Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

2020-09-13 Thread Peter Southwood
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 often 
ignored. Sometimes bluntly refused, and sometimes claimed not to be necessary.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Eduardo Testart
Sent: 12 September 2020 22:45
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

Hi All,

I just wanted to give my opinion on how to make things more civil and
gentle in general, and also to add clarity to the threads. As a non-English
native speaker, there are many things I consider do not help at all in
written discussions in general in any given list, most of the time when
these things are done, then everything turns challenging, complicated, or
sadly blatantly uncivil:

1) Irony
2) Jokes
3) Long and numerous paragraphs (extensive writing)
4) Acronyms

I believe these things are very important to pay attention too and should
be avoided, no matter what we are feeling or thinking about any specific
subject. Not doing so regularly leads to conflictive states, and paying
attention to the latter and restraining from doing so normally contributes
to open discussions.

I believe also that helps a lot to reduce:
5) Sayings and expressions

Maybe all this resonates with someone, and if not, it's also ok :]


Cheers!

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:50 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > As long as people are going to continue to talk about me and imply that
> I'm
> > actually *harassing* people, then I feel I have a right to defend myself.
> >
>
> Nobody ever denied you that right.
>
> I brought up that the UCoC standard is a reasonable person standard, not a
> > "most offended person" standard and this was never addressed. Instead, I
> > was demeaned by being placed on a special moderation protocol. Asaf
> Bartov
> > threatened me that if I continued to defend myself -- even as people
> > continued to discuss me -- that *I'm* hijacking the thread.
>
>
> What I actually wrote to you, and I quote, was:
>
> "I also must insist that you not hijack this thread, which is for
> discussing the draft UCoC.  If you see value in bringing up your concerns
> on those other matters on this list, please do so on separate threads.
> Since you have expressed the opinion that this UCoC draft is illegitimate,
> I suggest there is really no reason for you to post further on this thread,
> leaving it for those who *would* like to discuss it."
>
> I then did indeed threaten that *if you continue to disrupt the UCoC
> thread*, your messages won't be let through. As you can see, your latest
> letter, since it was no longer disrupting the UCoC thread, *was* let
> through.
>
> I asked Asaf if Koerner was given a similar warning for a very long, smug,
> > patronizing screed about me as on-topic. Bartov reiterated that nobody
> else
> > was given any warning about off-topic communication. Only *I* am not
> > allowed to talk about *my* apparent offense.
> >
>
> Since now you quote a question you asked privately, I will quote the answer
> I gave you:
>
> 
> "No, I did not warn Ms. Koerner about thread hijacking, because the very
> problem with thread hijacking is that once the change of topic is made,
> people legitimately want to respond. I have not observed Ms. Koerner
> *initiating* a thread hijack.
>
> I do encourage you to continue contributing on the list, including in
> criticizing whatever flaws you find in the Foundation's actions.  I
> certainly find such flaws myself.
>
> But again, as a professional, perhaps you can be less ornery and more
> measured in expressing the *substance* of your concerns. It would at the
> very least be no less effective, and perhaps more so."
> 
>
>A.
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>


-- 
Eduardo Testart
(56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil
___
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, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

2020-09-12 Thread Peter Southwood
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 factored into the 
calculation. San Francisco does seem to be a rather expensively arbitrary 
choice of address, which may be influencing the way the foundation operates. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Dan Garry (Deskana)
Sent: 12 September 2020 18:38
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job 
ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 12:39, Nathan  wrote:

> Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
> roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?
>

I don't know. Maybe.

Within the US, there are markets where decent, experienced software
engineers earn half of what a software engineer in San Francisco would
earn, and they would also probably have a comparable quality of life.
Outside the US, there are markets out there where the going rate
for decent, experienced software engineers is 15 times less than the going
rate for a software engineer in San Francisco. Due to the relative decrease
in purchasing power, the salary that's 15 times lower gives these people a
good quality of life comparable to (or possibly even better than) life in
San Francisco. Is it exploiting them to pay them 15 times less given that
their quality of life is the same, or even higher, than people in San
Francisco? Would it be fair to people in San Francisco, or other locations,
to do this? Should the Wikimedia Foundation pay people in this market 15
times more than they would earn at another company? As Gergő said, would
that be a responsible use of donor funds?

I don't have the answer to these questions. They are very hard questions
where there is no obviously correct answer.

Dan
___
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, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

2020-09-11 Thread Peter Southwood
On one side it would be nice to pay equal rate for equal work, on the other
would be equal personal benefit for equal work. Then there is the economics
of getting value for money, and the politics of diversity. It is a tricky
issue.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Nathan
Sent: 11 September 2020 14:10
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on
job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

I'm sure it will vary considerably. Does that matter? 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-
> 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 affiliates disclosing salaries
on
> job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity
>
> Dan,
>
> Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
> roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:00 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
> > Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San
Francisco
> > as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based
> > organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. To my
> > knowledge, this wasn't done by the Foundation before either, but we can
> > confidently state that it won't be done now.
> >
> > There are some complexities in disclosing salary ranges for the
> Foundation.
> > One practice that can be used for encouraging diversity in candidate
> > applications is to specify that a position is open to candidates with a
> > wide range of experience and in all locations in the world, in which
case
> > the salary range posted will be so large that it will basically be
> > meaningless. On the other hand, another good practice for encouraging
> > diversity is to source internally for senior positions, which opens up
> more
> > junior roles that can be sourced externally, in which case a salary
range
> > can be more meaningful and helpful. It's hard to figure out what the
> right
> > balance is.
> >
> > Regardless, more public transparency in salary banding would be good to
> > see.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> >
>
>
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-
> updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx
>
<https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local
-updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx>
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Chris Keating 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Good morning everyone!
> > >
> > > There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at
> > least
> > > salary ranges, on job ads.
> > >
> > > An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not
> > disclosing
> > > expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current
> salary,
> > is
> > > harmful to equity in the workplace.
> > >
> > > Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
> > > because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating
their
> > > salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.
> > >
> > > It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates
> who
> > > have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into (again,
> > more
> > > commonly white men with privileged social and educational backgrounds)
> > also
> > > have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
> > > norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
> > > barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to
> apply
> > > for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your
> > current
> > > employment?)
> > >
> > > I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
> > > mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is
> disclosed
> > > to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary.
> > However,
> > > I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose
> the
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

2020-09-11 Thread Peter Southwood
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 future 
expectations.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Adam Wight
Sent: 11 September 2020 11:56
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

> Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> expressions, and how they are determined?

There were been several explanations already.  It's possible to use mild 
words in a cruel way, for example a father telling their child "You've 
always had beans for brains."  Editors are aware of this simple truth 
and any feigned outrage must be disingenuous.

It's interesting that I've voiced some extremely harsh criticism of the 
WMF, even suggesting that the editors form a union and sue for control 
of the Board, yet I've never once been moderated.  Had my job threatened 
perhaps, but never blocked.

The point here is that petty hostility only achieves the goal of 
creating an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment.  If you (speaking to 
the people here who are critical of the UCoC) want to make real change, 
please organize yourselves somewhere else, come up with a coherent 
argument, and present it here.  The constant attrition of "why can't I 
say 'fart'?" is tiresome and dilutes any conversation of substance.

Kind regards,
U:Adamw


___
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, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

2020-09-11 Thread Peter Southwood
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 affiliates disclosing salaries on
job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

Dan,

Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 7:00 AM Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San Francisco
> as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based
> organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. To my
> knowledge, this wasn't done by the Foundation before either, but we can
> confidently state that it won't be done now.
>
> There are some complexities in disclosing salary ranges for the
Foundation.
> One practice that can be used for encouraging diversity in candidate
> applications is to specify that a position is open to candidates with a
> wide range of experience and in all locations in the world, in which case
> the salary range posted will be so large that it will basically be
> meaningless. On the other hand, another good practice for encouraging
> diversity is to source internally for senior positions, which opens up
more
> junior roles that can be sourced externally, in which case a salary range
> can be more meaningful and helpful. It's hard to figure out what the right
> balance is.
>
> Regardless, more public transparency in salary banding would be good to
> see.
>
> Dan
>
> [1]:
>
>
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-
updates/pages/san-francisco-bans-salary-history-questions.aspx
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 10:44, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > Good morning everyone!
> >
> > There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at
> least
> > salary ranges, on job ads.
> >
> > An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not
> disclosing
> > expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current salary,
> is
> > harmful to equity in the workplace.
> >
> > Not disclosing salaries affects pay levels within the organisation -
> > because white men are usually relatively confident in negotiating their
> > salaries upwards, so tend to end up with a better deal.
> >
> > It can also affect the diversity of candidates who apply. Candidates who
> > have stronger networks within the industry they're moving into (again,
> more
> > commonly white men with privileged social and educational backgrounds)
> also
> > have clear expectations because they are 'in the know' about industry
> > norms, while people who don't, find the lack of salary information a
> > barrier to application. (After all, why take the time and effort to
apply
> > for a job when you have no idea how the likely pay compares to your
> current
> > employment?)
> >
> > I know practices vary within the movement - I believe the WMF never
> > mentions salaries on ads, and I don't know whether the range is
disclosed
> > to applicants or not - some chapters I know do advertise a salary.
> However,
> > I'd urge all entities within the movement that hire staff to disclose
the
> > expected salary ranges for posts they are advertising, as part of their
> > commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
> >
> > Thanks for reading,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > (1): https://showthesalary.com/
> > (2): e.g. at https://showthesalary.com/resources/
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
___
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,


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

2020-09-11 Thread Peter Southwood
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 feelings by all.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Benjamin Ikuta
Sent: 11 September 2020 13:16
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review



Thanks for the reply. 

I took a look at it and found it terribly vague. 

Depending on subjective interpretation, I can imagine it being used to justify 
whatever judgement is to be made. 

I am no more enlightened. 



> On Sep 11, 2020, at 4:05 AM, Alphos OGame  wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> What I want to read : comments on the UCoC.
> What I don't want to read : a barrage of *insert adjective, whether laudative 
> or criticizing* reply after reply after reply after reply on the comments of 
> one or more of the subscribers of this list.
> 
> I understand the initial comments shocked some of you, and some may want to 
> defend freedom of expression and  others yet criticize actions past or 
> current by the Foundation, but still, I'd rather we'd compartmentalize and, 
> instead of bickering about something the list mods have already given what 
> seems to be a rather decent decision, talk about the Universal Code of 
> Conduct, as I still haven't wrapped my head around it.
> 
> Please, no more back and forth, no more inanity, no more four mails an hour.
> Thank you…
> 
> Roger / Alphos
> 
> 
>> Le 11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil  a écrit :
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Please, enlighten me.
>> 
>> Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you
>> see room for improvement or disagree with anything specific in it. This is
>> a productive way to compare your personal understanding of civility against
>> the understanding of civility the UCoC offers for the entire movement. If
>> you have ideas to improve the draft, share them, if possible on the Meta
>> page where the main discussion is happening.
>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>> 
>> 
 On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
 Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
 :
> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
>>> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
 Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
 theoretically be the case, at least partially?
 Kind regards
 Ziko
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Quim Gil (he/him)
>> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
>> ___
>> 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, 
> 


___
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, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

2020-09-11 Thread Peter Southwood
In that case, can we please have an explanation of exactly how the relevant
text was found to be inappropriate, as this is patently unclear, and
apparently the reason for all this debate. I have my own speculation, but as
it is speculation, it would be inappropriate to publicise unless there is no
official explanation.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Asaf Bartov
Sent: 11 September 2020 11:46
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
intention of maintaining a list.

We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the 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, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> 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: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
> that expression offensive and unacceptable.
>
> Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
> and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
> valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just
> so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> accepted as a norm)
>
> The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances).  You who
> are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> >
> > Please, enlighten me.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> >> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> >> :
> >>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do
I
> have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> >> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> >> Kind regards
> >> Ziko
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
> Unsubsc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

2020-09-11 Thread Peter Southwood
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: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find 
that expression offensive and unacceptable.

Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures 
and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a 
valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just 
so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was 
accepted as a norm)

The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to 
adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit 
our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances).  You who 
are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too 
hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?

Anders


Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
>
> Please, enlighten me.
>
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
>> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
>> :
>>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I
have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
>> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
>> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>>
>>
>>> a.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,

> ___
> 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,


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



___
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] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

2020-09-11 Thread Peter Southwood
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 more, 
than a failure of civility.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Todd Allen
Sent: 11 September 2020 09:14
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

Except, apparently, if someone says "fart". For godsakes, that's about the
mildest of language you could ask for. I could use far stronger about this
whole farce.

If the "UCoC" means that people can't say "fart" because someone might get
their feewings hurted, then I've very well been right to strongly oppose it.

Todd

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:45 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in
> less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here.  Your
> strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly
> acceptable.
>
> As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this
> criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with
> figurative language entirely.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> 18
> > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
> > grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> > arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
> in
> > what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
> > than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> > smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean petit.
> >
> > Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> > vigorously is what adults are able to do.
> >
> > It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> > the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> > self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
> being
> > suppressed on dubious grounds.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
> for
> > > many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> > > abusive behaviors in our community.
> > >
> > > On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
> did
> > > not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
> > action
> > > because it offers a frame.
> > >
> > > This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
> > >
> > > We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
> of
> > > conduct.
> > >
> > > So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
> > and
> > > I hope the language will remain respectful.
> > >
> > > I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
> about
> > > « wmf flatulence ».
> > >
> > >
> > >  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
> > supposedly
> > > asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board of Wikimedia Chile / Nuevo directorio de Wikimedia Chile

2020-09-11 Thread Peter Southwood
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 
Wikimedia Chile

[*Spanish below*]

Comrades:


I hope everyone is in good health. I write to inform you of the update of
the Wikimedia Chile board. I have submitted my resignation to the
presidency, since I obtained a scholarship to study in Spain. The new
president of WMCL is Carlos Figueroa, whom the whole team has great esteem
and confidence in to continue with the multiple projects that the chapter
has ahead. Luis Cristóbal Carrasco, a very enthusiastic member, who we know
will be a great contribution to this administration, joins the board.


The new board consists of:
President: Carlos Figueroa
Vicepresident: Marco Correa
Secretary: Claudio Loader
Treasurer: Osmar Valdebenito
Board member: Dennis Tobar
Board member: Luis Cristóbal Carrasco


The team is fully aware of the lack of gender diversity in the board, but
it has been done and will continue to work with the commitment to solve
this problem in the near future. The work related to reducing the gender
gap has been transversal in all our activities and in the administrations
of our chapter, and we sincerely hope as a team that the steps that have
been taken in that direction will soon bear fruit.


It only remains for me to thank the trust placed in me by the partners and
the entire team, and wish the best of success to the new structure of the
board of directors.


Sincerely,

Rocío Consales

___


Camaradas:


Espero que todos se encuentren bien de salud. Escribo para informar la
actualización del directorio de Wikimedia Chile. He presentado mi renuncia
a la presidencia, ya que obtuve una beca para estudiar en España. El nuevo
presidente de WMCL es Carlos Figueroa, a quien todo el equipo le tiene una
gran estima y confianza para seguir adelante con los múltiples proyectos
que el capítulo tiene por delante. Ingresa al directorio Luis Cristóbal
Carrasco, socio muy entusiasta que sabemos será un gran aporte a esta
administración.


El nuevo directorio se compone por:
Presidente: Carlos Figueroa

Vicepresidente: Marco Correa

Secretario: Claudio Loader

Tesorero: Osmar Valdebenito

Director: Dennis Tobar

Director Luis Cristóbal Carrasco


El equipo está completamente consciente de la falta de diversidad de género
en el directorio, pero se ha hecho y seguirá trabajando con el compromiso
de solventar este problema en el futuro próximo. El trabajo relacionado a
disminuir la brecha de género ha sido transversal en todas nuestras
actividades y en las administraciones de nuestro capítulo, y esperamos
sinceramente como equipo que los pasos que se han dado en esa dirección
pronto rindan frutos.


Solo me queda agradecer la confianza depositada en mí por los socios y todo
el equipo, y desear el mayor de los éxitos a la nueva estructura de la
junta directiva.



Un abrazo,

Rocío Consales
___
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, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Moderation notice

2020-09-11 Thread Peter Southwood
Lukas, If you could explain exactly what your objection was, it lets all of us 
understand better where the line was drawn. That allows discussion to be 
focused on reality rather than speculation, which could get us closer to an 
acceptable code of conduct, instead of fuelling paranoia.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Lukas Mezger
Sent: 10 September 2020 20:30
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

Hello,

As one of the list subscribers who contacted the list moderators about the
messages in question, please let me second the sentiment that this list
should welcome discourse that is honest and frank while remaining
constructive and civil. Being subscribed to this list can be stressful for
some of us at times, so please keep that in mind when contributing.
Thank you, and kind regards,

Lukas


--

Dr. Lukas Mezger
Vorsitzender des Präsidiums / chair of the Supervisory Board

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260 – (0151) 268 63 931
http://wikimedia.de

Bleiben Sie auf dem neuesten Stand! Aktuelle Nachrichten und spannende
Geschichten rund um Wikimedia, Wikipedia und Freies Wissen im Newsletter: Zur
Anmeldung <https://www.wikimedia.de/newsletter/>.

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207

Am Do., 10. Sept. 2020 um 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
> Of Asaf Bartov
> Sent: 09 September 2020 21:57
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice
>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due to
> posts with unacceptable language.
>
> I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this list,
> so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.
>
>Asaf (volunteer capacity)
>on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> 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>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> ___
> 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>


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Moderation notice

2020-09-10 Thread Peter Southwood
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

Dear Wikimedians,

List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due to
posts with unacceptable language.

I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this list,
so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.

   Asaf (volunteer capacity)
   on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
-- 
Asaf Bartov 
___
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,


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



___
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] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

2020-09-10 Thread Peter Southwood
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 already 
illustrates how far the draft is from an acceptable state of clarity. I am not 
saying it cannot get there, but it will take more work. Possibly a lot more 
work, and it does not appear to be getting there fast.

What Anders says about the use of a simplified subset of English has value. 
Words should be used that are easily translatable, even when this may require 
more words to be used to make a point.

Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Jackie
Sent: 10 September 2020 16:16
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

Dan,

I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use
of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling
from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization
of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is
hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
people in the free knowledge movement.

This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who
*should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather
homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and
covered by a Code of Conduct.

In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC
would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people
reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing
public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based
off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response
and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior
impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.

If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I
am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find
that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about
emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
upset about the result.

Best,

Jackie

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception.
> Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> 18
> > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

2020-09-10 Thread Peter Southwood
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 September 2020 16:48
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

I want to echo Jackies two mail

The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct 
are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like " 
you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some 
10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says 
otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into 
detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not 
just ToU).

And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and 
language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can 
be seen as offensive to other.

When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal 
language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used 
5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather 
blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be 
what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be 
welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native 
English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used 
too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to 
understand what was said.

Anders


Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:
> Dan,
>
> I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
> Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
> understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use
> of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling
> from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
> correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
> words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization
> of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is
> hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
> people in the free knowledge movement.
>
> This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
> discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who
> *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather
> homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
> discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and
> covered by a Code of Conduct.
>
> In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC
> would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people
> reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing
> public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based
> off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
> concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
> identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response
> and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
> education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
> violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior
> impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
>
> If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I
> am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find
> that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about
> emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
> upset about the result.
>
> Best,
>
> Jackie
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
>> Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its inception.
>> Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
>>> to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
>>> "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
>> 18
>>> months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
>>> collegial.
>>>
>>> If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
>>> moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
>> the
>>> failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
>> community?
>>> One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
>>> someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

2020-09-10 Thread Peter Southwood
You read my mind...
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Gnangarra
Sent: 10 September 2020 13:50
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

one measure of good judgement would those decline 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-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Asaf Bartov
> Sent: 10 September 2020 12:55
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice
>
> I would say first and foremost, good judgment. As measured by the person's
> track record on-wiki and on this list.
>
> Preferring to err on the side of caution, people under community
sanctions,
> or who have themselves been moderated for on-list 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.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Asaf Bartov
> > Sent: 10 September 2020 11:07
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice
> >
> > Indeed, there is a potential conflict of interest here.  This is why I
> > strongly tend to leniency, *especially* when unacceptable discourse
> > coincides with criticism of the Foundation.  In this case, we received
> > requests from two list subscribers to moderate Dan.  We did so, while
> > underscoring that it was *not* for criticizing the Foundation.
> >
> > I think I have something of a track record of supporting open debate and
> of
> > encouraging and engaging with criticism of the Foundation.  I think
there
> > is indeed plenty to criticize; the Foundation is far from flawless.
> >
> > But people don't have to endure coarse language and vitriol at the same
> > time.  By all means, express disappointment, lack of confidence,
> suspicion,
> > whatever, but do it in a civil manner.  Dan can continue to do as well,
> of
> > course. I have already let one message of this through moderation.
> >
> > All that said, it would of course have been better if we had a couple of
> > list-admins more, without ties to the Foundation, so perhaps it is time
> to
> > recruit them.  Is anyone interested?
> >
> >A.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:56 AM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > > Erm, wait. He said what, "fart"?
> > >
> > > It's not a particularly good look for a WMF employee to be moderating
> > > someone critiquing the WMF, especially when, while their statement may
> > have
> > > been strongly worded, it used pretty mild language. This should either
> be
> > > undone, or at least decided upon by someone who doesn't work for WMF.
> > > That's a substantial conflict of interest.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Asaf Bartov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > > >
> > > > List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due
> to
> > > > posts with unacceptable language.
> > > >
> > > > I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this
> > list,
> > > > so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.
> > > >
> > > >Asaf (volunteer capacity)
> > > >on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
> > > > --
> > > > Asaf Bartov 
> > > > ___
> > > > 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
> > > http

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

2020-09-10 Thread Peter Southwood
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 of Conduct draft for review

I just want to say while I agree IMO there's a growing disconnect in some
parts of WMF with the communities but it's not happening here. In fact it's
also the other way around. Some people in communities and some communities
in general have been growing too disconnected from the framework they are
working in. In the past two weeks I had to go head to head to two
communities on my volunteer developer/sysadmin role and I had to explain no
matter the consensus, you can't enable an extension that would bring down
(literally) not just your wiki but also 900 other ones or ban IP editing
which is widely considered against founding principles of Wikimedia.

Communities are self-governed but they have limits, you can't change the
privacy policy and give admins access to IP, you can't change copyright
policy or terms of use and I don't see any problem with adding one more
framework to make sure we would have a healthier movement (Each community
IMO should build on top of UCoC and won't just rely on it for conduct
policies but this would be the least, the base, the foundation, ..., you
get the idea). Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:45 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in
> less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here.  Your
> strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly
> acceptable.
>
> As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this
> criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with
> figurative language entirely.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> 18
> > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
> > grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> > arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
> in
> > what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
> > than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> > smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean petit.
> >
> > Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> > vigorously is what adults are able to do.
> >
> > It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> > the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> > self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
> being
> > suppressed on dubious grounds.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
> for
> > > many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> > > abusive behaviors in our community.
> > >
> > > On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
> did
> > > not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
> > action
> > > because it offers a frame.
> > >
> > > This is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

2020-09-10 Thread Peter Southwood
Good judgement is often such a subjective thing, Everyone thinks they have
it. A bit like the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
Of Asaf Bartov
Sent: 10 September 2020 12:55
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

I would say first and foremost, good judgment. As measured by the person's
track record on-wiki and on this list.

Preferring to err on the side of caution, people under community sanctions,
or who have themselves been moderated for on-list 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.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Asaf Bartov
> Sent: 10 September 2020 11:07
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice
>
> Indeed, there is a potential conflict of interest here.  This is why I
> strongly tend to leniency, *especially* when unacceptable discourse
> coincides with criticism of the Foundation.  In this case, we received
> requests from two list subscribers to moderate Dan.  We did so, while
> underscoring that it was *not* for criticizing the Foundation.
>
> I think I have something of a track record of supporting open debate and
of
> encouraging and engaging with criticism of the Foundation.  I think there
> is indeed plenty to criticize; the Foundation is far from flawless.
>
> But people don't have to endure coarse language and vitriol at the same
> time.  By all means, express disappointment, lack of confidence,
suspicion,
> whatever, but do it in a civil manner.  Dan can continue to do as well, of
> course. I have already let one message of this through moderation.
>
> All that said, it would of course have been better if we had a couple of
> list-admins more, without ties to the Foundation, so perhaps it is time to
> recruit them.  Is anyone interested?
>
>A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:56 AM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > Erm, wait. He said what, "fart"?
> >
> > It's not a particularly good look for a WMF employee to be moderating
> > someone critiquing the WMF, especially when, while their statement may
> have
> > been strongly worded, it used pretty mild language. This should either
be
> > undone, or at least decided upon by someone who doesn't work for WMF.
> > That's a substantial conflict of interest.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due
to
> > > posts with unacceptable language.
> > >
> > > I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this
> list,
> > > so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.
> > >
> > >Asaf (volunteer capacity)
> > >on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
> > > --
> > > Asaf Bartov 
> > > ___
> > > 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>
> >
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> 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>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing lis

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

2020-09-10 Thread Peter Southwood
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] Moderation notice

Indeed, there is a potential conflict of interest here.  This is why I
strongly tend to leniency, *especially* when unacceptable discourse
coincides with criticism of the Foundation.  In this case, we received
requests from two list subscribers to moderate Dan.  We did so, while
underscoring that it was *not* for criticizing the Foundation.

I think I have something of a track record of supporting open debate and of
encouraging and engaging with criticism of the Foundation.  I think there
is indeed plenty to criticize; the Foundation is far from flawless.

But people don't have to endure coarse language and vitriol at the same
time.  By all means, express disappointment, lack of confidence, suspicion,
whatever, but do it in a civil manner.  Dan can continue to do as well, of
course. I have already let one message of this through moderation.

All that said, it would of course have been better if we had a couple of
list-admins more, without ties to the Foundation, so perhaps it is time to
recruit them.  Is anyone interested?

   A.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:56 AM Todd Allen  wrote:

> Erm, wait. He said what, "fart"?
>
> It's not a particularly good look for a WMF employee to be moderating
> someone critiquing the WMF, especially when, while their statement may
have
> been strongly worded, it used pretty mild language. This should either be
> undone, or at least decided upon by someone who doesn't work for WMF.
> That's a substantial conflict of interest.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due to
> > posts with unacceptable language.
> >
> > I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this
list,
> > so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.
> >
> >Asaf (volunteer capacity)
> >on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
> > --
> > Asaf Bartov 
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>


-- 
Asaf Bartov 
___
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,


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



___
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] Moderation notice

2020-09-10 Thread Peter Southwood
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: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

Dear Wikimedians,

List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due to
posts with unacceptable language.

I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this list,
so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.

   Asaf (volunteer capacity)
   on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
-- 
Asaf Bartov 
___
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,


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



___
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] Institutional memory @ WMF

2020-08-28 Thread Peter Southwood
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 @ WMF

Dan, you're right, it's a bit of all, formal and informal, and it is
important that we keep this process flexible. This allows us to adapt to
changing circumstances and a movement which well... moves. :-)

This fiscal year, Talent & Culture (HR) will be working on streamlining the
onboarding experience at the Foundation. This is why I joined the Talent &
Culture department, to coordinate this project and contribute my Wikimedia
experience. One of my mandates is to tackle the piece of onboarding that
takes into account our history as a movement, our common failures and
successes and the cultural pieces that are at the heart of our relationship
with each other (Individuals in the community, Foundation, affiliates,
external partners...).

Our movement is complex, and there are no amount of explanations that will
portray its richness. I will be working to make sure that new hires at the
Foundation know to ask the right questions at the right time and to the
right people to minimize errors. Of course, I want to set realistic
expectations, this will not happen in a day, nor will it happen in a year
only. My goal is to start a process that will change and evolve with time,
as does our movement.

If any of you have any questions about how we are working on this, or want
to contribute ideas, please talk to me offlist!

Best,

Delphine

Le mer. 26 août 2020 à 14:40, Dan Garry (Deskana)  a
écrit :

> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 12:16, Strainu  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the response Dan!
> >
> > A rigorous study is IMHO impossible, since we're lacking a rigorous
> > definition of the limits between WMF and community.
> >
>
> Absolutely agreed.
>
>
> > OK, but how is this done precisely? Are there written docs? Mentors?
> > Is cross-team help common? Or is this kept at the anecdotal level ("oh
> > yeah, you should also keep in mind..." )?
> >
>
> In my experience, all of the above. What is done exactly depends on the
> situation, but all of those things you've listed can and do happen,
> depending on the nature and size of the project, the people involved, and
> so on. People keep their eye out, through both formal and informal
> mechanisms, and help out if they think they can.
>
> I don't want to go into specific details, as I'm doing it purely from
> memory and might misremember things, and things might've changed since I
> left the WMF two years ago. To be clear, I'm not under any kind of
> non-disclosure agreement, I just don't want to be inaccurate.
>
> Dan
> ___
> 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,
> 
>


-- 
*Delphine Ménard* (she/her)
Lead Orientation Specialist
User:Delphine_(WMF)
Wikimedia Foundation 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Institutional memory @ WMF

2020-08-28 Thread Peter Southwood
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] Institutional memory @ WMF

Correction:

It's been pointed out that I erred in two significant ways when discussing
Katherine's background: Prior to becoming CEO, she was Chief Communications
Officer, which is a more senior position than the one I named; and, where I
said that prior to her time at WMF her career was "largely in
communications," I was simply mistaken. Her background is covered in her
Wikipedia bio, and is indeed quite varied.

I regret both of those errors.

Pete

>
___
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,



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

2020-08-04 Thread Peter Southwood
Thanks,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Christel Steigenberger
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 12:50
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call 
for participation

Hi Peter,

Thank you for coming back to me with this clarifying question and comment.
And sorry for having broken the threading with my previous mail.

The community feedback will be mainly gathered on Meta, but we will try and
reach out to communities on different channels on- and off-wiki to
encourage them to take part in the process. We will also accept comments
that come in through other channels and post them in aggregate form on
Meta, if users are not comfortable going there themselves. While we are
already spending time and energy to prepare for outreach in different
languages, we are also aware of the fact that we cannot do this alone. We
appreciate every bit of help from you and others on the mailing list, to
spread the word that the community comment period will be between August 24
and September 23 and to help us translate the content in more languages
than we alone might be able to do. If you know of good channels to spread
the word, or know about people willing and able to translate the content
into lesser known languages, please let us know!

Within the drafting committee we have people speaking 12 different
languages that I am aware of - and possibly more. Besides English and
Arabic, those are five European, three African and two Indic languages. In
addition we have hired facilitators from the community who speak Arabic,
Georgian, Persian, Russian and Swahili and we will be getting help from the
translator’s pool in our communications department.

Please 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 Southwood 
wrote:

> 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 with sufficient
> time to discuss issues without  an excessively tight deadline.
> Speaking of which, what is the language spread  of the drafting committee?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Christel Steigenberger
> Sent: 31 July 2020 17:48
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee -
> Call for participation
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I hear and understand your worries. I’d like to reassure you that we are
> very aware of the fact that no single person and no selected group of
> people can speak for the community as a whole. This is one of the big
> challenges all such efforts have to tackle. Representation here is not
> meant in the sense of legal or political representation. But by speaking
> for themselves, we hope that volunteers and staff coming from different
> language communities, holding different roles within the movement and
> bringing different experiences of engagement with the movement into the
> process will at least bring diverse valuable perspectives to the creation
> of the draft for the Universal Code of Conduct.
>
> Before they start drafting, they are already now working their way through
> a reading kit which will make them familiar with the input from the
> movement strategy process as well as prior community consultations our team
> has done at regional Wikimedia conferences and Wikimania as well as through
> facilitated conversations with 19 different language communities. The data
> is published on Meta here
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Community_feedback_at_conferences
> and here
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Initial_2020_Consultations
> .
> This community feedback will inform the drafting process.
>
> This draft will then be brought to the communities for review starting
> August 24, as outlined in the timeline here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct#Timeline. We are
> still looking for ways to make more people aware of this important part of
> the process. Please spread the word of this upcoming community comment
> period, to help us get wider participation!
>
> I hope the above makes sense to you, looking forward to your engagement
> with the draft end of August and in September,
>
> Christel Steig

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

2020-08-01 Thread Peter Southwood
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 with sufficient time to 
discuss issues without  an excessively tight deadline.
Speaking of which, what is the language spread  of the drafting committee?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Christel Steigenberger
Sent: 31 July 2020 17:48
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call 
for participation

Hi Peter,

I hear and understand your worries. I’d like to reassure you that we are
very aware of the fact that no single person and no selected group of
people can speak for the community as a whole. This is one of the big
challenges all such efforts have to tackle. Representation here is not
meant in the sense of legal or political representation. But by speaking
for themselves, we hope that volunteers and staff coming from different
language communities, holding different roles within the movement and
bringing different experiences of engagement with the movement into the
process will at least bring diverse valuable perspectives to the creation
of the draft for the Universal Code of Conduct.

Before they start drafting, they are already now working their way through
a reading kit which will make them familiar with the input from the
movement strategy process as well as prior community consultations our team
has done at regional Wikimedia conferences and Wikimania as well as through
facilitated conversations with 19 different language communities. The data
is published on Meta here
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Community_feedback_at_conferences
and here
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Initial_2020_Consultations.
This community feedback will inform the drafting process.

This draft will then be brought to the communities for review starting
August 24, as outlined in the timeline here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct#Timeline. We are
still looking for ways to make more people aware of this important part of
the process. Please spread the word of this upcoming community comment
period, to help us get wider participation!

I hope the above makes sense to you, looking forward to your engagement
with the draft end of August and in September,

Christel Steigenberger (she/her)

Trust and Safety Specialist

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


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

2020-08-01 Thread Peter Southwood
Alternative to what?
Cheers 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 30 July 2020 20:46
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call 
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 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 the
> task, but they are not our representatives, and we expect to be consulted
> regarding the results of this work. I understand that this may be your
> intention anyway, but we have seen too many fiascos  resulting from a small
> group of people coming up with some proposal and WMF declaring this to be
> "movement policy" or something to that effect.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Christel Steigenberger
> Sent: 30 July 2020 19:49
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee -
> Call for participation
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> We are happy to announce that the Universal Code of Conduct drafting
> committee has been assembled. We had 26 volunteers apply, either by
> publicly signing up on the Meta page, or by sending an email. Volunteers
> from 18 different countries applied, speaking 11 different languages.
>
> We had Wikimedian applicants with different levels of experience on-wiki,
> from someone who started editing only last year to people who have been
> editing for more than 18 years and/or have more than 300,000 edits.
> Applicants held a variety of different roles within the movement, and also
> informed us about interesting and relevant experiences in their real-life
> careers. It was very hard to narrow down from this diverse and extremely
> qualified pool of applicants.
>
> For the final selection, two aspects guided the decision making - we want a
> committee that at the one hand will represent important parts of the
> movement. Prolific editors as well as Wikimedians whose strength is more in
> organizing events, wikimedians from different demographics, contributors
> from small and large wikis, and people holding different roles within the
> movement. We also wanted a group of people who will collaborate with one
> another effectively and create the best possible Universal Code of Conduct
> for the Wikimedia movement. Experience has taught us that committees that
> are too large find it difficult to work effectively, so we decided to cap
> the number of seats to 6 volunteer seats and 3 staff seats.
>
> More information on the Committee and its new members can be found on Meta
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >
> [1], and a timeline for their work is available on the main UCoC page
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct> [2]. Please
> note that more chances for engagement are coming up during the community
> draft review period starting from August 24.
>
> Best regards,
> Christel
>
>   [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>
> Christel Steigenberger (she/her)
>
> Trust and Safety Specialist
>
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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 lis

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

2020-07-30 Thread Peter Southwood
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 the task, but they are not 
our representatives, and we expect to be consulted regarding the results of 
this work. I understand that this may be your intention anyway, but we have 
seen too many fiascos  resulting from a small group of people coming up with 
some proposal and WMF declaring this to be "movement policy" or something to 
that effect.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Christel Steigenberger
Sent: 30 July 2020 19:49
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call 
for participation

Hello everyone,


We are happy to announce that the Universal Code of Conduct drafting
committee has been assembled. We had 26 volunteers apply, either by
publicly signing up on the Meta page, or by sending an email. Volunteers
from 18 different countries applied, speaking 11 different languages.

We had Wikimedian applicants with different levels of experience on-wiki,
from someone who started editing only last year to people who have been
editing for more than 18 years and/or have more than 300,000 edits.
Applicants held a variety of different roles within the movement, and also
informed us about interesting and relevant experiences in their real-life
careers. It was very hard to narrow down from this diverse and extremely
qualified pool of applicants.

For the final selection, two aspects guided the decision making - we want a
committee that at the one hand will represent important parts of the
movement. Prolific editors as well as Wikimedians whose strength is more in
organizing events, wikimedians from different demographics, contributors
from small and large wikis, and people holding different roles within the
movement. We also wanted a group of people who will collaborate with one
another effectively and create the best possible Universal Code of Conduct
for the Wikimedia movement. Experience has taught us that committees that
are too large find it difficult to work effectively, so we decided to cap
the number of seats to 6 volunteer seats and 3 staff seats.

More information on the Committee and its new members can be found on Meta

[1], and a timeline for their work is available on the main UCoC page
 [2]. Please
note that more chances for engagement are coming up during the community
draft review period starting from August 24.

Best regards,
Christel

  [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct

Christel Steigenberger (she/her)

Trust and Safety Specialist

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


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-21 Thread Peter Southwood
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 During
Sent: 20 July 2020 00:15
To: effeietsand...@gmail.com; Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

I think he's looking for openness. That doesn't require one to
psychoanalyze him; just a straightforward reading of what he has said,
especially in the context of wikidom. If there is some reason why OTRS
isn't important enough to merit policies, supervision, and transparency,
that should be easy to explain. If there is some other reason why we
shouldn't trouble our little heads about it, it should be possible to try
to explain that.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 18:01 effe iets anders 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I rather have
> > > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> > opportunity
> > > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> > I have not made explicit.
> >
> > Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
> >
> > > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
> assumed
> >
> > No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
> >
> > > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
> Andy
> > > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
> >
> > It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> > ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> > comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> > know?
> >
> > > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> > on
> > > the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
> >
> > I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
> > said they are.
> >
> > As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
> > clear about my wish to see them.
> >
> > > This is why I
> > > noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
> all
> > > kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
> >
> > It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
> > on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
> >
> > > There are actually a few policies
> > > linked at [[m:OTRS ]], that are
> > > simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
> >
> > That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
> > which I have already referred.
> >
> > > There is some stuff about
> > > privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
> nothing
> > > that exciting.
> >
> > Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
> > should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
> > discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
> > then... Nothing.
> >
> > > OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
> > try
> > > to analyze that with overly broad questions.
> >
> > I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
> >
> >5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> >
> >7 what is the process for the community to remove an
> >   individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold
> >   or abide by policy?
> >
> >9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent,
> >   or remove their permissions?
> >
> >10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
> >
> > are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their
> > focus?
> >
> >
> First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm
> not going to waste further energy on that.
>
> Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying
> issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > 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
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-21 Thread Peter Southwood
That is what I thought, so referring someone to ANI is not helpful, or is there 
an ANI for OTRS specifically?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:59
To: Wikimedia Mailing 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 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: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
>
>
> I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
>
> > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> boomerang*.
> >
> > Yours sincerely, ...
>
> The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> thought about contacting OTRS since then.
>
>
> Aron
> ___
> 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>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-18 Thread Peter Southwood
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 useful anyway.
This strikes me as one of those questions. I would be interested to know the 
answers, because they would be illuminating and useful. It does not really 
matter to me what Andy was thinking about at the time other than wanting an 
answer to a reasonable, neutrally expressed question about something I 
considered should be freely available somewhere in the system. What was 
surprising is how long it has taken to get what little information has been 
forthcoming, but that has little bearing on why the question was asked in the 
first place.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pete Forsyth
Sent: 17 July 2020 23:17
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place
where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that
are reliably adhered to.

It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public
discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be
happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which
amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something
they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about
your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that.

Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I
could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you
think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am
rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts
or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?)

-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > Since it seems
> > that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder
> > whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point
> > more clearly.
>
> Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27 February:
>
> #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
>
> We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not
> answered, above, some arising from that discussion):
>
> 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> 2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
> public?
> 3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided?
> 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed
> (or reworded for clarity)?
> 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
> 7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's
> OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
> 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their
> permissions?
> 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
>
> Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister
> projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels
> of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions
> are confidential.
>
> #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
>
> Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how.
>
> You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in
> it, when you replied:
>
>Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in
> the interests of OTRS
>agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of
> questions in a
>forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing
> policies and a process
>for amending policies)
>
> shortly after I posted it.
>
> Or did you have some other unclear post in mind?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-11 Thread Peter Southwood
Quite possible I am mistaken, but I thought OTRS was separate from WP, which 
would make en:wp:ANI irrelevant.
Chreers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:55
To: Wikimedia Mailing 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?
>
The OTRS volunteer referred to [[en:wp:ANI]].

Cheers,
Aron


On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> 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: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
>
>
> I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
>
> > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> boomerang*.
> >
> > Yours sincerely, ...
>
> The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> thought about contacting OTRS since then.
>
>
> Aron
> ___
> 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>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-11 Thread Peter Southwood
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: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad 
wrote:

> 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign.


I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:

> Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a boomerang*.
>
> Yours sincerely, ...

The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
thought about contacting OTRS since then.


Aron
___
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] Citizendium shutting down

2020-07-05 Thread Peter Southwood
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] On Behalf Of 
Joseph Seddon
Sent: 04 July 2020 23:19
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Citizendium shutting down

Is there any merit in us helping them continue to exist?

Seddon

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 10:13 PM David Gerard  wrote:

> here's the discussion:
>
> https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Forum_Talk:Technical_Issues#Any_further_thoughts.3F
>
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 22:11, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > Front page:
> >
> > > This wiki was unsuccessful in achieving its original goals (see
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Wikipedia-and-Citizendium).
> A dedicated few writers have continued working in the wiki, improving
> articles that they believe are useful, and which for various reasons
> probably could not be written in Wikipedia. On or about Sept. 30, 2020, we
> plan to end Citizendium as a public "open" project, yet (possibly) keep the
> wiki running and editable by a combination of donations and subscriptions.
> How this might occur is still being examined.
> >
> > Original announcement
> >
> https://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Welcome_to_Citizendium=100864611=100857010
> >
> > basically - nobody's editing anything any more, and the money's running
> out.
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Seddon

*Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
*Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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 servers

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
That is plausible, I am in Cape Town
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Joseph Seddon
Sent: 29 June 2020 16:40
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia servers

From reports I am seeing on facebook 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 respond.
>
> The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a
> few moments.
> If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer’s network
> connection.
> If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make
> sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
>
> After a long wait. Been like this for several hours now.
> Most sites no problem
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Amir Sarabadani
> Sent: 29 June 2020 15:31
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia servers
>
> Hey,
> Can you elaborate more? I can access the website and graphs seems okay:
>
> https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/RIA1lzDZk/application-servers-red-dashboard?orgId=1=now-3h=now
>
> On Mon, 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:
> > 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>
>
>
>
> --
> Amir (he/him)
> ___
> 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>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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>



-- 
Seddon

*Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
*Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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 servers

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
I get this:

The connection has timed out

The server at en.wikipedia.org is taking too long to respond.

The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few 
moments.
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer’s network 
connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure 
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

After a long wait. Been like this for several hours now.
Most sites no problem
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Amir Sarabadani
Sent: 29 June 2020 15:31
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia servers

Hey,
Can you elaborate more? I can access the website and graphs seems okay:
https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/RIA1lzDZk/application-servers-red-dashboard?orgId=1=now-3h=now

On Mon, 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:
> 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>



-- 
Amir (he/him)
___
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>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Wikimedia servers

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
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: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

Hoi,
Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it
warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not
argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the
exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on
what has been expressed?

For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished
Wikimedian who I respect.

When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you
expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring
are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 11:43, Benjamin Lees  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:56 AM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Dear WereSpielChequers, the thing with bias is that it shows in the
> choices
> > made. You are a Wikipedian, do not really care for the other projects and
> > you make that plain in what you say.
> >
>
> This sort of assumption-making about other list participants' motives is
> completely unwarranted.[1]  You've been doing it repeatedly.  Please stop.
>
> [1] As regards WereSpielChequers, it is also demonstrably false.  He has
> nearly 500,000 edits on Commons.
> ___
> 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, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-29 Thread Peter Southwood
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 update on Branding: next steps

Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at
the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual
process? This information would help people with their planning.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
> Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
> communities. We invite your perspectives.
>
> We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
> includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
> participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a
> change.
>
> We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
> that information into the process.
>
> The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
> nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.
>
>-
>
>Zack & the Brand Project team
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
>
>
> On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board
> meeting
> > in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> > brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> > The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects
> and
> > opinions.
> >
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> > >
> > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
> supposed
> > to
> > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> > were
> > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> > changing
> > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> > what.
> > > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> > if a
> > > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> > been
> > > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > > August meeting.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> > the
> > > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working
> on
> > > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is
> needed,
> > > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> > have
> > > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> > >
> > > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional
> option
> > > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> > more
> > > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> > survey
> > > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey
> will
> > > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> > to
> > > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> > on
> > > whether to adopt them.
> > >
> > > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> > >
> > > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> > review
> > > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive
> the
> > > briefing on discussions happening;
> > >
> > > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > > posted publicly after the meeting;
> > >
> > > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding,
> not
> > > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> > stop,
> > > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a
> discussion
> > > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> > >
> > > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> > about
> > > the Brand project.
> > >
> > > I also want to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-27 Thread Peter Southwood
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 brought up 
so many times by so many interested and affected parties.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Nataliia Tymkiv
Sent: 27 June 2020 01:27
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

Dear all,

I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees about the Brand Project.

Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
August meeting.

Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.

We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
whether to adopt them.

Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:

* Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
briefing on discussions happening;

* July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
posted publicly after the meeting;

* August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.

* August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
the Brand project.

I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
[2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.

Stay safe,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming


*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/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, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-27 Thread Peter Southwood
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: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

Dear all,

We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
communities. We invite your perspectives.

We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a change.

We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
that information into the process.

The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.

   -

   Zack & the Brand Project team

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals


On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Greetings,
> The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board meeting
> in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects and
> opinions.
>
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> >
> > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed
> to
> > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> were
> > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> changing
> > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> what.
> > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> if a
> > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> been
> > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > August meeting.
> >
> > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> the
> > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> have
> > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> >
> > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> more
> > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> survey
> > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> to
> > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> on
> > whether to adopt them.
> >
> > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> >
> > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> review
> > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> > briefing on discussions happening;
> >
> > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > posted publicly after the meeting;
> >
> > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> stop,
> > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> >
> > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> about
> > the Brand project.
> >
> > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
> renaming
> > [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the
> position
> > of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> > some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> > some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> > communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
> >
> > Stay safe,
> > antanana / 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

2020-04-26 Thread Peter Southwood
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 will 
impose some kind of bias. As soon as there is something one may not do, or must 
do, there is a bias.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Tito Dutta
Sent: 26 April 2020 01:43
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

Greetings,
It is asked: "are we apolitical?" A spin-off question: "are we unbiased?"
On Wikipedia, we (are to) provide and serve knowledge/information, not any
particular view(s)

Thanks
Tito Dutta



On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 00:34, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Agreed. There is no way to get around the fact that some people oppose our
> message of free access to our projects for everyone, and the actions we
> make in favor of that goal are often political.
>
> However, there is a very large gap between publicly supporting such
> policies as a less regulated internet, copyright advocacy, etc., and Earth
> Day Live's endorsed viewpoint.
>
> If they were solely about Earth Day, we'd have no issues, as the few people
> who oppose Earth Day are probably living in the mountains somewhere with a
> half dozen solar panels and tinfoil hats to protect themselves from the
> flying saucers surveying the flat earth.
>
> The problem I have with Earth Day Live is that, were the Wikimedia
> Foundation to publicly endorse those views, it would inherently be
> isolating of people who do not share them. For example, there were many
> people on the endorsed streams advocating for all industries to have unions
> and a universal $15 minimum wage. Ignoring the fact that it's specifically
> American and was shown to everyone globally, I do not support either of
> those policies for various reasons (primarily that much of my work is done
> for under $15/hr, and I would likely lose some of those jobs), and should
> not be forced at odds with the WMF's party line.
>
> If the Foundation begins publicly endorsing certain policies or viewpoints
> that are not directly a part of the mission which we all agree with and
> work towards, people who disagree with those viewpoints would be forced
> into opposition of the foundation intended to represent the work they
> volunteer for Wikimedia projects. Our intention is to deliver unbiased
> information to people, and if the Foundation has a declared political
> stance other than our mission statement, it also opens the Foundation to
> legitimate criticism on claims of bias.
>
> There is also the argument of timelessness. Two hundred years ago there was
> a very different political landscape with very different arguments taking
> place. Two hundred years from now, provided humanity still exists, would
> likely be very different than today. Assuming that the WMF and Wikipedia
> will still be around, is it better to attempt to remain out of political
> advocacy (with the exception of our mission), or to take distinct political
> stances whenever the political field shifts? I fall in the former category.
>
> Best regards,
> Chris Gates
> (User:Vermont)
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:45 PM Camelia Boban 
> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely agree with both. Everything we do in the wiki movement (as
> > everything we do in our whole life) has (also) a political meaning.
> > As we have certain goals and we take certain positions.
> >
> > Camelia
> >
> > --
> > *Camelia Boban*
> >
> > *| Java EE Developer |*
> >
> >
> >
> > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation*
> > Diversity WG for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> > *Interwiki Women
> >  | **Wiki
> > Loves Sport  | Wiki
> > Loves
> > Fashion *
> > WMIT  - WMSE
> >  - WMAR
> >  - WMCH
> >  Member
> >
> > M. +39 3383385545
> > camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> > *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
> >  *|* *LinkedIn
> > *
> > *Wikipedia  **|
> > **WikiDonne
> > UG * | *WikiDonne Project
> >  *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:12 Rebecca O'Neill <
> > rebeccanin...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Well said. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comment Open on U.S. Open Access Policy

2020-04-23 Thread Peter Southwood
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 U.S. Open Access Policy

Yaroslav,

How do you feel about the system of compulsory royalties they have to pay
for both academic journals and news journalism in Germany? See e.g.
https://www.vgwort.de/die-vg-wort.html

In the U.S., we pay musicians for their works played on the radio, in
public venues, and pirated, all out of taxpayer funds. Does anyone
understand why we don't pay journalist and scientists the same way?

Best regards,
Jim


On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:52 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> As an actively publishing researcher, I just know that mandating open
> access publishing would mean that the author pays the (huge) publication
> fee rather than the library pays the subscription. In an ideal world, the
> universities would refund the fees, and will get subsidy from the
> governments, In our real world, the researchers will have to pay everything
> out of their own pocket, with some of them losing all possibilities to
> publish, for the lack of funds. I tried to raise this before, and the
> universal reply was that this is my problem, not the problem of the
> society. I do not expect anything else this time.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:34 PM Shani Evenstein 
> wrote:
>
> > Jake, well written and nicely put.
> > Is this online somewhere, where we can share it further?
> >
> > Best,
> > Shani.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > *Shani Evenstein Sigalov*
> >
> > * Lecturer, Tel Aviv University.
> > * EdTech Innovation Strategist, NY/American Medical Program, Sackler
> School
> > of Medicine, Tel Aviv University.
> >
> > * PhD Candidate, School of Education, Tel Aviv University.
> > * Azrieli Foundation Research Fellow.
> > * OER & Emerging Technologies Coordinator, UNESCO Chair
> >  on Technology,
> > Internationalization
> > and Education, School of Education, Tel Aviv University
> > .
> >
> > * Member of the Board of Trustees
> > ,
> > Wikimedia
> > Foundation .
> > * Chairperson, The Hebrew Literature Digitization Society
> > .
> > * Chief Editor, Project Ben-Yehuda .
> >
> > +972-525640648
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:27 PM Pete Forsyth 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Jake,
> > >
> > > How can we most effectively support your excellent effort with this?
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > --
> > > Pete Forsyth
> > > User:Peteforsyth on Meta, English Wikisource, English Wikipedia, etc.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:22 PM Tito Dutta 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > > Very well-written and well-supported by statistics. Thanks for
> sharing.
> > > > Regards.
> > > > User:Titodutta
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:41 AM Jake Orlowitz 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My Letter to the U.S. Office for Science and Technology Policy
> > > regarding
> > > > a
> > > > > proposal for federally mandate open access to publicly-funded
> > > research...
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikipedia is one of the ten most popular websites in the world.
> Each
> > > > month
> > > > > 200,000 editors improve over 6 million articles. This vital public
> > > > > information is viewed on 1 billion unique devices as our pages are
> > > loaded
> > > > > by people around the globe 7,000 times per second.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia", both in its open CC-BY-SA
> > > licensing
> > > > > as well as the unpaid contributions of its volunteer editors. Yet
> > > > > Wikipedia's hundreds of thousands of editors struggle to access
> > > scholarly
> > > > > research. And, if they are able to read and cite it, then hundreds
> of
> > > > > millions of readers cannot verify or explore it for deeper
> research.
> > > > >
> > > > > Citations are the bridge between Wikipedia articles and a broader
> > > > landscape
> > > > > of reliable, secondary sources. Citations not only allow readers to
> > > > verify
> > > > > the reliability of the facts they find in Wikipedia; through
> > citations
> > > > > readers can also deep-dive into any given topic by exploring the
> > books,
> > > > > scholarly publications, and news stories referenced in an article.
> > > > >
> > > > > A recently released dataset of all citations with identifiers in
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > found that less than half of the official versions of scholarly
> > > > > publications cited with an identifier in Wikipedia are freely
> > available
> > > > on
> > > > > the web. This chasm of for editors and for readers is a tragedy of
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia and a new Wikipedia project

2020-04-20 Thread Peter Southwood
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 they meet the 
inclusion criteria.
Another advantage is that the structure of the articles can be engineered to be 
inherently more neutral.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Denny Vrandecic
Sent: 20 April 2020 17:23
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia and a new 
Wikipedia project

Thank you, Scott,

this is a great and important question. I go into more detail about the
changes to the incentives structures for the contributors in the
Wikipedia @ 20 essay here:

https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/vyf7ksah

In short: it relies heavily on getting the user experience just right, and
this will be one of the hardest parts of the project. But there are a few
forces that conspire to improve the incentives for the contributors, such
as more reach, making a current and complete Wikipedia in a smaller
language editions seem feasible, reactivating previous contributors, and
tailor a user experience for mobile devices.

In the end, only the future will tell, but I certainly hope that this will
lead to a vibrant and large community with thousands of contributors.

Stay safe,
Denny



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:54 PM Info WorldUniversity <
i...@worlduniversityandschool.org> wrote:

> Denny, and Wikimedians,
>
> How to maintain the diversity of contributions, edits, individual knowledge
> generators / writers, et al, on the human side of Wikipedia, by many
> different language communities if these were to grow, I wonder? Is this
> already part of your proposal, which I haven't come across yet? Thank you
> for this great development!
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:49 PM Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
> > Elevator pitch:
> >
> > Many Wikipedia language editions have large gaps in knowledge. We want to
> > close these gaps by allowing to create and maintain content in one place
> > and allow the Wikipedias to use this content if they choose so, instead
> of
> > doing that in each of the Wikipedia language editions individually. This
> > will allow more people to access and create more knowledge in more
> > languages in the Wikipedias.
> >
> > In order to do this, we need to represent the content in a way that can
> be
> > translated to many different natural languages with high fidelity. We do
> > this by introducing a new project that allows to create, maintain,
> > catalogue and evaluate functions as a new form of knowledge the
> communities
> > work on. This will allow completely new use cases, and allow more people
> to
> > share in more forms of knowledge than today.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:48 PM Andy Mabbett 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 01:52, Denny Vrandečić 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > As some of you know, I have been working on the idea of a
> multilingual
> > > > Wikipedia for a few years now.
> > >
> > > What's the elevator pitch for this?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> - Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
> - https://twitter.com/WorldUnivAndSch
> - World University and School
> - http://worlduniversityandschool.org
> - http://scottmacleod.com
>
> - CC World University and School - like CC Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
> CC OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in
> California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.
> ___
> 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] Summary of the Brand Project presentation

2020-04-18 Thread Peter Southwood
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 presentation

Have now watched "interconnection". It did not seem to say anything
tangible apart from stuff like you find 'interconnection in nature' in
the 2 minutes. It was produced to a good standard.

Sorry, it was not encouraging. The question remains of how much this
is costing the movement in WMF funding and valuable Wikimedia
community time without any clear outcomes being defined that the
Wikimedia community wants or could use to benefit the core value of
adding to the sum of human knowledge. Why the "rebranding" project
continues at this time remains an enigma.

We have gone ahead and added the video to Commons. If superseded it
will remain useful as a snapshot as of 16 April.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Our_unified_concept_interconnection.webm

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 09:57, Samir Elsharbaty
 wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
> Yesterday, the 2030 Brand Movement Project presented the unified concept
> that will guide the upcoming branding proposals. Thanks to the 224
> attendees who watched the presentation live! Participants brought a great
> stream of comments and questions (averaging 8 per minute!) that helped
> clarify important points.
>
> The unified concept, “interconnection”, was arrived at after many community
> workshops, exercises, and conversations. “Interconnection” distills the 23
> distinct concepts generated in workshops into a single word that links
> together the insights and definitions from the participants, and at the
> same time adds more meaning to the answer to the question who are we? This
> concept will not be a public or visible part of branding, but rather a
> guiding idea.
>
> Take a look at the video explaining interconnection as a unified concept
> [1].
>
> You can watch the full presentation video, together with the lively
> discussion that accompanied it [2]. Most of the questions were answered
> during the presentation (including questions about the project scope, the
> upcoming naming convention proposals, and the RfC), but there wasn't enough
> time to answer them all. Questions are being compiled on the Brand Network
> talk page on Meta [3].
>
> The team will be hosting a follow-up office hour next week to answer the
> rest of the questions. Participation details will be shared on the Brand
> Network talk page. The session will be recorded and shared, and answers
> will be covered on the project pages. If you have a different question
> you’d like to ask, feel free to add it to the page or bring it to the
> office hour.
>
> PS: As soon as these videos are ready for Commons we will upload them
> there, and we will notify about this on the Brand Network talk page as well.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Samir & the Brand Project team
>
> [1]
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/04/16/our-unified-concept-interconnection/
>
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS72O6Si94Q
>
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brand_Network#Unified_concept:_Interconnection
>
> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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



___
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] Що робить вас щасливими цього тижня? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 5 April 2020)

2020-04-15 Thread Peter Southwood
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: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Що робить вас щасливими цього тижня? / What's making you 
happy this week? (Week of 5 April 2020)

* Preface *

Hello,

I regret that I need to start this email by communicating that
Clovermoss is on an unplanned absence. [1] I hoped that she would
return by now and that she would send this email.

I think that one WMYHTW thread is enough for one week, so I will not
start a thread for the week of 12 April.

The main content for this email is adapted from Clovermoss, and the
text is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
Unported License. [2]


* Main content *

I realize that this week has been difficult for many around the world.
I have mentioned this in previous weeks, but I think it's vital to
express my sympathies each and every time. A pandemic like this has
global ramifications, and I think it's important to recognize that for
a lot of people, this week could have been one filled with hardship.
There are people who have been laid off from their jobs, parents who
are doing their best to take care of their children, students who have
had to start taking classes online, and an endless amount of other
unique situations.

This week, some important milestones have been reached across the
Wikimedia Movement. The Ukrainian Wikipedia [3] has reached the 1
million article milestone. That's a huge milestone to reach, so I wish
to congratulate everyone who contributes there! I asked Ата, an active
contributor to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, about how this milestone
affects the project. [4] I found her response insightful, and I am
thankful for it.

In addition, the The Wikimedia Community of the Kazakh language User
Group has officially been recognized by the Affiliations Commitee. For
more information, see [5] and [6].

I have also discovered inspiring off-wiki initiatives, such as the
Mozilla Open Source Support Team (abbreviated as MOSS) launching a
COVID-19 Solutions Fund. Awards of up to $50,000 are being offered to
open source technology projects. [7]


* Closing comments *

Translations of the subject line of this email would be appreciated on
Meta. [8] Thanks to User:Ата [9] for the Ukranian translation.

What’s making you happy this week? You are welcome to write in any
language. You are also welcome to start a WMYHTW thread next week.


Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clovermoss
[2] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
[3] https://uk.wikipedia.org/
[4] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D0%90%D1%82%D0%B0=prev=19952931
[5] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_of_Wikimedia_Community_of_Kazakh_language_User_Group
[6] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_of_Kazakh_language_User_Group
[7] 
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2020/03/31/moss-launches-covid-19-solutions-fund/
[8] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine/WMYHTW_translations
[9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:%D0%90%D1%82%D0%B0

___
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, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia and a new Wikipedia project

2020-04-14 Thread Peter Southwood
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: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia and a new 
Wikipedia project

As some of you know, I have been working on the idea of a multilingual
Wikipedia for a few years now. Two other publications on this are here, I
have bothered you with mails about it here previously too:

https://research.google/pubs/pub48057/

https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/vyf7ksah

I've also been giving talks about the topic in several places about this
idea, some of them have also been recorded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzVA7YLwhTE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLiJ6E9sG6U=PLQVG_tuf3Q2fji-CwqEDRJpZuf23wevrq=13

I gathered some awesome feedback in those few years (also from some members
of this list, thank you!), and I also implemented a few prototypes trying
out the idea, learning a lot from that.

All of this has helped to sharpen the idea and come up with a more concrete
proposal. In short, the proposal is that we do a two-step approach: first,
allow for capturing Wikipedia content in an abstract notation, and second,
allow for creating functions that translate this abstract notation into
natural language (For simplicity, I gave this two steps names, Abstract
Wikipedia for step 1, and Wikilambda for step 2. I realize that both names
are not perfect, but that is just one of the many things that we can figure
out together on the way).

I wrote up this proposal in a paper, which I uploaded to my Website almost
two weeks ago, and I also submitted it to Arxiv. And as soon as it was
published on Arxiv, I wanted to share it with you and see what you folks
think (I wanted to wait for it as Arxiv would allow the URLs to remains
table - my Website has gone down before and might so again).

https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04733

The new proposal is much more concrete than the previous proposals (and
therefore there is much more to criticize). Also, obviously, nothing of
this is set in stone, and just like the names, I am very much looking
forward to hear suggestions for how to improve the whole thing, and I will
blatantly steal every good idea and proposal. I am not even sure what a
good venue for this discussion is, I guess, eventually it should be on
Meta?, but also about that I would like to hear proposals.

Abstract Wikipedia is a proposed extension to Wikidata that would capture
the content next to the Wikidata items. Think of it as a new namespace,
where we could create, maintain, and collaborate on the abstract content.
Similar to the Wikidata-bridge, there should be a way to allow
contributions from the Wikipedias to flow back without too much friction.
The individual Wikipedias - and I cannot stress this enough - have the
choice to use some or any or all or none of the content from Abstract
Wikipedia, but I most definitely do not expect the content of the current
Wikipedias to be replaced by this. In fact, I have no doubt that any decent
article in any language Wikipedia will remain superior to the outcome of
the proposed new architecture by far. This is a proposal for the places
where the current system left us with gaps, not a proposal to turn the
parts that are already brilliant today dull and terrible tomorrow.

Wikilambda is a proposed new Wikimedia project that allows us to share in a
new form of knowledge assets, functions. You can think of it as similar to
Modules or Templates, but a bit extended, with places for tests, different
languages, evaluation, and also for all kind of functions, not only those
that are immediately useful for one of the Wikimedia projects, and most
importantly, shared among the projects. So one of the first goals would be
to increasingly allow fo a place to have global templates, another idea
that has been discussed and asked for for a very long time. Wikilambda,
just as Wikidata, is expected to start as a project supporting the
immediate needs of the sister projects, and over time to grow to a project
that stands on its own merits as well.

We don't really have an effective process for starting new projects, so I
am trying to follow a similar path that we took for Wikidata back then. And
back then it all started with Markus Krötzsch, me and others talking about
the idea to anyone who would listen until everyone was bored of hearing it,
trying out prototypes, and then talking about it even more, and improving
all of it constantly based on your feedback. And then making increasingly
concrete proposals until we managed to show some kind of consensus from the
communities, you, and the Foundation to actually do it. And then, well, do
it.

So, I've done some of the talking, with researchers, with the public, with
some of you, and also with folks at the Foundation, to figure out what next

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-04-10 Thread Peter Southwood
on the latest information.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Samir
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://w.wiki/LEF
> > > >
> > > > Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
> > > >
> > > > Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This does have feeling of a company creating a financial
> relationship
> > > with
> > > > > the Foundation as way to bypass or backdoor a community ban thats
> > been
> > > > > reviewed already.   Over the years I've worked with many users who
> > been
> > > > > blocked and help them become productive contributors but before
> they
> > > start
> > > > > making recommendation or decisions about who we are there needs to
> be
> > > > > something done to get them back to good standing with the community
> > > first
> > > > > 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 into
> the
> > > 2030
> > > > > strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should
> > have
> > > > > been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its
> > comprehensible
> > > not
> > > > > to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > doing anything for the next 10 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 03:20, David Gerard 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an
> > > unwillingness
> > > > > > to work with Wikipedia properly:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - d.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > > little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am
> > > wrong,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside?
> > > Block
> > > > > > evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the
> > community.
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Peter
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:
> > wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a
> > movement?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed
> > personally
> > > at
> > > > > > > you, Essie.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved
> the
> > > > > > > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of
> > > resources
> > > > > > > (all of which are questionab

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-03-15 Thread Peter Southwood
Fair enough, I agree that the bias towards the English Wikipedia exists. It is 
natural and to be expected within English Wikipedia, but should not exist 
elsewhere in the Wikimedia community. I also agree that sometimes a regional 
bias exists because people from that region add more content, and we tend to 
add the content we know and care about and for which we have sources. I also 
agree that making Wikipedia the primary brand is likely to increase bias and 
tend to marginalise the non-Wikipedia projects even more.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 15 March 2020 12:47
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hoi,
Back your pardon. I do not blame the English Wikipedia for the
shortcomings of other Wikipedias. It does a reasonable job at informing an
English reading public. The point that I make is that we do not consider
how the bias towards English Wikipedia prevents us from reaching out and
sharing in the sum of all knowledge.

There is documentation that Cebuan Wikipedia articles are well presented
and provide a more complete coverage of the knowledge domains it covers.
Also please remember that all US places were added to English Wikipedia by
bot.

When I document bias, it is for you to understand that this bias exists. I
stopped writing in English Wikipedia because the American perspective was
more relevant that an international perspective.

At stake in this thread is making Wikipedia a central brand. I indicated
earlier that those living the English Wikipedia reality are not aware of
the negative effects of its bias. In effect you tell me to do something
about it. Well, I have been blogging 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 unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing
> community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other
> Wikipedias. En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply
> with its editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for
> en:WP. Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for
> content, within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they
> choose to emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
> If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
> subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
> other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they
> should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence
> from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
> communities of those projects for consideration.
> If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
> not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
> community who have no authority over Commons.
> As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
> confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
> sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
> but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
> English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
> English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
> the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
>
> Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
> informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
> a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
> maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
> gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
> conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
> other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
> job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
> result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
> knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
> conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
> Thanks,
>Gerar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-03-15 Thread Peter Southwood
The question then is whether it is the community of English Wikipedia exerting 
this influence, or WMF failing to allocate resources fairly, and if so, why? Is 
it just that the massive internet presence of English Wikipedia exerts an 
irresistible gravitational attraction on the resources like a black hole?
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Demian
Sent: 15 March 2020 12:25
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

My 2 cents: Imho the pressure from English Wikipedia on other projects of
the movement is very realistic in many kinds of matters, that I've
experienced myself too. Other projects are not independent socially or
culturally, the rules, practices, expectations and editorial behaviour is
strongly related to that on enwp with all 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 consider the shortcomings of other
> Wikipedias.

En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its
> editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP.
> Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for content,
> within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to
> emulate en:WP that is their prerogative.
> If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the
> subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince
> other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they
> should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence
> from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing
> communities of those projects for consideration.
> If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is
> not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP
> community who have no authority over Commons.
> As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for
> confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are
> sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
> but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
> English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
> English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
> the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.
>
> Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
> informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
> a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
> maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
> gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
> conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
> other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
> job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
> result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
> knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
> conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> 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
> > projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to
> be
> > highly toxic".  Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you
> using
> > the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> > objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subj

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-03-15 Thread Peter Southwood
It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing community 
for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other Wikipedias. En: does 
not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its editorial 
standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP. Other projects 
are free to set and use their own standards for content, within the general WMF 
terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to emulate en:WP that is their 
prerogative.
If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the 
subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince other 
projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that they should 
follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence from experts 
that this is the case, and present it to the editing communities of those 
projects for consideration. 
If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is not 
used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP community who 
have no authority over Commons.
As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for confusion, 
there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are sufficiently specific 
when referring to the ambiguous entities.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hoi,
By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost universally
but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia
English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address
English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent
the sum of all our knowledge to be shared.

Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job
informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project of
a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their
maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and
gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia
conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in
other languages is frustrated from within WMF.  We could do a better job, a
job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The
result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the
knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia
conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal.
Thanks,
   GerardM

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
> projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to be
> highly toxic".  Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you using
> the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously
> objected to? Something else that is not obvious?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
>
> Hoi,
> Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a
> unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects
> and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.
>
> When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
> English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
> effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
> English Wikipedia.
>
> * Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for projects
> other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
> * New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, the
> notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the architecture
> * It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than Wikipedia,
> specific functionality is hardly ever developed
> * In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English notability.
> Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly requested
> for use with Wikidata
> * there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. Many
> Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose
> because we do not seek an audience for them
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-03-14 Thread Peter Southwood
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 highly toxic".  
Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you using the generic term 
for the specific project in the way you previously objected to? Something else 
that is not obvious?
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hoi,
Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as a
unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 projects
and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia.

When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that
English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative
effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with
English Wikipedia.

* Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for projects
other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published
* New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, the
notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the architecture
* It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than Wikipedia,
specific functionality is hardly ever developed
* In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English notability.
Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly requested
for use with Wikidata
* there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. Many
Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose
because we do not seek an audience for them
* even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is really
good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other languages.

It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may be
that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will
welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its
consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to share
in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not
what English Wikipedia deems notable.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 18:33, Essie Zar  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> when your email went out.
>
> As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
> City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
> improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
> convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
> movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
> branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.
>
> In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
> Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
> been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement.
> The
> process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
> volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
> foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
> workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
> answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
> developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
> movement.
>
> Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
> the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
> you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
> concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
> built or selected by workshop participants.
>
> Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
>
> Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-03-14 Thread Peter Southwood
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: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Essie Zar
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 12:48 AM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hello Everyone,

There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
when your email went out.

As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.

In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement. The
process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
movement.

Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
built or selected by workshop participants.

Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.

https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/

Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the project
talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be
available on Meta starting next month.

Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single
concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around naming
(expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are
scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can
continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.

We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in Snøhetta's
open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of the
channels mentioned.

https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/

Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various points
in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas of
the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe that we
don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human being
to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means billions of
people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and
include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals the
movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us there.

Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at brandingwikipedia.org and
the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the project
talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to drop us a
note at brandproj...@wikimedia.org if you have questions.

Thanks!

Essie Zar

(from the movement brand identity project team)



[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html

[2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/

[3] https://snohetta.com/

[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process

[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project

* What is a concept?
A tool making the complex more understandable.

Concepts make complex subjects more understandable. They manage to
consolidate vast amounts 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-03-14 Thread Peter Southwood
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
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

I, for one, welcome Wikipedia Dictionary, Wikipedia Source, Wikipedia
Species, Wikipedia Commons.

Why is it, though, that others go the other way? like American Airlines
subordinating to AMR, Google to Alphabet.  Citibank went in a direction the
opposite of the way that WMF is going, with Citi becoming a prefix with
multiple uses.

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 3:48 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on
> the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that
> there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves
> controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be
> more accepting of the process.
>
> Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to
> process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days
> generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.
>
> Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative
> newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending
> money on outside consultants.
>
> So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.
>
> 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,
> 



-- 
Dennis C. During
___
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, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-03-13 Thread Peter Southwood
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, little content 
and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong, and they have just 
been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block evasion does not bode 
well for their understanding of the community.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pine W
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

Hello,

First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
you, Essie.

Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of resources
(all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself as
the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think that
the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
months.

I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
in its current form.

Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
project to continue, I would let the community decide on the project's
parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.

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 is nothing more than “Lord of the Flies”,Re: Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

2020-03-02 Thread Peter Southwood
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.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
80hnhtv4agou--- via Wikimedia-l
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 6:37 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia is nothing more than “Lord of the Flies”,Re: 
Treatment of newbies with mild CoI


Wikimedia is nothing more than “Lord of the Flies”
 
The foundation, Jimmy Wales and trust and safety does nothing about it !
 
with abusive administrators out of control;
 
   As an nubile and an IP.
 
i went to the village pump for help, and that person took over the whole thing,
 
and all i was doing is putting in references, then every thing i did after that 
was wrong,
 
i went to administrators for help, and after a discussion which they called an 
instrution was 
 
blocked for a year as i dared them to shut me up on my own talk page one of 
them blocked 
 
that to, which stopped me from asking for a unblock review by a neutral party 
or contact the 
 
arbitration committee , when I put an unblock template on the wrong wiki.they 
blocked that
 
wiki first, then somebody came along, with no warning or why they put the IP on 
a  global .
 
when I went to trust and safety they refused to talk to me. all this just for 
trying to talk (explain)
 
there is no free speech on  Wikipedia .
 
From: Strainu
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 2:40 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI
 
We don't, at least not at community level. At most, we fight for individual
cases which are worth it (e.g. PR people that seem willing to learn). This
got us some half-decent articles about companies.
 
From: Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 10:07 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI
 
Some established users have the habit of reverting every edit by IPs and
newbies in the articles they watch - often with the special reversion tool
-  no mater the content and value of the edition. That is a very consistent
behavior I've been observing over more than one decade at the Wikipedia in
Portuguese, and the newbie edit only stays if another established user
notices the reversion, and reverts it back. Meaning: One established user
has to risk potential conflict with those other established users to
reinstate the newbie edition - with the result that many simply staying
away from that and leaving the IP/Newbie to its fate.

It's against the community rules, but pretty much nobody seems to care -
meaning: it's not really against the will of the community.

The general result is a very poor experience for everyone using IPs; and
slightly better (or less bad) for registered newbies, but still quite
hostile.

Best,
Paulo
 
Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoeks...@gmail.com > escreveu no dia quinta,
27/02/2020 à(s) 16:41:

> As a quick/rough data point  I don't frequently edit wikipedia anymore, and
> when I do I never log in.
>
> About 2/3 edits no further interactions happen. About 10% gets reverted,
> about 10% of the time I get a warning and the last 10% I get a welcome
> template.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 15:52 Marshall Miller < marshall.h.mil...@gmail.com >
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for mentioning the WMF Growth team [1], Pine.  This is a really
> > interesting thread that has touched on much of what the team has been
> > working on alongside the Czech, Korean, Arabic, and Vietnamese Wikipedia
> > communities (and with the advice of people from many different
> communities
> > along the way).
> >
> > We've tried to base our approach in research on newcomers, which taught
> us
> > that newcomers face three main types of challenges: technical,
> conceptual,
> > and cultural [2].  For instance, the research tells us that the rules of
> > the wiki are hard to learn, and that a negative first interaction can
> cause
> > a newcomer to leave the wiki and not return -- but that a positive
> > interaction, such as getting advice from a friendly editor, can cause
> them
> > to stay.
> >
> > Over the last year and a half, we have experimented on mid-size
> Wikipedias
> > with features that promote good communication between new and experienced
> > users [3], that help newcomers teach themselves [4], and that give
> > newcomers easy tasks to do [5].  The goal is to build an experience for
> > newcomers that helps them get on a positive track in their first days on
> > the wiki, and want to stick around to join their communities.  It's
> > possible that what we've learned and built so far will apply differently
> to
> > the largest Wikipedias.
> >
> > I hope that anyone who is interested in newcomers can tell us 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

2020-02-25 Thread Peter Southwood
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 wages, what can you 
expect? The work probably also attracts a share of people who get their kicks 
out of telling other people what they can't do. Again, they are volunteers, we 
accept their offer to help in good faith until they prove otherwise. The 
competent and really incompetent are the easy cases. The not quite competent 
are harder to deal with. Will they get better or worse with experience?
Some competence is required to edit Wikipedia. A suitable personality also 
helps a lot. However, an enormous amount of work gets done quietly and without 
fanfare and drama, if one chooses the topic carefully, and edits with 
discretion and a reasonable level of willingness to cooperate.
Cheers,
Peter


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: 25 February 2020 20:03
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

As a rule, (at least) in Wikipedia, with very rare exceptions,  established
communities of editors treat newbies as unwelcome invaders.
No idea how to solve that, since it's a problem related to the nature of
humane beings, not something technical.
But the result is a very low rate of retention, indeed - and increasingly
reduced diversity and cultural richness, which eventually ends up reflected
on content. At some point those established editors also start preying at
other established editors, specially when newbies are not available. The
environment is awful and toxic in general.

For outreach activities to have at least a minimal rate of success, the
participants need to have some kind of protection shield, such as some
privileged contact with established editors willing to help them.
Otherwise, edithatons and other outreach activities are basically sending
lambs to the slaughterhouse. As for newbies that come to Wikipedia by
themselves, they are generally on their own.

Best,
Paulo

Aron Demian  escreveu no dia domingo, 23/02/2020
à(s) 23:30:

> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 22:35, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of
> > an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w
> > as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life.
>
> [...]
> >
> As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk
> > page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a
> > discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094
> > characters or 665 words.
> >
>
> This is a topic that's seldom discussed and somewhat taboo in certain
> areas, therefore not many people are aware of what experiences many
> newcomers have. These events go generally unnoticed, but if you were
> wondering why editor retention is a constant issue, the pattern that lies
> behind this single case you brought to our attention is a top reason.
>
> I've tried to help in a similar case of a footballer unknown in
> English-speaking countries. She was repeatedly reverted without the edits
> being evaluated or the rules being explained. She never returned and I was
> frowned upon by the admin, who was involved, for trying to help.
>
> I've noticed this "shoot first, ask later" pattern in many cases, not just
> with newcomers. Unfortunately, this is all too common and a contributing
> factor to the toxicity.
>
> I've noticed the following issues:
> 1) The general unwelcoming treatment of newcomers: "noobs" are considered
> lacking the proper understanding and necessary knowledge, unless they jump
> right into RC patrolling, which is not the sign of a new editor.
> 2) The lack of protection given to newcomers:  "You have no rights" being
> explicitly said to one newcomer, that I recall.
> 3) Preferential treatment and authority bias: the experienced/established
> user is "trusted", thus must be right, therefore unwelcoming - and often
> hostile - conduct is not considered uncivil or it's "not actionable".
> 4) The excessively vilifying application of the most frowned-upon rules
> such as COI, socking. Editors tagged as such are treated the same
> regardless of the effect of their actions and whether that has caused any
> damage, which can scale from none to introducing bias to many articles for
> years.
>
> Currently, there is no effort to mitigate these issues, to improve the
> policies and community practices. It's also a problem that while the
> "biting newbies" and "civility" policies are very well written, these are
> almost never applied and definitely not in the protection of newcomers. By
> that I don't mean these should always result in sanctions, but that the
> community - and primarily who 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects

2020-02-25 Thread Peter Southwood
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 issue is necessarily related.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:10 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other 
projects

Hoi,
Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support
Wikipedia.

At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at
Commons.

When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria
different from English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM
___
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] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

2020-02-21 Thread Peter Southwood
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 many places where all kinds of conversations are held.
Everyone expects that others make use of their preferred platform. I can
use wikis and I am not able to cover all the Wikis where all kinds of
conversations are held that may be or may not be of interest to me.

As chaos reigns supreme we decidedly do not communicate well. Even this
platform is boycotted by some and some are boycotted from this platform. We
are really bad at getting communication going because any and all
conversations echo from different points in other directions.
Thanks,
   Gerard

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 10:31, James Salsman  wrote:

> When we decide to use something other than wikis to help those who
> don't use wikis, instead of helping those who don't use wikis to use
> them, how is that not turning our backs on project editor recruitment?
> Is the problem that people can't use wikis or that they don't yet know
> how? It just seems like a profound waste to keep building new walled
> gardens at the expense of onboarding.
>
> ___
> 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, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

2020-02-20 Thread Peter Southwood
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
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

Thank you, Quim Gil and your team all the effort that went into
discuss-space. We've seen a great platform being developed.
It was far from ready, however, and my impression was we were in a
pre-release phase. To add to the lessons learned, let me share my thoughts
on this.

From the recurring feedback that the forum did not become part of
contributors' everyday workflow, that groups are still using facebook for
similar purposes, we can deduce that a crucial feature-set was missing:
integration with our everyday on-wiki workflow. This would include 3
features:
* Notifications within Echo.
* Automatic listing of active and on-topic discussions on wiki pages (in
project namespace mostly).
* Including (transcluding) discussions on wiki-pages.

The first one is crucial, the next two "just" very important. If there will
be any similar solution in the future, these will be the hard criteria for
adoption and success.
Without these features the expectation that this forum becomes widely
adopted was unfounded: it's still in its infancy and it was judged too
early.

The foundation of it - an established forum engine - is solid, any solution
that would be chosen in the future would recreate this or similar
functionality. That would be a massive endeavour. The WMF devs have their
hands full all the time, how would that be possible?

I'm sure the success of such a project hinges on the above critical
features. Even if the WMF stops developing these features, nothing is lost:
interest from volunteers might be enough to develop some of these features.
I've shown interest in one of these, GSoC also will be an opportunity for
motivated developers to contribute and grant proposals could be made for
the most important features. In true collaborative fashion, the WMF can
enable the community to turn this experiment into a fully-featured,
integrated product. I believe this is the best path to take, that's in line
with the Mid-Term Plan's targets.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 11:31, Quim Gil  wrote:

> While we remain committed to this important goal ...


Given how overwhelming the positive expectations are about this project, I
think the best path to take for the WMF is to halt the development, but
continue operating the platform and motivate volunteers to get involved
with its development. At least that's how I see the ideal role of WMF in
our Movement.

The Space blog, which continues to fill
> a need to share news for the movement by the movement, will continue in a
> new home.
>

A subjective note: I think both the blog and the forum would be more
accessible on simpler URLs, I've always found "discuss-space" unusual.
Wikimedia Space is a good name for those projects all together but in the
URLs I find it confusing.

I would have suggested these URLs instead:
* "discuss.wmflabs.org"
  * or simply "discourse.wmflabs.org" as usual in the free-software
community
  * or "forum.wmflabs.org" (following the KISS
 principle)
* "blog.wmflabs.org"
* "events.wmflabs.org/calendar"
* "events.wmflabs.org/map"

If any of these is released to production, ".wmflabs.org" would be replaced
by ".wikimedia.org"


Thank you, Quim for asking feedback from the community.

Aron (Demian)
___
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] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

2020-02-09 Thread Peter Southwood
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 and community 
conversations launching next week

I've been reading sections of the strategy document with a couple of
thoughts in mind.

* The relatively decentralized nature of the community makes
negotiations challenging, both within the community and between the
community and WMF.

* Clashes between the community and WMF are usually lose-lose
situations. Even for the side that eventually comes out on top, I
think that there is a lot of stress, a lot of time lost, a lot of
damage to assumptions of good faith, and a lot of unhappiness.

In my brief search of the strategy document:

* I think that the quality of the strategy document is more uniform
than the quality of the working group draft recommendations, and the
document is generally readable. Thanks very much to the people who
contributed time and effort to produce a generally coherent document
that can be used as a basis for discussions.

* I have seen some descriptions of problems that I think are generally good.

* I have not seen proposals that I think are likely to result in
significantly improved relations between the community and WMF. There
is some discussion of improving the efficiency of global discussions,
but that would be difficult to do and is a separate issue from
improving relations between the community and WMF.

* There are multiple calls for changes that would cost many thousands
of hours of volunteers' time to design, even assuming that there was
consensus that the changes should be made. I think that the ambition
here is unwise.

* There are some proposals which are unlikely to get consensus. Even
assuming that there is consensus in principle, getting consensus on
implementation would be difficult.

The best way forward, I think, would be to have the community as a
whole and individual wiki communities adopt portions of the
recommendations as they think best. There may be a few proposals which
the community is willing to adopt globally through requests for
comment on Meta. Proposals which are not adopted globally may be
adopted by local consensus so long as they do not conflict with global
policy.

The WMF Board may want to adopt portions of the document for WMF's
use. At this point, I would encourage WMF instead to wait to see what
the community does with the recommendations. When the community
decides to move forward with portions of the recommendations globally
and/or locally, WMF can then offer to support those initiatives in
ways that have community consensus. Patience will be required, but I
think that this path will lead to the most harmonious and sustained
progress. The alternatives involve more opportunities for chaos,
frustration, and WMF-community conflict; please, let's not go there.

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] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

2020-02-04 Thread Peter Southwood
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 that 
there is an unreasonable expectation for instant response, but really it does 
not take much planning to ensure that someone is available to answer immediate 
questions, which would probably prevent most situations from going critical. 
Then someone presents a boilerplate non-answer from a group username and the 
shit hits the fan. Sure, we have our drama queens. By now the WMF should have 
noticed the pattern, and made a plan to work within the reality. Really poor PR 
demonstrating a lack of understanding of the audience.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 04 February 2020 13:56
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community 
conversations launching next week

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 08:57, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> In part this is because people were very angry about the issue at the time,
> and that anger was dealt with very poorly at the time.
>

While MediaViewer's introduction wasn't prepared appropriately and
superprotect was an inconsiderate, rushed and authoritarian solution to
stop the wheel-warring, it is a fundamental issue of the community that
such disagreements are always dealt with anger, combative actions and
rushed decisions.
The parallels with last year's Fram debacle are strong both on WMF's and
the communities' side: no conversation, drama, wheel-warring again,
immediately. This is how "collegial discussion" of differences should
happen?

I see this as a fundamental issue, that's strongly related to why so much
harassment (and lesser forms of incivility) are part of our everyday
editing experience (I'm talking about less-known members of the community,
who aren't protected by their established status, not us). Those
differences can't be dealt with anger, but only with level-headed, honest
and just moderation.


On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 11:23, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> In the Strategy discussions, I have experienced and witnessed several times
> that defenders of the "strategy synthesis/recommendations" do not want to
> talk about an issue. They say things like:
>

With experience in projects on this scale, one can understand that not all
questions can be answered. While I wish the working group members would
have engaged more in the discussions (kudos to the few, who did, thank you
for showing an example to follow), it is very de-motivating to read
negative comments written in a matter of minutes, that reject months of
work with the strike of a few buttons, without making any effort to think
about solutions to the problem and realizing how hard (impossible, in fact)
it is to implement solutions that satisfy every individual's every need and
concern.

This is disrespectful to the hard work put into these recommendations and
damaging to the motivation of the volunteers and staff members, who gave
their time out of goodwill and -faith, and takes away from their time and
energy to improve the recommendations. What I find disheartening about this
is that most of the negative comments come from users, who opposed the 2017
Movement Direction
,
which is the basis for the current recommendations. Although the first name
is especially *not* representative of the "not constructive" comments, I
would hope that who don't understand or share this vision, would express
their "concerns" with less drama, respecting the work of those, who can
imagine a future with a more friendly and diverse editing culture.

Imagine, how helpful it would be if I were to approach users with
authority, to ask them to assume good faith and treat newcomers with
respect. It would cause some discord, which would turn into angry
responses, which would eventually result in my de facto ban. As it did on
enwiki. Fortunately, the consultations are a more civil atmosphere and
there is space for negative comments, to a certain extent.


> * "this feels like défa vu"

* "you are not constructive"
> * "we must look forward, not backward"
> * "we don't want to talk about details now, we leave that for later"
>

I don't know exactly what was implied with "déja vu" and fortunately, I
haven't met the last response, that I strongly disagree with. The concern
about some feedback not being constructive is, however, very valid, that
I've reflected on above. Responses that give alternative solutions,
highlight questions worth focusing on and generally *add* something to the
proposals, can be incorporated into the proposals and many of those were
included in the new iterations. The primary purpose 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community survey: Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2020

2020-01-23 Thread Peter Southwood
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 Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
Sent: 22 January 2020 00:24
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community survey: Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2020

Gerard, you can read about the previous events (which include answers about
scope), at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Diversity_Conference



On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:43 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> I am not interested when I do no have a clue about the scope
>
>
> Op ma 20 jan. 2020 15:09 schreef Ilario Valdelli :
>
> > That can be an output of the conference. Is not it?
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, 13:57 Gerard Meijssen, 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > How do you define diversity?
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 13:44, Jon Harald Søby 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all, and apologies if you receive this email several times – I
> will
> > be
> > > > posting it to multiple mailing lists.
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Norge would like to organize a regional Wikimedia Diversity
> > > > Conference in 2020 for Europe, with the hope of many other regional
> > > > conferences on the same topic being held in the near future. The
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > Diversity Conference 2020 will provide a meeting place for
> discussing,
> > > > debating and generating recipes for change concerning diversity in
> the
> > > > Wikimedia movement.
> > > >
> > > > We will be sharing more updates regarding a possible conference later
> > in
> > > > 2020. For now, we are working on drafting a grant proposal to the
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation to support the conference. As part of the drafting the
> > > proposal,
> > > > a Community Engagement Survey is crucial to understand what community
> > > > members are expecting out of such conference. In that regard,
> Wikimedia
> > > > Norge invite all those who are interested in the topic of diversity
> to
> > > take
> > > > part in the survey.
> > > >
> > > > Please take the survey here
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdEaXc2AIaaFgKiQUWCDdnJKLd26KA8_DDQsyAqemXsH-wRyw/viewform
> > > > >
> > > > or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdEaXc2AIaaFgKiQUWCDdnJKLd26KA8_DDQsyAqemXsH-wRyw/viewform
> > > >
> > > > *Participants*
> > > > For a Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2020 we would like to invite
> > > > participants who are decision-makers in the movement (volunteers,
> board
> > > or
> > > > staff members of a Wikimedia affiliate) or highly engaged in projects
> > > about
> > > > knowledge equity and diversity. The conference will be an opportunity
> > for
> > > > the participants to discuss solutions for implementation of the 2030
> > > > movement strategy
> > > >  >
> > on
> > > > knowledge equity.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > *Jon Harald Søby*
> > > > Prosjektleder / Prosjektleiar / Prošeaktajođiheaddji / Project
> Manager
> > > > Wikimedia Norge / Wikimedia Noreg / Wikimedia Norga
> > > >
> > > > +47 977 67 510
> > > > jhs...@wikimedia.no
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > > 
> > ___
> > 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Snøhetta and Wikimedia

2020-01-20 Thread Peter Southwood
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:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia

Gracias,
Mike

> On 19 Jan 2020, at 08:54:12, geni  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 00:50, Pine W  wrote:
>> 
>> There are ways that Wikimedia rebranding consultations could be done
>> collaboratively, politely, and with careful stewardship of donor's money.
>> This is not one of them.
> 
> Eh questionable. The community is difficult to engage at the best of
> times and tends to be reflexively conservative about such things. It
> may well be that it is impossible to get any meaningful agreement on
> rebranding.
> 
>> I think that it's time for some people in WMF to move on.
> 
> This kind of thing has happened from time to time despite significant
> staff turnover over the years. Probably just a natural function of
> certain organisations. All we can really do is try and limit the
> damage.
> 
>> but I've had enough of poor coordination,
> 
> Unavoidable from time to time since there is too much going on for any
> one person to keep track of.
> 
>> questionable financial decisions,
> 
> Again a function of size. It would frankly be concerning if every
> editor agreed with every financial decisions. There is also the long
> standing problem of balancing the risk of wasting money with the risk
> of paralysis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> geni
> 
> ___
> 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, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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 elections committee: Call for volunteers

2020-01-11 Thread Peter Southwood
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: wikimedia-l
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation elections committee: Call for 
volunteers

Hello everyone!

*Please disseminate this email to anyone who may be interested.*

As you are probably aware, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees[1]
contains three community-selected seats which are voted in by the wider
Wikimedia community on a regular cycle. In 2020, we will be hosting another
one of these selection processes, which are coordinated by the Wikimedia
Foundation in collaboration with the Elections Committee[2].

We are seeking 2–3 new members for the committee to join us in time for the
first meetings in January 2020. Applicants will be vetted by Foundation
staff and ultimately approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance
Committee[3]. The term is three years, though the bulk of the work involved
occurs in the buildup to an election.

This role comes with the following responsibilities:

* Attending 3–4 meetings between January and April 2020 with the Foundation
and the rest of the committee
* Setting up the wiki pages for the board election (example from last cycle)
* Helping to mark pages for translation and potentially import translations
as required
* Working with the committee to fulfill its other responsibilities[4]

Ideally, you would have the following qualities:

* Fluency in English
* Experience with advanced wikitext markup
* Responsiveness to email outreach

We are particularly interested in those who come from a traditionally
under-represented background. If you are interested in volunteering for
this role, please let me know by *emailing me directly before January 19,
2020*.

Thank you in advance for your interest! Please let me know if you have
questions; I'm more likely to see these questions if you send them to me
directly.

best,
Joe

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee
[4]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Elections_Committee#Responsibilities


--
*Joe Sutherland* (he/him or they/them)
Trust and Safety Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Dear Wikimedia, With Thanks, Donors.

2019-12-12 Thread Peter Southwood
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: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dear Wikimedia, With Thanks, Donors.

Millions of people donate to our projects because we have in some way
bettered their life. They don't just give money, they take the time to say
thank you as well. In their tens of thousands. .

To brighten your day a little, just read a handful of some of these notes
of thanks:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/Donor_Thanks

With that, from the Fundraising teams, we thank you all for your ongoing
support. We couldn't do this without you! Have a wonderful day!

Kind Regards

-- 
Seddon

*Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
*Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Remember Wikipedia Zero.. Where is the research about the effects of its demise?

2019-12-03 Thread Peter Southwood
 Fall" movement has created a
> > friendlier environment for us. So I feel we should at the very least
> > 'ask again' if we can get Wikipedia zero rated or at least restart the
> > conversation to do that.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Douglas."
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:48 PM James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > The offline apps have also been downloaded 100 of thousands of times
> > > mostly from people in LMIC.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia Zero faced the controversial about net neutrality. And thus
> > > we were legally banned from continuing in India.
> > >
> > > Douglas Scott and I discussed the effects of the program in South
> > > Africa. Have cc'ed him to comment further but basically it sounded not
> > > all that great due to all the further limitations that were added by
> > > the telecoms.
> > >
> > > 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 Wikipedia Zero program to the
> > > > wikimedia-l list?
> > > >
> > > > I also would love to see it back. The concerns about zero rating
> > > > service abuse are real, but they did not apply to WZ no matter how
> > > > many people implied they did at the time.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 4:13 AM Peter Southwood
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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. Equally, someone from WMF might be able to report on
> > what has been or is being done in this regard. It is also possible that
> > nothing has been done, or someone who does not read this list is working
> on
> > it.
> > > > > If anyone reads this and can enlighten us, either to whether it is
> > an ongoing project, has been done and the information is available
> > somewhere, or nobody is known to be working on it, please let us know.
> > > > > Anyone who has ideas on how it could be measured or why it can't is
> > also welcome to comment.
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > > > > Sent: 01 December 2019 08:19
> > > > > To: Lodewijk Gelauf; Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Remember Wikipedia Zero.. Where is the
> > research about the effects of its demise?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lodewijk,
> > > > > What I asked for is: do we understand what the impact was of the
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > Zero project. In the answer of James, a board member of the WMF
> > someone who
> > > > > could know, there is nothing that answers that question. All the
> > answer
> > > > > does is deflect the question to something else. A notion that it is
> > "not
> > > > > that bad because we have these other things". These things we had
> > before
> > > > > Wikipedia Zero, they are not Wikipedia and they do not scale.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I have noticed is that once consensus has been reached, we do
> > not want
> > > > > to be confronted with the consequences of our actions. Wikipedia
> > Zero has
> > > > > damaged our outreach and what the BBC info reminds us of is that
> > Internet,
> > > > > the cost of Internet, is not comparable in Africa with what we are
> > used to.
> > > > > It means that we no longer reach the girls and boys in Soweto as we
> > showed
> > > > > in our film clip at the Erasmus award.
> > > > >
> > > > > We do not cover Africa properly, we do not need to seek consensus
> > about
> > > > > this, that is easily to be shown. Our focus on outreach is in
> > America, the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Remember Wikipedia Zero.. Where is the research about the effects of its demise?

2019-12-01 Thread Peter Southwood
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. Equally, someone from WMF might be able to report on what has been or 
is being done in this regard. It is also possible that nothing has been done, 
or someone who does not read this list is working on it.
If anyone reads this and can enlighten us, either to whether it is an ongoing 
project, has been done and the information is available somewhere, or nobody is 
known to be working on it, please let us know.
Anyone who has ideas on how it could be measured or why it can't is also 
welcome to comment.
Cheers,
Peter


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 01 December 2019 08:19
To: Lodewijk Gelauf; Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Remember Wikipedia Zero.. Where is the research 
about the effects of its demise?

Lodewijk,
What I asked for is: do we understand what the impact was of the Wikipedia
Zero project. In the answer of James, a board member of the WMF someone who
could know, there is nothing that answers that question. All the answer
does is deflect the question to something else. A notion that it is "not
that bad because we have these other things". These things we had before
Wikipedia Zero, they are not Wikipedia and they do not scale.

What I have noticed is that once consensus has been reached, we do not want
to be confronted with the consequences of our actions. Wikipedia Zero has
damaged our outreach and what the BBC info reminds us of is that Internet,
the cost of Internet, is not comparable in Africa with what we are used to.
It means that we no longer reach the girls and boys in Soweto as we showed
in our film clip at the Erasmus award.

We do not cover Africa properly, we do not need to seek consensus about
this, that is easily to be shown. Our focus on outreach is in America, then
Europe, then the rest of the world and there is Africa. From the moment we
stopped Wikipedia Zero, we have invested heavily in infrastructure in
Africa, the organisational presence in the USA is now such that it rivals
Wikimania and is used as an excuse by some to even dismantle Wikimania. As
an organisation, a movement the "centre periphery" model is alive and well.
We happily embrace Burke's peerage in Wikidata and we balk at the fact that
covering science takes resources away from pet projects.

You tell me to be constructive and here I lay out what the situation is.
How can you be constructive as our movement does not support science, the
people who need our information most are disenfranchised because we do not
cover them, support them in an equal manner.
Thanks,


On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 04:31, effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
>
> It would be great if you could keep a slightly more constructive tone in
> your messages. On one hand, you seem genuinely interested to help access to
> free knowledge in Africa, but in your second email, you seem to jump (after
> one response) to conclusions already. If you like to get real responses to
> your emails, you may want to try a more constructive attitude. For me, it
> is at least sufficiently offputting to disengage (I removed the rest of my
> response/suggestions).
>
> -- Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:34 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Kiwix and off line Wikipedia did exist at the start of Wikipedia Zero.
> It
> > is great that you brought some to Africa but you do not scale and it is
> not
> > a study into the effects of what the effects are of terminating Wikipedia
> > Zero.
>
>
> > No idea what "Starlink"  is
>
>
> https://lmgtfy.com/?q=starlink=l
>
>
> > but it is not a reality for a few more years..
> > It sounds like we have thrown all these kids under the bus but hey, we
> have
> > plan. A plan/action is having our own caches in Africa and providing edit
> > and read capabilities for all who care to use it... and then measure the
> > extend it helps us recover from our Wikipedia Zero public.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 02:48, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > We have offline Wikipedia. I have shipped devices to Kinshasa, and
> > > they arrived :-)
> > >
> > > Of course they do not at all address the need for two way
> communication.
> > >
> > > I am hoping Starlink will help when it comes online in a few years.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:19 AM Gerard Meijssen
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The BBC shows how dramatically expensive internet is in Africa.. For
> in
> > > my
> > > > opinion local political reasons Wikipedia Zero has terminated. That
> is
> > ok
> > > > up to a point; the point being that we understand the consequences
> from
> > > > this action.
> > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brief request for advice about "What's making you happy this week?"

2019-11-25 Thread Peter Southwood
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 is cool in itself and 
usually does not appear to need comment. It is nice to know I can comment, but 
I generally don’t comment just for the sake of making a noise, but to make some 
point or find something out that was not clear. Things that make people happy 
are often uncontroversial and need no clarification, and there is already 
enough congratulatory noise on this list regarding user groups and new 
appointments etc
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pine W
Sent: 25 November 2019 10:08
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Brief request for advice about "What's making you happy 
this week?"

Hello colleagues,

I would like to ask for your advice about one issue with the "What's making
you happy this week?" emails.

I was hoping that people would frequently comment in the email threads
and/or on the talk pages of WMYHTW publications in *The Signpost* to share
what is making them happy, in the Wikiverse or elsewhere. However, comments
are somewhat rare.

I am concerned that some people may feel too intimidated to comment.

I understand that communicating in public requires courage, but I believe
that people who try to be respectful will have their comments received well
by the community if they comment in these threads. Perfection is not a
requirement for WMYHTW.

Also, I think that public communication becomes easier with practice, and
these threads would be good places for people who want to become more
experienced with public communication on Wikimedia-l to practice.

Is there something else that you think could be done to facilitate
participation in WMYHTW? I would appreciate your advice and input.

Thank you,

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, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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 Chief of Community Engagement to leave the Foundation

2019-11-16 Thread Peter Southwood
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 November 2019 12:39
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Chief of Community Engagement 
to leave the Foundation

hi,

speaking just in my personal opinion and capacity, without discussing it with 
anyone else: only time will tell whether this structural change works, and 
jumping to conclusions is definitely premature.

In principle, as a person specializing in management and organizational change, 
I can tell that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. I can definitely see a 
lot of possible benefits to the restructuring though, and we definitely DO want 
all WMF departments to be in touch with the communities. The proposed approach 
tries to address the siloses. Every department will have good interface with 
the CE issues, and this is a good thing. Whether it leads to better CE 
prioritization is unknown yet, but structurally it can definitely help.

On a practical level, given the fact that our previous search for the C-level 
position for CE took more than half a year, AFAIR, in the short term the 
assumed approach allows us to leapfrog a lot of turmoil, which could be 
damaging to community engagement in this crucial moment (last stretch of our 
strategic exercise effort). In the long run - I am certain that the WMF 
leadership does not believe in things written in stone.

I'd be really reluctant to assume the restructuring is good or bad for the 
community as it is, everything depends on how the new structure is used in 
practice.

best,

dj "pundit"




On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 1:29 AM Paul J. Weiss 
mailto:pjwe...@uw.edu>> wrote:
I find the disbanding of the Community Engagement department at WMF to be
quite concerning. I will go so far as to say that I view it as a mistake
that will have negative impacts well into the future.

For one thing, the structure of an organization is in some sense a
statement of priorities. I believe this move does indeed say to employees,
the community, allied organization, and the rest of the world that the WMF
is now placing less value on engaging the community. Given that many in the
community have been feeling this already, this is not an opportune time to
make this transition, even if it were a good idea for other reasons.

Another issue is the specific placement of individual teams. For example,
you say that returning the Trust & Safety team to the Legal department is
intuitive. It certainly is not to me, and that move in particular is
concerning. The team's homepage on Meta states that it "identifies, builds
and – as appropriate – staffs processes which keep our users safe; design,
develop, and execute on a strategy that integrates legal, product,
research, and learning & evaluation to proactively mitigate risk as well as
manage the overall safety of our online and offline communities when
incidents happen." The legal aspect is only one of many in the team's
purview, and hopefully not a large one.

In my experience, units within legal departments take a very legalistic
view of their work. As one example, many colleges and universities have an
office for students with disabilities. In the US, those that are in legal
or policy departments tend to focus very much on doing the minimum they
have to do under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), rather than
being student-centered. (This is the case here at the University of
Washington.) Compare this to the focus of units for women, students of
color, etc., often hierarchically under student services, who are much more
proactive and supportive.

I definitely do not want Trust & Safety to narrow its focus to ensuring
enforcement & reducing liability. As you know, legal but negative behavior
is a significant threat to the future of Wikipedia and sister projects. The
team needs to be organizationally placed to maximize, not minimize, its
access to resources, the community, and other staff as well as its impact.
Placing it in Legal could, for example, decrease significantly contact and
trust from our community members whose experience with laws is that they
are used as weapons and tools to oppress rather than engendering fairness
and cooperation.

Please, please carefully consider the all ramifications of this
reorganization before it is implemented.

Thank you,
Paul Weiss
Libcub on en.wp

- Original Message -
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Chief of Community Engagement
to leave the Foundation
From: 'Katherine Maher' mailto:kma...@wikimedia.org>>
Date: 11/15/19 3:36 pm
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' 
mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>

Hello everyone,

I am writing to let you know that Val D’Costa, Chief Community Engagement
Officer, is leaving the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiConference North America live stream

2019-11-10 Thread Peter Southwood
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: 11 November 2019 07:45
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiConference North America live stream

Eh,
and what choices are then made when conferences coincide as they do with
this conference? Not really practical and really expensive.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 22:36, James Salsman  wrote:

> It would be great if the Foundation hired a dedicated A/V team to
> remote-enable as many conferences and meetups as possible.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:47 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Hello Phoebe, thank you for the good news. We invest so much in our
> > conferences, that it is a pity that they often are not recorded.
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> > Am Do., 7. Nov. 2019 um 20:31 Uhr schrieb phoebe ayers <
> > phoebe.w...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > > We are looking forward to WikiConference North America here at MIT in
> > > Cambridge, Massachusetts this weekend! We will be welcoming around 250
> > > people over the four-day weekend, with a museum and cultural
> institution
> > > culture crawl on Friday, conference sessions on Saturday and Sunday,
> and
> > > discussion/hackathon focused on reliability and credibility on Monday.
> > >
> > > For those who can't be here with us in person, we have a live stream
> > > planned of three of our session rooms on Saturday and Sunday. To access
> > the
> > > stream, go here:
> > > http://web.mit.edu/webcast/wiki/f19/
> > >
> > > We are looking forward to sharing as much of the conference as we can
> > with
> > > you all! To find out what is when, the schedule is here (all times
> > eastern
> > > time):
> > > https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2019/Schedule
> > >
> > > We have a packed schedule with sessions about education, research,
> > > outreach, and more, as well as a special focus/track in our main
> > auditorium
> > > on credibility and reliability in the news and media, which our
> partners
> > at
> > > the Credibility Coalition are assisting with. As we think about the
> > future
> > > of Wikipedia as a reliable source in a world where social media
> platforms
> > > and media networks are struggling with issues of misinformation and
> > > credibility, we hope that this program will be both timely and helpful.
> > >
> > > Let me know if you have any questions and I hope you are able to tune
> in
> > > online.
> > > Phoebe, for WCNA
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
> > 
> > > gmail.com *
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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, 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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 joins the global climate strike

2019-09-20 Thread Peter Southwood
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 [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Fæ
Sent: 20 September 2019 15:47
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

Except, that's probably not statistically true.

If the management team is responsible for 50% of air travel, then the
figures from the environmental impact survey indicate that amounts to
15% of the entire contribution to CO2 emissions for the WMF. However
you reframe or spin the WSJ article, the CEO spending 200 days on the
road last year, rather than, say, cutting that number in half by using
the telephone or other virtual conferencing technology, must be a
significant factor in those numbers.

The contribution actually is higher than that, as the impact made from
the published impact from WMF use of hotels, probably pushes that 15%
figure to over 20%.

It's simple maths, not rocket science. Of course if real firm figures
about air travel by the management team were published by the WMF,
rather than estimates, we could start calculating the impact of
specific year on year improvement, rather than relying on high level
statements about the aims for the current year and end of year "good
news" selective summaries of how well everyone has done. Facts and
measurable commitments would be super useful, rather than
sensationalism, as you agree.

Thanks
Fae

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 14:28, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
>
> I'm more interested in the numbers for the WMF as a whole. One CEO does not
> make an emissions problem, and in a global-reaching organization I'd hope
> that the CEO would be flying around a bit. Focusing on the ten or so
> executives at the Foundation seems like a sensational approach rather than
> a useful one.
>
> Adrian
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 9:24 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Nice to see that https://wikimediafoundation.org has a banner linking
> > to the global climate strike today.
> >
> > Can anyone produce some verifiable metrics that the WMF has taken
> > significant action to reduce the total number of aircraft flights the
> > WMF uses?
> >
> > I am asking as though there are no transparently published figures for
> > how much the WMF spends on air travel, I recall that the Katherine
> > Mahler was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, where is was part
> > of her impressive executive profile to be "on the road" for 200 days
> > of the year. This probably puts Katherine in the very top numbers for
> > CEOs with damaging carbon footprints resulting from travelling so
> > often by flying.[1] If the WMF wants to be seen as an ethical company
> > when it comes to reducing their organizational impact on climate
> > change, perhaps this could start with publishing travel figures for
> > the CEO and the rest of the management team, so that everyone can see
> > whether there is year on year improvement, or none.
> >
> > Thanks again for the banner, it does help increase the sense of urgency.
> >
> > Links:
> > 1.
> > https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-35-year-old-executive-director-of-wikimedia-travels-1529588701
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> 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, 
> 


Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Which script oral language will use anyway?

2019-09-04 Thread Peter Southwood
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 transliterate 
to any other script system of their choice. Others can translate to any other 
language of their choice. This is the wiki way of doing things. If we have 
support for a script system it can be used, if not that becomes a technical 
problem.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Jeff Hawke
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 12:58 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Which script oral language will use anyway?

Suhashih

You are right that this could be a controversial choice -- indeed it is
inherently political and there is no way of avoiding that fact.  So where
will the decision be taken, on what grounds and by what athority?

Jeff

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 8:26 PM Subhashish Panigrahi 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Some of you might be recovering from the Wikimania fatigue. Those of you
> who have already recovered, I wanted to pick your brain about something
> that came up multiple times during discussions but none really seem to have
> a clear answer.
>
> Which script (writing system) an oral language speaker would use for
> creating an entry on (gateway [1]) projects like Wiktionary or Wikibooks or
> even uploading a list of words on Commons using a tool like Lingua Libre?
> Will it be the script used for the official language of the region where
> the former language is from?[2] This is a bit controversial as native
> speakers of many indigenous languages would see this as a form of
> colonization. Will it be the w:International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)? This
> is probably the least controversial but a common and average user might not
> be able to read IPA as the latter was created by linguists and was created
> for linguistic and scholarly studies rather than for everyday use.
>
> Wikimedians who are native speakers of languages with less written/recorded
> documentation and individuals who work on such languages are more
> encouraged to share their inputs based on past experience.
>
> 1. Gateway project: This is a made-up term to define the Wikimedia projects
> that are more welcoming to newbies and do not require stringent citation as
> almost all oral languages would lack that. It was fascinating to see Amir
> challenging that it only takes about 30 seconds to add an entry to
> Wiktionary (
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amir_Aharoni_demonstrating_how_to_add_an_entry_to_Wiktionary_in_any_language_to_Ingrid_Cumming,_Wikimania_2019,_Stockholm,_Sweden.jpg
> )
>
> Subhashish
> ___
> 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, 



___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-25 Thread Peter Southwood
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 the way you express it. 
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Todd Allen
Sent: 25 August 2019 00:22
To: dar...@alk.edu.pl; Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Then, let me rephrase, I guess. Why's it seem those people are being
ignored?

When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia
functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF
backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly
backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone
regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.

I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do
something like that again". But then I can't see how that couldn't have
been learned with VE, or Superprotect, or...any of that. What WMF should've
learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted interference with a local
community again.

Has that lesson, at least, been learned?

Todd

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
>>
>
> My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a
> majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the
> discussion).
>
> 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to
> group.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
___
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, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-25 Thread Peter Southwood
Good point Yaroslav, I agree with you entirely. That is how we who are doing 
the free work see it. ( I feel reasonably confident that this is a widespread 
if not universal opinion of neutral editors) The WMF may benefit from our 
input, but that is not the main point at all. We remain entirely free to vote 
with our feet. It is up to the board to assess whether net gain or net loss is 
likely to ensue for each proposal. If they choose options which have a high 
risk of net loss they fail in their duty. History will judge.
A lot of misconception going on.
Cheers, P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Yaroslav Blanter
Sent: 24 August 2019 23:15
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

We are not "working for WMF for free". We are actually not working for WMF
at all. This is a completely false premise for any discussion.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 10:39 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> Gerard
>
> A good point.  The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all
> those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the
> WMF for free.  In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on
> the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
> terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
> these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
> large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
> there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
> sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
> Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
> course for them and not for us to decide.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> > accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> > the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> > of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> > is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> > community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the
> electorate
> > has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> > not beholden to you nor me.
> >
> > "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that
> our
> > projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> > in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> > references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> > when.
> >
> > Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your
> opinion
> > nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that
> needs
> > an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour 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, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume
> it
> > > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and
> some
> > > clarification would be welcome.
> > > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
> the
> > > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> > recommendations
> > > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
> more
> > > effective.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > > here!
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> > > community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> > > opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by som

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-25 Thread Peter Southwood
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 engage with 
the commentators, which is frustrating to those who are putting in their 
attention and applying their minds to what they see as problems. Some tend to 
become more adversarial and strident under these circumstances, other just give 
up and stop wasting their time. In effect a filter is applied which keeps the 
most motivated and single minded and possibly some trolls, and deters the more 
moderate from participation. My take is that this is not the intention, because 
if it is then the movement is doomed to be taken over by extremists and people 
with hidden political agendas. 
Opinions will differ. This is mine
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Dariusz Jemielniak
Sent: 24 August 2019 23:07
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!



On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:39 PM Jeff Hawke 
mailto:geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>> wrote:
the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
course for them and not for us to decide.

just a side remark (in my personal capacity only): we have about 60 thousand 
active editors, which I think is more or less what the core community is formed 
of (mainly because readers do not have Wikimedian identity). For the vast 
majority of them our organizational discussions do not matter much at all. I 
don't think that the assumption that "the large proportions of the current 
volunteers will cease their involvement" makes any sense.

However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions  (I'd 
call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between 5 and 10 
thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the 
recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made.
We will surely have to discuss the overall picture and evaluate the pros and 
cons, but only once the recommendations are ready.

I have to say that I am really impressed at how dedicated most of the working 
groups have been so far. This process was huge and resulted in many challenges 
we did not expect. It is the first time in humankind history that a strategic 
conversation is carried out this way. Inevitably, there will be gaps, there 
will be shortcomings, but there will be also amazing ideas. How we get from the 
recommendations into actual applications will definitely be tricky, but I don't 
think it is fair to the tremendous effort of these wonderful and committed 
people to just assume that the result will be disastrous. On the contrary, I'm 
quite certain that we can use the recommendations to the movement's benefits, 
even if we do not literally follow every single one of them, but treat some as 
more general directives or ideas for later future.

best,

dj "pundit"

___
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, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-24 Thread Peter Southwood
Gerard, 
My notion of community depends on context. The context of this thread was not 
defined by me,  so why do you not address your question to the person who 
brought it up? (Benjamin)
Please refrain from telling me what I accept or do not accept, I am aware of my 
own thoughts and opinions and find your attempts to define my opinions 
offensive, as you are necessarily ignorant of what I have not stated. It is 
entirely obvious that the WMF is not a democracy, I have never claimed that 
they were, or even that they should be. The WMF has had mixed success in its 
endeavours. Some things they do well. Communicating with English Wikipedia on 
some aspects of trust and safety, policy and software changes is a thing they 
have not done well. This is my opinion. Yours may differ. I will give your 
opinion the consideration it deserves when it is explained logically, politely, 
and referring to verifiable facts. The farcical state of some elected 
governments and the irresponsibility of the elected is extremely familiar to 
me, as I live in a state where the elected government has continuously failed 
to deliver on their promises and on the laws they make (Not the USA, by the 
way, other countries also have embarrassing elected officials). That does not 
relieve other elected bodies or persons of their responsibilities. Being 
appointed to a position also does not relieve a person of their responsibility 
to do due diligence in governing the institution they gave been appointed to 
govern. Failure to take known risks into account is negligence, wherever a 
person is given the responsibility to direct an organisation following a 
constitution which requires them to do so. Boards are usually elected and 
appointed to take the responsibility to govern with due diligence and to avoid 
where possible damaging the organisation. I have reasonable confidence that the 
board will do its job. I do not have confidence in the ability of some of the 
working groups to come up with workable solutions to the various problems of 
the various projects.
There is a need for change, but the need is for carefully considered change 
that does not unduly damage the projects, not a mixed bag of measures which 
includes poorly considered and poorly articulated recommendations that have 
been put together by people who do not appear to wish to communicate with those 
who will be affected by their recommendations. Here are some friendly 
suggestions: Please read my words carefully and try to understand my points, 
and refrain from assigning motives and opinions to me if I have not claimed 
them for myself, or when they are based on the words of other people. Make sure 
you are addressing the relevant person. Ask for clarification if you need it. 
Do not put words into my mouth.
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 24 August 2019 20:10
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hoi,
Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
not beholden to you nor me.

"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
when.

Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour 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, 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 Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some
> clarification would be welcome.
> English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the
> WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations
> of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more
> effective.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-24 Thread Peter Southwood
Gerard, 
It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it is 
Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some 
clarification would be welcome. 
English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the WMF 
has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations of the 
Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more effective.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hoi,
May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.

In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken,
fails our readers in providing 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
> 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 2019 07:12
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> here!
>
>
>
> It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> such a massive way.
>
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > position at this point in time.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> >> James
> >>
> >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> Board's
> >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Paulo,
> >>>>
> >>>> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> community
> >>>> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> >> just
> >>>> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> >>> expressed
> >>>> the opinion
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> >>>> over
> >>>> a much less dramatic change.
> >>>>
> >>>>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
> >>>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
> >> this
> >>>> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
> >> take a
> >>>> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
> >> to
> >>>> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> >>> when
> >>>> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
> will
> >>>> return when the time is right.
> >>>>
> >>>> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> >>>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If I'v

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-24 Thread Peter Southwood
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 2019 07:12
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!



It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such 
a massive way. 



On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> position at this point in time.
> 
> J
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:
> 
>> James
>> 
>> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's
>> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
>> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>> 
>>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Paulo,
 
 You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
 does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
>> just
 five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
>>> expressed
 the opinion
 
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
 over
 a much less dramatic change.
 
> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
 acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
>> this
 next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
>> take a
 wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
>> to
 let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
>>> when
 needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
 return when the time is right.
 
 I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
 
 Jeff
 
 On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
 paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
>>> 8and
> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
>>> December.
> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
>> only
>>> be
> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> process of implementation.
> 
> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
 Wikimedia
> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
>>> the
> way till implementation phase.
> 
> Paulo
> 
> Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> 22/08/2019
> à(s) 11:58:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
>>> much
>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
>> building
 our
>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
>> clarifications.
>> 
>> DRAFTS
>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
>> shared
 are
>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
 working
>> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
>>> Some
>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
>>> development,
>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
>>> few
>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
 everyone a
>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
 multiple
>> progress levels.
>> 
>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
 recommendation
> to
>> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
 through
> a
>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> reasoning
>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
 ways
> to
>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
>> look
 into
>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
>> the
>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
>>> instead
 of
>> rushing to a quick fix.
>> 
>> INTEGRATION
>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
>>> and
> via
>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
 iteration
> of
>> their recommendations. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Apa yang membuatmu senang di minggu ini? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 18 August 2019)

2019-08-22 Thread Peter Southwood

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
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:11 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Apa yang membuatmu senang di minggu ini? / What's making 
you happy this week? (Week of 18 August 2019)



*Off wiki*

*The New York Times* published an opinion piece by Agnes Callard, who is an
associate professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago, titled "Why
Philosophers Shouldn't Sign Petitions
".
In the context of reflecting on how we make decisions in the Wikiverse, I
feel that the distinction between petitioning and arguing is a good topic
for reflection. Hopefully in the wikiverse we make collective decisions
that are largely based on rational consensus.



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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-21 Thread Peter Southwood
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: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Jeff Hawke
Sent: 20 August 2019 20:49
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Andy

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke  wrote:
>
> > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
>
> This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one
> where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia
> community.
>

 That step is not mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place?

Jeff
___
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, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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 timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-17 Thread Peter Southwood
Aron, 
Do you speak for one or more working groups in an official or semi-official 
capacity?
If so could you indicate in what capacity, so we have some idea of where this 
is coming from.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 16 August 2019 21:20
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please 
reconsider!

I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are
drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community
feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing.
Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If
not, I expect the timelines will be adapted to the process, not the other
way around.

The mission of these recommendations is strongly relate-able, with the
community feedback incorporated, these have a potential to benefit the
movement. This round of conversation already provided ample feedback, with
detailed reviews and in-depth information about local community customs,
some of that adding important, overlooked facts, 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 people don’t
> know what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough.
> There seems to be a lot of variability in response to requests for
> clarification too.  Some get a response quite quickly, others get very
> little. I predict that the ones that do not provide clarification within a
> reasonable period are likely to meet snowballing resistance. Another
> problem is the sheer number all at the same time. This will annoy people wo
> feel obliged to do a review of a large proportion of the proposal, and a
> small sample suggests that they really do need review, to avoid some really
> bad stuff getting passed.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> reconsider!
>
> Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind
> of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha".
> 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 not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each
> > recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being
> > actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if
> questions
> > are not answered  it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which
> > case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort).
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> > reconsider!
> >
> > I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
> > the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of
> the
> > published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion
> on
> > this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already
> in
> > October.
> > Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
> > discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
> > barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
> > implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of
> > hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part
> of
> > the community who involved itself on the process).
> >
> > I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your
> > schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for
> > that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > Ziko van Dijk  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019
> à(s)
> > 14:48:
> >
> > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-16 Thread Peter Southwood
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 people don’t know 
what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough. There seems 
to be a lot of variability in response to requests for clarification too.  Some 
get a response quite quickly, others get very little. I predict that the ones 
that do not provide clarification within a reasonable period are likely to meet 
snowballing resistance. Another problem is the sheer number all at the same 
time. This will annoy people wo feel obliged to do a review of a large 
proportion of the proposal, and a small sample suggests that they really do 
need review, to avoid some really bad stuff getting passed. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Ziko van Dijk
Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please 
reconsider!

Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind
of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha".
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 not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each
> recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being
> actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if questions
> are not answered  it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which
> case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort).
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> reconsider!
>
> I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
> the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the
> published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on
> this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in
> October.
> Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
> discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
> barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
> implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of
> hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of
> the community who involved itself on the process).
>
> I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your
> schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for
> that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Ziko van Dijk  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s)
> 14:48:
>
> > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-15 Thread Peter Southwood
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 relevant 
questions remain unanswered - if questions are not answered  it may be 
necessary to close as no consensus, in which case probably best abandoned as a 
waste of time and effort). 
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please 
reconsider!

I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of the
published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion on
this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already in
October.
Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of
hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part of
the community who involved itself on the process).

I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your
schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for
that draft to be discussed and properly finished.

Best,
Paulo

Ziko van Dijk  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019 à(s)
14:48:

> 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:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-15 Thread Peter Southwood
Done,
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 15 August 2019 07:01
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Peter, this is a very 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. 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 be used. Keep Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a
> prefix to use the not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they
> are different. If it is all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto
> projects where it is not allowed, making yet more maintenance work for
> volunteers who might prefer to spend their time creating and improving
> valid content. To make it less of a hassle, the upload wizard could
> automatically switch to the alternative project if any of a specific range
> of licences were to be used, with an explanation of why the file could not
> be stored on Commons.
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-15 Thread Peter Southwood
"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

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Andy Mabbett
Sent: 14 August 2019 18:08
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:09, Pine W  wrote:

> I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed

I don't want people to feel their genuine concerns are being casually
dismissed; not least with glib lines like "All change has negative
connotations to some members of the community".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-15 Thread Peter Southwood
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. The devil is 
in the details, and we have no details yet. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: 14 August 2019 16:16
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

" To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different
locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south)" - Distributing work
now being paid with US wages to US staff at SF to people at the Global
South paying "Global South wages" sounds a lot like moving the factories
from San Francisco to Dhaka because wages are much lower there, while
parading it as moving towards "diversity" and "inclusion".

Paulo

Anders Wennersten  escreveu no dia segunda,
12/08/2019 à(s) 18:31:

> I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result.
>
> I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but
> as I understand there are two key messages:
>
> *To distribute  many of the function now at WMF in SF to different
> locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south). I find this is
> most appropriate, both to lessen the feeling of We-them, but also to get
> more salaried people spread over the World. It is also a natural
> development as out organisation mature over time
>
> *To really go, without any compromise for the discussion in the movement
> in our communities must be held in a civil tone and in a friendly
> atmosphere  where respect for everyone is a key. I believe also this is
> long overdue and necessary when we now are over 15 years of age.
>
> I love these two issues and hope it will be implemented in full.
>
>   Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2019-08-12 kl. 17:51, skrev Nicole Ebber:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for
> > Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts.
> > They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine
> > thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified
> > important for our movement’s future. They are the product of
> conversations
> > over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups
> are
> > eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor
> > complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across
> > wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive
> > feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft
> > recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and
> > reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single
> > individuals.
> >
> > Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for
> > the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative
> > of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take
> > the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose
> > questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial
> collaboration,
> > offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is
> a
> > process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> > engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nicole
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> "And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can
> >> incorporate
> >> indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
> >> licensing scheme?"
> >>
> >> We can't and no one can.
> >>
> >> Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
> >> specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying
> >> facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
> >> Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
> >> without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work
> under
> >> an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place
> for
> >> it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even
> >> then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter
> what
> >> one does.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> philip.kopet...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list.
> >> You're
> >>> the only one telling people to shut up here.
> >>>
> >>> And just to keep this on 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-13 Thread Peter Southwood
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 7:12 PM Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing"
> section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both
> text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial
> use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the
> project to better reflect diverse knowledge on a global scale, such as by
> including videos, allowing culturally significant text or photos to remain
> intact without misappropriation, etc."
>
> The recommendation appears to have been written in the absence of a full
> awareness of the extensive debate throughout the Wikimedia movement that
> resulted in the present policies. That debate exists in mailing list
> archives, Board of Trustees minutes, on Meta Wiki, and elsewhere.
>
> Wikimedia already has a framework for permitting non-free files. It's
> called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy"[2]; any project may adopt such a
> policy according to a framework defined by the WMF in a 2007 resolution.[3]
>
> I am someone who has tried hard to get such a policy passed on English
> Wikisource, and I have failed. I believe it would be the right choice for
> English Wikisource, but the people I have to persuade are English
> Wikisource volunteers.
>
> To have any weight, a recommendation like this one would need to
> demonstrate familiarity with the history behind Wikimedia's current
> policies toward licensing. Absent that, there is plenty of room to advocate
> for the use of non-free files on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating
> an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that
> implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a
> compelling argument.
>
> Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument.
>
> -Pete
> --
> Pete Forsyth
> Volunteer primarily on English Wikipedia, English Wikisource, Wikidata,
> Commons, and Meta Wiki.
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation
> ?
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy
> [3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
>
>
>
One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the
movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the
movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities. We limit the
autonomy of local communities in many ways in order to serve the mission
and directives of the global community. Do we exclude the possibility that
the global community may decide, and may have the authority to decide, that
the mission or approach of Commons (or English Wikisource) should be
adjusted? Or if the Wikimedia movement wants a repository for NC/ND
content, should it be forced to create a new version of Commons with a
different starting policy foundation?

Response:
If the movement as a whole considers it desirable to host a repository for 
NC/ND content, then they should indeed create a new project where it would be 
welcome, and not push it where it is not welcome, because the volunteers who 
have is foisted on them are likely to leave if they don’t like it. If there is 
enough support for the content, there should be enough volunteers to deal with 
the content. If there are not enough volunteers, then the people who think the 
content is important enough can pay for people to curate it. If it succeeds, 
fine. If it fails, also fine, as it would not destroy anything else while 
failing.
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-13 Thread Peter Southwood
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 be used. Keep 
Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a prefix to use the 
not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they are different. If it is 
all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto projects where it is not 
allowed, making yet more maintenance work for volunteers who might prefer to 
spend their time creating and improving valid content. To make it less of a 
hassle, the upload wizard could automatically switch to the alternative project 
if any of a specific range of licences were to be used, with an explanation of 
why the file could not be stored on Commons.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 13 August 2019 00:41
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko  wrote:

The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
> uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
> as "free".


I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of
uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of
the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I
think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses
do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except
in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.

There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free
content converted to "unfree":

   - Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to
   choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very
   successfully.
   - At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely
   limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no
   Internet-in-a-Box).
   - If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this
   negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free
   encyclopedia.
   - If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should
   be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar content
   is available with free license.
   - If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content
   and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an extent
   with reverse-image search.
   - After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors
   understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses these
   licenses when it's truly necessary.



> See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Knowledge_thanks_to_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf


Thank you, it's really excellent.


> I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
>
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
> long in the Public Domain.
>

My bad. 1st article
 is
about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the
images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by
using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."
2nd article

is
about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile
examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find
significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model
wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands
’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name
and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters
attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as
well as public ire."

It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow
such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.


Aron
___
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, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-13 Thread Peter Southwood
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 List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hi Yaroslav,


> No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept
> decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in
> the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will
> listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be
> accepted. We have had enough recent examples to illustrate this.
>
>
And that is why, even a year into this working group process, a number of
the recommendations are *still* phrased as suggestions that the Wikimedia
movement collectively should develop principles for such-and-such an area.

I think many people are reading these draft recommendations as something
they are not.

Also, I find it very ironic that many people are reacting to these strategy
process as if it was some method of the WMF inflicting its will on everyone
else, when actually many of the recommendations would result in very
significant changes to the WMF as an organisation.

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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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 Research Showcase] July 17, 2019 at 11:30 AM PDT, 18:30 UTC

2019-07-12 Thread Peter Southwood
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 attempt at 
intimidation.
Cheers,
Peter 

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Janna Layton
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 1:46 AM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org; 
wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Research Showcase] July 17, 2019 at 11:30 AM 
PDT, 18:30 UTC

Hi all,

The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed next Wednesday, July 17,
at 11:30 AM PDT/18:30 UTC.

YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9vvwV5KfW4

As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. You
can also watch our past research showcases here:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase

This month's presentations:

Characterizing Incivility on Wikipedia

Elizabeth Whittaker, University of Michigan School of Information

In a society whose citizens have a variety of viewpoints, there is a
question of how citizens can govern themselves in ways that allow these
viewpoints to co-exist. Online deliberation has been posited as a problem
solving mechanism in this context, and civility can be thought of as a
mechanism that facilitates this deliberation. Civility can thus be thought
of as a method of interaction that encourages collaboration, while
incivility disrupts collaboration. However, it is important to note that
the nature of online civility is shaped by its history and the technical
architecture scaffolding it. Civility as a concept has been used both to
promote equal deliberation and to exclude the marginalized from
deliberation, so we should be careful to ensure that our conceptualizations
of incivility reflect what we intend them to in order to avoid
unintentionally reinforcing inequality.

To this end, we examined Wikipedia editors’ perceptions of interactions
that disrupt collaboration through 15 semi-structured interviews. Wikipedia
is a highly deliberative platform, as editors need to reach consensus about
what will appear on the article page, a process that often involves
deliberation to coordinate, and any disruption to this process should be
apparent. We found that incivility on Wikipedia typically occurs in one of
three ways: through weaponization of Wikipedia’s policies, weaponization of
Wikipedia’s technical features, and through more typical vitriolic content.
These methods of incivility were gendered, and had the practical effect of
discouraging women from editing. We implicate this pattern as one of the
underlying causes of Wikipedia’s gender gap.

Hidden Gems in the Wikipedia Discussions: The Wikipedians’ Rationales

Lu Xiao, Syracuse University School of Information Studies

I will present a series of completed and ongoing studies that are aimed at
understanding the role of the Wikipedians’ rationales in Wikipedia
discussions. We define a rationale as one’s justification of her viewpoint
and suggestions. Our studies demonstrate the potential of leveraging the
Wikipedians’ rationales in discussions as resources for future
decision-making and as resources for eliciting knowledge about the
community’s norms, practices and policies. Viewed as rich digital traces in
these environments, we consider them to be beneficial for the community
members, such as helping newcomers familiarize themselves on the commonly
accepted justificatory reasoning styles. We call for more research
attention to the discussion content from this rationale study perspective.

-- 
Janna Layton (she, her)
Administrative Assistant - Audiences & Technology
Wikimedia Foundation 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



___
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-07-05 Thread Peter Southwood
Hi Pine, 
I more often find myself agreeing with you than not, but there are often 
nuanced differences in that opinion, which is generally not a problem. 
I agree that the board could have expressed their consensus opinion 
differently, but the fact that it is a consensus opinion will necessarily 
affect the expression, and what they have said fits into the range I find 
acceptable.  I maintain that the Board is not the nanny of WMF and that where 
the WMF does something surprising the board is not necessarily culpable. This 
is one of those cases. Opinions obviously vary considerably here, from those 
who think WMF handled it well to those who will not be satisfied until heads 
roll. That again is Wikipedia, and Nathan expresses the situation quite well. 
The board is accountable, but not necessarily at fault for failing to prevent 
this case. It is now their duty to fix it, and I support then in such efforts. 
We still don't have enough information to make a fair judgement on WMF. They 
will not give it to us, so must not be surprised when a history of blunders is 
held against them. We must necessarily judge on the available evidence, and we 
will pass judgement. It is what we do all the time on Wikipedia, it is a 
necessary part of building an encyclopedia. They do good work too, but that 
good, as Shakespeare said, is oft interred with their bones.
As you say, community members are not servants, and I agree with the rest of 
that paragraph.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pine W
Sent: 05 July 2019 01:11
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Hi Peter,

My view is that accountability should start at the top of an organization.

I was trying to think of a better word than "supervising" for the concept
that I had in mind. After further consideration, I think that "governing"
would have been a better choice.

I am disappointed by the WMF Board's tone and its lack of apology. In the
Board's words, "The Board views this as part of a much-needed community
debate on toxic behavior. In spite of the considerable disruption this has
caused for many, we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move
forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities." In
other words, the Board thinks that the "considerable disruption" is
acceptable, perhaps even good in the big picture. Also, the Board
apologizes for nothing.

I believe that community members are not servants, and are not okay to
ignore, mistreat, or throw away casually. Also, I believe that the
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 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
> and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence.
> Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
>  Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
>
> I hope that your day is going well.
>
> There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this
> thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
>
> As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
> open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-07-05 Thread Peter Southwood
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

Defining the problem and solutions is easy too. Getting the core editing
community to agree to any change is the difficult part.

Problems:
- Discussions favour the loudest voice and the people who refuse to walk
away. Wiki people often say that there are no barriers to participation,
but if you have anything better to do with your time, arguing over mundane
article details while being attacked/insulted by the other side becomes
undesirable very quickly.
- Admins are often some of the worst offenders.
- ANI follows none of the best practices for dispute resolution.

For solutions:
- Hold people accountable for their behaviour regardless of whether or not
they are correct.
- And ultimately just try other approaches. It's an internet website, we
can change or amend things if they don't work.

Adrian Raddatz


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>
> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> z"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>to blocks.
>2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> > the
> > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > > finally has to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-07-04 Thread Peter Southwood
Gerard,
Did you read and understand my first comment in this thread?
You may be surprised to find that the board has indicated that WMF (or parts 
thereof, we should not tar everyone there with the same brush) was indeed at 
fault in their handling of this issue. I am inclined to accept this finding. I 
do not at any point claim that the English Wikipedia community is without 
fault, which seems to be your implication. 
Cheers,
Peter


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 04 July 2019 11:11
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Hoi,
I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost the
community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable 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
> statement? If so please clarify.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> Hoi,
> The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged
> that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not
> taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection
> point exists 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 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
> > and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a
> recurrence.
> > Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> > Cheers, Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Pine W
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> >  Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
> >
> > I hope that your day is going well.
> >
> > There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in
> this
> > thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
> >
> > As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
> > open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> > >.
> > I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> > updates, and finally making some personal comments.
> >
> > I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
> >
> > * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk,
> and
> > a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired
> from
> > Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
> >
> > * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> > community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> > harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> > misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness,
> consensus,
> > and self-governance."
> >
> > * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> > pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local
> processes.*
> > Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> > Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> > WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> > of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in
> the
> > arbitration policy. Complaints that can b

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-07-04 Thread Peter Southwood
Gerard,
Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my statement? If 
so please clarify. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Hoi,
The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged
that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not
taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection
point exists 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 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
> and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence.
> Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Pine W
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
>  Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
>
> I hope that your day is going well.
>
> There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this
> thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
>
> As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
> open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
> and self-governance."
>
> * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
> Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
> arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
>
> * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
> Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
> least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
> resign."
>
> The following are more recent updates.
>
> * The WMF Board has made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904552644=904551569
> >
>
> * The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)=904607134=904605950
> >
> .
>
> My personal comments follow.
>
> I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
> statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
> staff and the community, particularly the English Wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-07-04 Thread Peter Southwood
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 and taking 
reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence. Due diligence 
is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement. 
Cheers, Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pine W
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

 Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,

I hope that your day is going well.

There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this
thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.

As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an
open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
updates, and finally making some personal comments.

I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.

* "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."

* "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
and self-governance."

* "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia

* "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
resign."

The following are more recent updates.

* The WMF Board has made a statement


* The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement

.

My personal comments follow.

I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.

I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and
apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the
community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of
volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the
words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from
the WMF Board.

In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on
supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.

I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the
communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and
should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to
deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the
communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating
unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down
social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain
from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities
in our efforts to improve ourselves.

I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from
WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-28 Thread Peter Southwood
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 Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Isaac Olatunde
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 12:01 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain
stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story
alone. Fram has penchant  for irritating  people he disagrees  with and
it's possible they have crossed the line.

Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama,  an English Wikipedia
administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the
English Wikipedia's admin hat.

This incident is barely a month ago.

I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.


Regards,

Isaac


On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
>
>
> Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF
> say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
>
> You really think he's just outright lying?
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> > let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> > considered you to be.
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>
> >> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> >> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> the
> >> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
> or
> >> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
> >> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> what
> >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >>
> >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> >>> doing only what you describe?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
>  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> writing
>  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> Harassment!
>  Bad!"
> 
>  If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> >>> SOURCES
>  PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> anyway.
>  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> her
>  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> >>> "harassment"
>  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> policies.
>  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> >>> only
>  after she has them in hand.
> 
>  Todd
> 
>  On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >>
> >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> >>> death
> >> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> >>> and
> >> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> >>> criminal
> >> stuff.
> >>
> >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> >>> goes
> >> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> >> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> >>> then
> >> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> >> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Some goodbye to all

2019-06-21 Thread Peter Southwood
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, 2019 7:57 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Some goodbye to all

First of all I don’t know the context of this conversation. I know that I 
personnally find that the actions of  Trust& Safety  very valuable and wise. I 
totally support and trust their judgement. 

I am tired of seing their work criticized, and do not appreciate official 
chapter representants and employees publicly supporting alleged offenders, 
showing no aknowledgement of the fact that this is very toxic for alleged 
victims, and does not help to change attitude towards issues of harrassment. 

How can we feel safe in the movement if the decisions of T are questionned by 
official members of our movement? 

Nattes à chat





Le 21 juin 2019 à 01:04, Chris Keating  a écrit :

>> 
>> It is extremely disappointing, and *extremely typical* of the Wikimedia
>> movement, to see an entire thread like this dedicated to supporting someone
>> who Trust & Safety has found to have acted in such a way that they had to
>> intervene. It is even more disappointing to see a person who was affected
>> by his actions told "this is not your story" and "it may help you when you
>> grow some sensitivity and respect this experience, the
>> feelings of others."
>> 
>> If you're wondering why women leave the Wikimedia movement, and why
>> Wikimedia has such a bad harassment problem in general, just reflect on
>> this thread.
> 
> 
> Thank you, Molly, for expressing what I was just trying to summon the
> energy to write.
> 
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
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 Health, Roles & Responsibilities

2019-06-17 Thread Peter Southwood
" 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 the time and we were told that this would not happen. Maybe it is 
already happening.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Ad Huikeshoven
Sent: 16 June 2019 23:03
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim
to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.

Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an
user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some
are vocal.

Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That
can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on
meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.

There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for
Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People
who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities
versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead,
and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]

Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity,
inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that
have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as
"We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers
preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."

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.

The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we
ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and
participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and
support people that have been left out by structures of power and
privilege?"

Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn
answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and
from others as well.

I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the
working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope
to see a lot of you there.

Kind regards,

Ad Huikeshoven

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Participate
[2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV
___
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, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-13 Thread Peter Southwood
This seems fair comment and a useful proposal. I would support the concept of 
such independent surveys, and them being funded by the foundation. I see a need.
Cheers, P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Bill Takatoshi
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:51 AM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

> No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate

I too see nothing in common, and since at least a handful of people
hold this view, could the parallels that they see to be made explicit,
please?

> pathological people, having been called out on being pathological

I am having trouble finding anything more than hundreds upon hundreds
of kilobytes of very civil, if considerably indignant, discussion
around the issue, and several people taking principled stances at
great risk to their own standing. So I would also like to see an
example of someone being called out on being pathological, please.

> There is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority 
> appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole

Again (after two years and four months) this is why we need regular,
periodic, scientific, carefully sampled surveys of the community:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086576.html

Is there any reason that the Community Engagement team thinks such
surveys aren't worth the time and effort?

-Will

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



___
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-13 Thread Peter Southwood
The relevant facts to be checked were your assertion that I claimed that 
Wikipedia belongs to "us" Please do not misrepresent my words. I try to choose 
them with care. 
The selection of other "facts" you list below do not appear to make WMF any 
more an owner of Wikipedia than any of the actual contributors. However as I am 
not a lawyer I actually make no claims as to who, if anyone, has a legal claim 
to ownership of any of the Wikipedias.
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:44 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Peter

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:45 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Check your facts.
> P
>

Well, the Wikipedia trademark is owned by the Foundation, along with a
variety of related marks, see
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks  The servers on
which the content of Wikipedia resides are rented and paid for by the
Foundation, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers  The
intellectual property in that  content is very largely owned by the very
disparate individuals who contributed, each of whom owns the IPR in their
own individual contributons, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights  These are the facts, --
do you wish to dispute them?

Thrapostibongles

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:48 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> Peter
>
> You say that Wikipedia belongs to "us".  You are mistaken.  In so far as it
> belongs to anyone, it belongs to the Foundation.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:35 PM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > "We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it
> > belongs to "us" as well.  It seems that Fram who was one of us has just
> > been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that
> this
> > should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude
> > people from our community when they are shown in fair process to be
> unable
> > to cooperate in furthering the purposes of the project. Some of us try to
> > make it reasonably easy and pleasant to join the community and help build
> > the project, but it is not compulsory, either to make it pleasant, or to
> > join. However credibility and respect beyond that which should be
> afforded
> > to anyone by virtue of being human are earned.
> > Cheers,
> > P
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
> > Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> > > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and
> find
> > that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >
> > This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
> > shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> > belongs to everyone.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles,
> > > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and
> find
> > that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> > > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit
> history
> > under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how
> > familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely
> > agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment
> > which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally
> > surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores
> > function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional
> > modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the
> > process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere
> between
> > an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> > pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> > large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> > to rule by fiat it will have interesting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-13 Thread Peter Southwood
Is there evidence that this is the reason for the block? If so where is it 
stated?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Robert Fernandez
Sent: 13 June 2019 18:14
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:

> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
>
> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> stuff.
>
> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
>
> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> consequences.
> > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever
> > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
> when
> > consequences happen.
> >
> > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
> did
> > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
> like
> > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
> overly
> > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
___
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, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-12 Thread Peter Southwood
Check your facts. 
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:48 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Peter

You say that Wikipedia belongs to "us".  You are mistaken.  In so far as it
belongs to anyone, it belongs to the Foundation.

Thrapostibongles

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:35 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> "We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it
> belongs to "us" as well.  It seems that Fram who was one of us has just
> been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that this
> should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude
> people from our community when they are shown in fair process to be unable
> to cooperate in furthering the purposes of the project. Some of us try to
> make it reasonably easy and pleasant to join the community and help build
> the project, but it is not compulsory, either to make it pleasant, or to
> join. However credibility and respect beyond that which should be afforded
> to anyone by virtue of being human are earned.
> Cheers,
> P
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
> Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>
> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> belongs to everyone.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thrapostibongles,
> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history
> under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how
> familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely
> agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment
> which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally
> surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores
> function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional
> modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the
> process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere between
> an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do
> those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> > This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone
> else. You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in
> this discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter Southwood
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> > Yaroslav,
> >
> > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and
> its
> > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes
> are
> > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> > others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a
> dysfunctional
> > community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any
> collegial
> > working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019

  1   2   3   4   5   >