Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid translation

2018-03-05 Thread Renée Bagslint
Does it make sense to have more articles in a language than can be curated
by the volunteers who speak that language?  This has already happened on
the Englisg-language Wikipedia where the five million articles have simply
overwhelmed the capability of the few thousand active contributors to
self-organise and curate -- for example, there are about one million
articles without adequate sources, and thousands of unsourced BLP; there
are copyvio cleanups that will not complete, if ever, before 2030.  An army
of hand-coded bots is just about keeping on top of vandalism.  How does
that scale to projects where the number of native speaker contributors is
in the dozens rather than the thousands?

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Vi to  wrote:

> (This thread is getting terribly interesting)
> I generally think Wikipedia should be a strictly non interfering observer
> for various aspects, language included. I fear if a wiki tries to set a
> model for a language it may be a model which doesn't represent the reality
> of that language: small wikis are often monopolized by a few users. That's
> not a fault per se but it may introduce a significant bias in linguistic
> models used.
> About one of Amir's emails I think a "small" Wikipedia edition is sign of a
> series of situations, one of the most common of is an endangered language.
> While planning should differentiate between endangered and non endangered
> language I think most of problems we have to face are related to languages
> endangered at various levels.
> On a more practical and less ideological note, I should note that even
> though I didn't run the numbers, I strongly suspect that translating 10,000
> articles to 100 languages is considerably cheaper than teaching 7 billion
> people English.
> I don't why but I tend to second your suspects :p
> Vito
> 2018-02-27 16:53 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood :
> > If the people creating the basic encyclopaedic terminology and style in
> > the language are native speakers, then it would not be a thing imposed
> from
> > outside. It would be a development within the language, just like it was
> > with the languages that already have encyclopaedias. The basic
> > encyclopaedic terminology and style in languages that have then also had
> to
> > be created before it existed, it just happened earlier. Living languages
> > evolve to deal with the realities of the present. Those which don’t, tend
> > to die out as they become less useful. Cheers, Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [] On
> > Behalf Of Vi to
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:43 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid translation
> >
> > I see Amir's points, which are pretty reasonable, but I fear this would
> > suit languages with a significant presence on the web.
> >
> > Among them I agree with points 1, 3 and 4 while I'm not sure about #2
> > "creating basic encyclopedic terminology and style in that language", if
> we
> > want to preserve a language we shouldn't create a thing.
> >
> > By the way I was wondering my concerns about cultural colonization may be
> > addressed -for wikis which has some contents (let's say at least 1000
> > articles)- by starting expanding existing articles instead of translating
> > new ones. This would solve the problem of choosing what to translate
> though
> > would leave problems about the perspective contents are created.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2018-02-27 12:31 GMT+01:00 Amir E. Aharoni  >:
> >
> > > 2018-02-27 13:00 GMT+02:00 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > >>:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le 24/02/2018 à 18:08, Vi to a écrit :
> > > >
> > > >> *finally I think paid translators would hardly turn into stable
> > > >> Wikipedians.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think this misses an important point that is, we don't need the
> > > initial
> > > > translator to turn into a sustaining editor, we need the article to
> > > evolve
> > > > with call to action incentives. And articles which don't exist at
> > > > all – even as a stub – or don't meet an audience of potential
> > > > contributors will never catch such an evolving cycle.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is one of the issues with what I alluded to in my earlier email
> > > in this thread: the privilege that the "big" languages have. It's the
> > > privilege of already having other encyclopedias, textbooks, public
> > > education, etc., in this language. A lot of languages don't have these
> > > things. When you speak a language that has had these things before
> > > Wikipedia came along, it's hard to perceive the world like a person
> > > who speaks a language that doesn't perceives it.
> > >
> > > If you define the purpose of paying somebody to translate as "turning
> > > the paid translator" into a sustaining editor, then this is indeed
> > > likely to fail.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright enforcement?

2018-01-29 Thread Renée Bagslint
Does the Foundation have any standing to enforce the copyright, since that
belongs to the individual contributors?

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:12 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Attribution is often considered impractical, but providing the source
> date along with e.g. the article name can be used to derive the
> attribution, so it should be required. It's not just a good idea to
> require this information from content re-users like Amazon, Apple, and
> Google, but doing so will help encourage those who find issues to
> edit.
> If the Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a
> requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment.
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator 
> wrote:
> > The copyright requirement isn't attribution; it's attribution and
> copyleft
> > retention for derived works.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:28 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> >> It search result only contains a snippet (and thus is fair use). Plus
> >> Google provide attribution in a lot of their results.
> >>
> >> J
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni  wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator  wrote:
> >> > > Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia
> >> corpus
> >> > > for their results.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > However due to the way their output is structured it falls under "you
> >> > can't copyright facts".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > geni
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> > New messages to:
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> ,
> >> > 
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> James Heilman
> >> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >>
> >> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to:
> >> Unsubscribe:,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

[Wikimedia-l] Duty of care

2018-01-29 Thread Renée Bagslint
Looking at a couple of situations that have arisen recently on one of the
projects, where the health and well-being of volunteers might have been
affected by their participation, I wonder where we can find a clear
statement of the Foundation's Duty of Care towards the volunteers?  I
looked on Meta, but the search appeared to return only pages relevant to
the Trustees duty towards the Foundation.  I was looking for something
about the Foundation's duty towards the community?  Can anyone help?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board statement endorsing future resourcing and direction of the movement

2018-01-29 Thread Renée Bagslint
The list can be summarised as

   - Spend more on staff
   - Spend more on chapters
   - Get more money
   - Get more money
   - Get more money
   - Spend more money

We notice that such minor matters as produce more content, produce better
content, support content contributors, disseminate knowledge more widely,
find new ways of curating and disseminating knowledge, ... are not on the

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Christophe Henner 

> Hello everyone,
> As many of you know, in October we concluded phase 1 of the movement
> strategy process. The result was a final draft of the strategic
> direction,[1] summarizing the hundreds of conversations that took place all
> over the world, on wiki and off, about where we as a movement want
> Wikimedia to go next. Many communities and individuals have signed on to
> the direction, expressing their support for the guide we collectively
> created for our future.
> The Board recognizes the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead in
> making this direction a reality. In the next phase of the movement
> strategy, we will get into more of the specifics of how to make that
> happen. With that in mind, we would like to share a statement setting forth
> our commitment to the future of Wikimedia, and a clear mandate for the
> Wikimedia Foundation to invest the resources necessary to support the
> growth and evolution required for the next chapter of Wikimedia’s future.
> Our statement is included below, and on Meta-Wiki, where it has been set up
> for translation:
> Board_noticeboard/November_2017_-_Statement_endorsing_
> future_resourcing_and_direction_of_the_organization
> The Board greatly appreciates all of the time and energy that thousands of
> people have put into the movement strategy process. Special appreciation
> goes out to the members of the community who stepped up to help lead local,
> language, or global organizing efforts. We are not done yet, but what we
> have created is something that we should all be proud of -- for the process
> of how we got to this direction, as much as for the direction itself.
> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,
> Christophe Henner, Board Chair
> ***
> Statement
> At our most recent Board meeting on the 18th of November, the Wikimedia
> Foundation Board focused much of our discussion on the needs and goals of
> the Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy process.[1] We carefully considered
> the next steps we as a movement, and the Wikimedia Foundation in
> particular, need to take to build for our future.
> The Board is committed to ensuring the vision outlined in the Wikimedia
> 2030 process becomes a reality. To support this direction and the future of
> the Wikimedia movement, it is our belief that the Wikimedia Foundation must
> expand its resources through healthy, sustainable practices. To this end,
> we want to give a clear mandate for the Wikimedia Foundation to invest the
> resources necessary to support the growth and evolution required for the
> next chapter of Wikimedia’s future.
> We specifically recommend that the Foundation:
>Increase investment in Foundation staffing and other means of support
>for the movement direction, sufficiently resourcing product, technology,
>and community health commitments in particular;
>Support and engage with individuals, groups, and organizations,
>especially within the Wikimedia movement, to further develop their
>capacities, including the specific needs of emerging communities;
>Support the fundraising team in raising additional funds beyond what is
>called for in the annual plan to prepare us for future growth;
>Increase revenue as needed to support investment and growth;
>Explore alternative revenue streams for the Foundation and movement; and
>Undertake any capacity expansion in a healthy and sustainable way that
>anticipates current and future needs.
> Based on anticipated need and past performance, we envision an annual
> budgetary growth rate of 10–20% over the next several years.
> The Board takes seriously its responsibility to the Foundation and by
> extension, to the global Wikimedia movement. We believe this mandate will
> better ensure we can realize the future we all have outlined as part of
> Wikimedia 2030. We are committed to ensuring the sustainable growth and
> success of our movement, and the Wikimedia Foundation’s role in supporting
> its future.
> [1]
> Christophe HENNER
> Chair of the board of trustees
> +33650664739
> twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Leadership of Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department

2018-01-07 Thread Renée Bagslint
I'm glad to hear that as Chief Creative Officer, Heather will "oversee the
organization and movement’s voice, tone, and visual assets, and how they
are incorporated into everything from our recent awareness videos to our
press statements."  It would be good to know exactly who "we" are in this.
It seems that "we" include the "movement", which is to say, all of us as
users, volunteers and donors.  I look forward to hearing more about how
Heather and her team will engage such a large and diverse movement to find
out what it is that we want to say and find ways of helping us to say it.

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Katherine Maher 

> Hi everyone,
> I am excited to share with you all the results of our search for permanent
> leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department.
> Our own Heather Walls will transition from interim Chief of Communications
> to leading the department full-time, in the newly created role of Chief
> Creative Officer. She will be joined by a new Vice President of
> Communications, Kui Kinyanjui, who will join us from her home in Nairobi,
> Kenya in early March. Please join me in congratulating Heather and
> welcoming Kui!
> *The new roles*
> As Chief Creative Officer, Heather will remain at the Leadership team, with
> responsibility for the Communications department operations, and a mandate
> that focuses on helping people better understand our values and mission
> through our brand. She will oversee the organization and movement’s voice,
> tone, and visual assets, and how they are incorporated into everything from
> our recent awareness videos to our press statements. What do we sound and
> look like? How do you feel when you interact with us, as an editor, a
> reader, a donor? How do we spread and share our values? She will be
> responsible for new and creative initiatives that seek to expand the way
> people think about Wikipedia and Wikimedia, not only as an encyclopedia but
> an essential part of the way we understand the world.
> As Vice President of Communications, Kui will report directly to Heather
> and oversee our traditional and digital communications efforts. She will be
> responsible for our overall media positioning and coverage, critical issue
> management (also known as crisis communications), extending our digital
> media strategy, products, and presence, and supporting organizational
> leadership, such as myself, the Leadership team, and the Board, with
> effective and clear public communications. Kui also brings new and valuable
> skills that we’re sure to appreciate: first, a background in internal
> communications, which should help with improved information flows in our
> ever-more distributed organization, as well as a deep background in
> communications, campaigns, and marketing for emerging markets -- sure to be
> a critical skill for our efforts around improving awareness about Wikimedia
> in places where we want to reach more people.
> *About Heather Walls*
> Since joining the Foundation in 2011, Heather has been a driving force in
> our creative and brand efforts at the Foundation. Under her stewardship,
> the Foundation has dramatically reduced barriers to community usage of the
> trademarks under our care while also helping increase consistency in their
> usage. A member of the team before Communications was its own department,
> Heather was one of the first people I met and worked with when I joined as
> Chief Communications Officer. She graciously stepped in as leader of the
> department when I transitioned to Executive Director and has since grown
> into the role while making it her own. During that time, she has helped
> find the organization's place in the growing social media channels,
> modernized the Foundation’s brand, bringing it into greater alignment with
> our movement's values and workflows, and overseen pioneering
> community-supported awareness campaigns.
> Prior to joining the Foundation, Heather worked in design roles at
> organizations across California, Massachusetts, and the Midwest. She
> developed a special collections room and exhibit for California Academy of
> Sciences, and her work has been included in Architectural Record and
> exhibited at Harvard as well as Detroit and New York.
> *About Kui Kinyanjui*
> Kui will join the Foundation in March after concluding her current position
> as Head of Corporate Communications for Safaricom Limited in Kenya.
> Safaricom is one of the leading mobile network operators in Africa, and one
> of Kenya’s leading companies, providing mobile and banking services to more
> than 28 million Kenyans. She brings deep communications skills, an
> incredible wealth of knowledge around emerging markets, and a passion for
> our efforts to reach beyond English-speaking audiences in our organization
> and movement communications.
> Kui is from Nairobi, Kenya. Her background is as a journalist and has
> worked for Business Daily and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

2017-11-29 Thread Renée Bagslint
Robert Fernandez thinks it is "remarkably inappopriate" to put the
phrase "*experts
**are scum"* in quotation marks as if it were a quotation from the
Signpost. No. This is a quotation, which perhaps he did not recognise, from
a rather long-standing and well-known essay, which discusses this
very issue and is a convenient and common way of summarising the attitude
exhibited in the article.

Does Robert have any views on the topic of this thread?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

2017-11-25 Thread Renée Bagslint
A recent Signpost piece, "Good faith gibberish",
chooses to mock the claimed incomprehensibility of certain Wikipedia
articles, two of which are mathematics articles by the same author.  There
are three things which, taken together make this a matter of concern to the
wider community.

Firstly, the article is by an account self-described "as a WP Visiting
Scholar, and Wikipedian in Residence".  It is thereby flagged as an
emanation of the movement.

Secondly, the alleged incomprehensibility of the mathematics articles,
which are correct and succinct, is entirely attributable to the ignorance
of the Signpost's author and editors.  Even those completely ignorant of
mathematics could have used Google Books to discover that the
Federer--Morse Theorem is not, as suggested, a hoax.

Thirdly, the author selected for mockery in this way, user:r.e.b., is not
only an expert, but an extremely distinguished mathematician, at a level
equivalent to a Nobel prize-winner in another discipline.  He has written
numerous articles on mathematics and I have long thought that Wikipedia
scarcely deserves his work.  Now I'm sure of it.

So there we have it.  A Wikpedian-in-Residence makes it clear that "experts
are scum".  Is this the message the community chooses to present going
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to: