered ready for further development. The amount may differ, so why
not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each recommendation to remain open
for discussion as long as it is being actively discussed (and
thoughtful suggestion. I'm not sure the WG members
will see it here, maybe you could post on the talk page? I haven't seen it
there.
Aron
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 12:00, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free
> and pseudo-free media
"All change has negative connotations to some members of the community".
That statement may be true, but it is not useful. Not even slightly. It could
serve as a preamble to a detailed exposition, but on its own in the specific
context it just looks arrogant and incompetent.
Cheers,
Peter
That is a way you can look at it, but is it realistic? (it would depend on
details, which we do not have) SF is an expensive place to pay staff, and the
SF point of view may be overrepresented. Spreading it around a bit may be
better value for money, and could improve diversity and inclusion.
See bottom for reply.
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Nathan
Sent: 13 August 2019 01:18
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at
One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free and
pseudo-free media. Keep it off Commons altogether, so Commonists have no new
problems, and to use it on a project would require specific permission by that
project, so that Commons is not the only repository that can
If that is so, then what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Again
By now we should be getting used to it.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Chris Keating
Sent: 12 August 2019 18:20
To: Wikimedia Mailing
I particularly agree with the finding about weaponisation of policy, and note
that is often associated with a wall of shortcuts referring to policies without
clarification of exactly how the policies were contravened. This is poor
communication practice, and is lazy when it is not an outright
near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and
that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 00:32 Peter Southwood
wrote:
> The board does not manage WMF. It is not their faul
Some training and assessment might be useful.
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Adrian Raddatz
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 3:56 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
and
finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> Gerard,
> Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my
>
where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
show reflection that give hope for a better future.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood
wrote:
> The board does not manage
The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does
something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen. People
who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not.
The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed
Many of us take the opposing view that we do not have enough reason to think
the ban was justifiable, and that the ban itself is a small part of the issue,
which is seen as lack of due process, compounded by poor communication and bad
crisis management.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original
How can we BE safe in the movement if we cannot question the decisions of T?
(when they appear questionable and unsafe)
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l
Sent: Friday, June 21,
" Previously a strategic direction has been agreed."
Not by that many. It is so vague that it can be interpreted to mean whatever
the WMF want it to mean and used as a justification for a wide range of
policies and actions that were not obviously specifically discussed. This was
mentioned at
1 - 100 of 442 matches
Mail list logo
