Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

2020-09-11 Thread Robert Fernandez
This is all so predictably tiresome.  Any attempt to center a discussion
forum on its intended purpose is hijacked by people outraged that they are
deprived of their own personal soapboxes.

I see this matter is spilling over into multiple threads.  I propose that
objectors start a new thread to discuss the relative merits of flatulent
language and keep all the discussion there to prevent it from stinking up
the rest of the forum.  Please limit yourself to one long message and make
sure you firmly expel this issue from your systems so we can all
collectively move forward.
___
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] Annoying ads

2020-05-04 Thread Robert Fernandez
I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered logging in?

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:56 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> got the usual banners, but this time they popped up repeatedly in several
> locations. This quickly gets extremely annoying, and I find it unwise.
> Create one banner, and stick with that. Several banners are simply way over
> the top.
>
> /jeblad
> ___
> 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] WMF political activism

2020-04-24 Thread Robert Fernandez
FFS who is against Earth Day?   Every organization and company
probably mentions it or observes it in some way.  Get over yourselves.
___
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] SEEKING A WIKIPEDIAN IN RESIDENCE! (U.S.)

2020-02-27 Thread Robert Fernandez
As a long time on and off subscriber to this list for many years, I want to
say that I do find posts about jobs like this very useful, unlike posts
complaining about capitalization and geography.  It is informative and
exciting to find out where Wikipedia projects are making in-roads, and what
better place to find an experienced job candidate who will respect
community norms and policies while editing on behalf of an employer.



On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:40 PM Jake Orlowitz  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Annual Reviews, an independent, nonprofit scholarly research publisher,
> seeks an enthusiastic Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR).
>
> The aim of this role is to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the sciences by
> citing expert articles from Annual Reviews’ journals. The WIR will engage
> with Wikipedia editors across life, biomedical, physical, and social
> science articles and WikiProjects to help ensure responsible and valuable
> expansion of content.
>
> This is a temporary position for 10 hours/week, paid at $30/hour USD, and
> is anticipated to last for up to 1 year. This position can only be based
> remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA, PA,
> NY, HI, or MT.
>
> PLEASE APPLY!
> https://annualreviewsnews.org/2020/02/25/seeking-a-wikipedian-in-residence/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jake Orlowitz
> *Founder of The Wikipedia Library*
> *Seeker of well people and sane societies*
>   kickstarter: bit.ly/CircleKickstarter
>   me: jakeorlowitz.com
>   mail: jorlow...@gmail.com
>   media: @jakeorlowitz 
>   book: welcometothecircle.net
> ___
> 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] Fresh data on the gender gap in content

2020-02-10 Thread Robert Fernandez
How do you get negative one biographies?

149 Mongolian 2 -1 -50.00
148 Punjabi 2 -1

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:15 PM Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Hello Asaf
>
> Just making sure that you knew about WHGI :
> http://whgi.wmflabs.org/gender-by-language.html
>
> Do you know if there are differences in analysis between the two analysis ?
>
> I checked a few figures and it fits pretty well.
>
> Flo
>
>
> Le 16/06/16 à 21:14, Asaf Bartov a écrit :
> > Hullo everyone.
> >
> > I was asked by a volunteer for help getting stats on the gender gap in
> > content on a certain Wikipedia, and came up with simple Wikidata Query
> > Service[1] queries that pulled the total number of articles on a given
> > Wikipedia about men and about women, to calculate *the proportion of
> > articles about women out of all articles about humans*.
> >
> > Then I was curious about how that wiki compared to other wikis, so I ran
> > the queries on a bunch of languages, and gathered the results into a
> table,
> > here:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ijon/Content_gap
> >
> > (please see the *caveat* there.)
> >
> > I don't have time to fully write-up everything I find interesting in
> those
> > results, but I will quickly point out the following:
> >
> > 1. The Nepali statistic is simply astonishing! There must be a story
> > there.  I'm keen on learning more about this, if anyone can shed light.
> >
> > 2. Evidently, ~13%-17% seems like a robust average of the proportion of
> > articles about women among all biographies.
> >
> > 3. among the top 10 largest wikis, Japanese is the least imbalanced.
> Good
> > job, Japanese Wikipedians!  I wonder if you have a good sense of what
> > drives this relatively better balance. (my instinctive guess is pop
> culture
> > coverage.)
> >
> > 4. among the top 10 largest wikis, Russian is the most imbalanced.
> >
> > 5. I intend to re-generate these stats every two months or so, to
> > eventually have some sense of trends and changes.
> >
> > 6. Your efforts, particularly on small-to-medium wikis, can really make a
> > dent in these numbers!  For example, it seems I am personally
> > responsible[2] for almost 1% of the coverage of women on Hebrew
> Wikipedia!
> > :)
> >
> > 7. I encourage you to share these numbers with your communities.  Perhaps
> > you'd like to overtake the wiki just above yours? :)
> >
> > 8. I'm happy to add additional languages to the table, by request.  Or
> you
> > can do it yourself, too. :)
> >
> >A.
> >
> > [1] https://query.wikidata.org/
> > [2] Yay #100wikidays :) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/100wikidays
> >
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

2019-09-20 Thread Robert Fernandez
I think we could drastically lower our carbon footprint by not using
community digital resources to beat the same dead horse for a billionth
time.
___
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 Announcements] Welcoming Wikimedia Foundation’s new CTO, Grant Ingersoll

2019-09-18 Thread Robert Fernandez
Of all the useless pontificating that happens both on this list and on
Wikipedia, *this* is the comment that you call out?  smh

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:57 PM Aron Manning  wrote:

> > ...without linking to at least one cute pic of Allie ;-)
> >
>
> Well, Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or
> Twitter.
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog,_web_hosting_service,_social_networking_service,_or_memorial_site
> >
> Although fun and uplifting comments are always welcome, please notice that
> your mail can be understood in many different ways, neither of which is
> beneficial.
> Thank you.
>
> 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-07-05 Thread Robert Fernandez
It isn't magic.  People have studied how and why it was successful and
other projects were not.

Wikipedia 2019 isn't the same as Wikipedia 2001.  We've made lots of
changes that we thought at the time were radical along the way.

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 6:01 AM Todd Allen  wrote:

> That "arcane lore" has resulted in the largest educational work ever
> produced by humanity, and free for everyone both as in speech and as in
> beer.
>
> So I think we need to consider carefully before radically changing it. It
> has worked, and worked unimaginably well, for most of two decades. That's
> not to say it can't still be improved, but the proof is in the results. If
> the English Wikipedia were badly broken, it wouldn't be a fixture of modern
> life.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 11:54 PM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling
> us
> > that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What
> is
> > thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped
> in
> > the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo and keep
> > others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess
> > Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive
> > arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a
> > problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends
> > and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution
> that
> > involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider,
> > in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was
> > not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was
> threatened
> > that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).
> >
> > English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people
> > when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It
> > is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently
> > does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".
> >
> > Keeping things as they were is not an option.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  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 )
> > > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An
> argument
> > > can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a
> > modern
> > > Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and
> > > humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering
> > achievements,
> > > it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released
> > from
> > > the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let
> > that
> > > toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including
> > Wikipedia.
> > > The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this
> > > problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
> > >
> > > Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has
> > survived
> > > and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction.
> > So
> > > maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the
> > forces
> > > that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the
> community
> > of
> > > the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical
> > realization
> > > that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
> > > ___
> > > 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: 

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

2019-07-04 Thread Robert Fernandez
Thankfully the gamut of human nature is far wider than just 4chan and
Reddit.


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:31 PM Nathan  wrote:

>
>
> Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true,
> and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier
> place? It isn't going to happen. There is no such place, at least not with
> the critical mass of human participants that this project needs. Have you
> been to a city? Have you seen Reddit or 4chan? Participated in a national
> election? If so, do you really think that the WMF is going to institute
> some sort of culture program that will solve problems inherent in human
> nature?
>
>
___
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] Wikimedia DC Statement on Terms of Use Enforcement

2019-06-30 Thread Robert Fernandez
https://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Press:Statement_on_Terms_of_Use_enforcement

June 30, 2019

Wikimedia District of Columbia is deeply concerned by recent events that
have occurred on the English Wikipedia, including community controversy
regarding a ban imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Protecting editors from harassment is crucial to the continued success of
the Wikimedia movement. Many of us have been targets of harassment as a
result of our contributions to the Wikimedia projects, and have witnessed
harassment of our colleagues, and we are grateful to the Wikimedia
Foundation's Trust & Safety team for their support in those incidents.

We make no judgement on the case at the center of the current controversy
as the Foundation—as per long-standing practice to protect the privacy of
all concerned—did not identify the specifics of the behavior publicly. We
are not endorsing or opposing a specific case, policy, or process. However,
in light of these events, we publicly affirm our support for the following
principles:


   - We support the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts in general to make the
   English Wikipedia welcoming and accessible to people of all backgrounds and
   gender identities.
   - We believe there are circumstances where the Wikimedia Foundation
   should take action against individual editors who violate the Terms of Use
   when it is necessary to protect people of all backgrounds and gender
   identities.
   - We support collaboration between the Foundation and the English
   Wikipedia community to inform the policies and processes surrounding these
   efforts.
   - We oppose the use of discriminatory, racist, and homophobic language
   in all Wikimedia discussions, and encourage the community to avoid it,
   regardless of context or intent.


Board of Directors
Wikimedia District of Columbia
___
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

2019-06-28 Thread Robert Fernandez
Because they'd be immediately accused of libeling him and it would
turn into a he said/they said.

Also, while I do think the WMF should be in the business of blocking
problem-causing users, it shouldn't be in the business of speaking out
against them publicly.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:39 PM Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Do you at least believe him when he says he hasn't contacted anyone offwiki, 
> and everything he was warned about was onwiki?
>
> And if he really is lying, why can't they even say so?
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Robert Fernandez  wrote:
>
> > I do.
> >
> > It just doesn’t make any sense.  His account is either wrong or leaving out
> > much of the truth.
> >
> > I have some idea (from unfortunate experience) how long office bans take,
> > how much work goes into them, and how many people have to sign off on them.
> >
> > So we’re either saying one person with a checkered history is lying or a
> > large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.
> >
> > Occam’s razor.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 an

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

2019-06-28 Thread Robert Fernandez
I do.

It just doesn’t make any sense.  His account is either wrong or leaving out
much of the truth.

I have some idea (from unfortunate experience) how long office bans take,
how much work goes into them, and how many people have to sign off on them.

So we’re either saying one person with a checkered history is lying or a
large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.

Occam’s razor.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 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
> >>>>>&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Some goodbye to all

2019-06-21 Thread Robert Fernandez
If you want to see the entire world through the lens of Kafka, be my
guest, but we can't make policy in this movement based on that.

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:01 AM Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> I believe you will only keep that opinion until the day you would be subject 
> to a false accusation by the WMF, without even knowing it, and having no way 
> to defend yourself appeal.
>
> Everything is easy to talk about and have opinions while it is only happening 
> to the others. Unfortunately it is not my case, and I know in first person 
> how flawed the system is.
>
> Apart from the details of the case described by the OP, the almost total lack 
> of due process is extremely worrying, especially to those who already 
> experimented it failing in first hand.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
>
>
> A sexta, 21 de jun de 2019, 14:43, Robert Fernandez  
> escreveu:
>>
>> At some point we have to decide who this movement and community is
>> for.  Is it for popular individuals to act out in any way they please
>> and be awarded maximum freedom and lack of accountability?  Or is it
>> so we can insure a friendly space for everyone, including those who
>> are not popular, who are not loud voices on community forums, who do
>> not want to be harassed or leered at or made uncomfortable?
>>
>> Everything is a tradeoff, and based on what I've seen I'll take the
>> lack of "due process" from trained and responsible professionals over
>> the popularity contests of the mob any day.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:56 AM Paulo Santos Perneta
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Taking everything and their dog as "harassment", without due process to
>> > verify it, and issuing punishments one can't appeal based on that, creates
>> > a feeling of fear and insecurity in the events; and provides a tool easy to
>> > abuse by clever persons who understood how to game the system, as a vehicle
>> > for severe harassment itself.
>> >
>> > This creates an unsafe and unfriendly space in the events,and should really
>> > be looked at.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Paulo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A sexta, 21 de jun de 2019, 06:57, Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
>> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> escreveu:
>> >
>> > > 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.
>> > > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Some goodbye to all

2019-06-21 Thread Robert Fernandez
At some point we have to decide who this movement and community is
for.  Is it for popular individuals to act out in any way they please
and be awarded maximum freedom and lack of accountability?  Or is it
so we can insure a friendly space for everyone, including those who
are not popular, who are not loud voices on community forums, who do
not want to be harassed or leered at or made uncomfortable?

Everything is a tradeoff, and based on what I've seen I'll take the
lack of "due process" from trained and responsible professionals over
the popularity contests of the mob any day.


On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:56 AM Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> Taking everything and their dog as "harassment", without due process to
> verify it, and issuing punishments one can't appeal based on that, creates
> a feeling of fear and insecurity in the events; and provides a tool easy to
> abuse by clever persons who understood how to game the system, as a vehicle
> for severe harassment itself.
>
> This creates an unsafe and unfriendly space in the events,and should really
> be looked at.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
>
>
>
>
> A sexta, 21 de jun de 2019, 06:57, Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> escreveu:
>
> > 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, 
> 

___
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] Some goodbye to all

2019-06-21 Thread Robert Fernandez
You do realize that you can email Romaine privately?


On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:18 AM Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> You do not get it. For me this is about saying goodbye. Saying goodbye to
> someone I/we truly value. Saying goodbye to someone who we owe gratitude.
> This was not allowed to be, we say goodbye and we are told that we are
> wrong because a situation where the POV expressed is that we cannot say
> goodbye, express our gratitude because they are / feel aggrieved.
>
> I have no opinion on why this situation exists, what transpired. What I
> object to is that there is no room given for our feeling of loss. That is
> an injustice in its own right.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 00:26, Pierre-Selim  wrote:
>
> > Her POV ?
> >
> > Well I can confirm what Caroline said.
> >
> > What more do you want ? To verify all other reports ?
> >
> > It's sad that things have escalated this far, but may be it's time to
> > wonder why it escalated like that. There was multiple incidents reported.
> > Things that should have stayed private were told on this mailing list by
> > Romaine... well when do we stop this ?
> >
> > Please keep in mind when you cast your support here that people who have
> > reported Romaine might be reading this.
> >
> > Le jeu. 20 juin 2019 à 23:12, Gerard Meijssen 
> > a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Caroline,
> > > For me this is not your story. Your insistence of making it so has quite
> > > the opposite effect. I have known Romaine, the tireless efforts for us
> > all
> > > he has given us over the years, I grieve for our collective loss. I do
> > not
> > > know you and you are intruding on what is a feeling shared by many. It
> > may
> > > help you when you grow some sensitivity and respect this experience, the
> > > feelings of others. Maybe it is too difficult for you, I do not know as I
> > > do not know you at all.
> > >
> > > What I wonder is to what extend do you know Romaine, to what extend are
> > you
> > > stuck in your pov.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 19:00, Caroline Becker 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is such a lost. Not only did you waisted an opportunity to learn
> > and
> > > > grow from your mistakes the first time, you reiterate here, showing no
> > > > willingness to grow and learn.
> > > >
> > > > But why would you take the difficult path, when by just claiming your
> > > right
> > > > to "weirdness" (which I guess only apply to you and none to the people
> > > you
> > > > hurt), you're rewarding with public support ?
> > > >
> > > > Caroline
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le jeu. 20 juin 2019 à 18:55, Dennis During  a
> > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > I am ashamed that the movement has a climate that allows this
> > > unfortunate
> > > > > outcome
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:15 AM Romaine Wiki  > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >  Dear community,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > About a month ago I have decided that I will indefinitely no longer
> > > > > attend
> > > > > > any WMF funded events as result of bullying, attempts to silence
> > me,
> > > > > > intimidation and treats against me. This has resulted in that I
> > feel
> > > > > > extremely unsafe as the result of the behaviour of only a few
> > > > > individuals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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,
> > > > > 
> > > > ___
> > > > 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: 

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

2019-06-15 Thread Robert Fernandez
Far better that editors deal with unfairness from secret proceedings
by untrained and unqualified volunteers of varying degrees of
incompetence elected in a popularity contest.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:32 PM David Goodman  wrote:
>  the probability of unfairness from secret proceeding by
> anonymous paid staff is by far the worse, and I see it as in direct
> opposition to the principles underlying the entire wikipedia effort.

___
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

2019-06-14 Thread Robert Fernandez
Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.

It also insults the editors who have managed to do both.  I know an
en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.

Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
victims of harassment asking T for help.


On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> "Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> stop it."
>
> First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
> absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban 
> wrote:
>
> > I quote David and Isaac.
> > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
> > behavior.
> > Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> > stop it.
> >
> >
> > Camelia
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Camelia Boban*
> >
> > *| Java EE Developer |*
> >
> > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> > Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> > Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
> >
> > *Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
> > WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
> >
> > M. +39 3383385545
> > camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> > *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
> >  *|* *LinkedIn
> > *
> > *Wikipedia  **|
> > **WikiDonne
> > UG * | *WikiDonne Project
> >  *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Fæ
> > >
> > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > Wikipedia
> > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the English
> > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > > suggests
> > > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or
> > be
> > > productive.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > > ___
> > > 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 

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

2019-06-13 Thread Robert Fernandez
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, 


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

2019-06-13 Thread Robert Fernandez
A number of people in our community literally are Gamergaters,
including editors with tools.

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:15 AM Chris Keating
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist mob doing GamerGate kind
> > of stuff, what was she expecting, really.
> >
> >
> Maybe she was expecting people to read what she actually said, and engage
> with it, rather than twist her words so they're easy to dismiss?
>
> Maybe she was hoping people might think about whether there WAS some sexist
> harrassment happening, and whether parts of our community were actually
> behaving a bit like Gamergaters?
> ___
> 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

2019-06-12 Thread Robert Fernandez
But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic?

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic.
>
> If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get reviewed 
> privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation of anyone's 
> privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they supposedly did. If 
> they did in fact do it--they already know exactly what they did. If I send 
> you some kind of harassing email, I already know I sent it to you, so telling 
> me "You sent Robert an email saying he's a _ and a _ and a 
> _ while we're at it" is not news to me. I already know I did.
>
> On the other hand, if I didn't send that, knowing what was alleged allows me 
> to say "I absolutely did not do that." If I did send something, but it were 
> misinterpreted or misconstrued, I can offer an explanation of what was 
> actually meant. It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything, 
> but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend 
> themself.
>
> However, if the alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is already all 
> public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves suppressed 
> material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public and 
> transparent, and that should be the default.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robert Fernandez  
> wrote:
>>
>> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
>> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
>> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
>> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
>> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
>> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
>> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
>> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
>> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
>> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
>> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Robert,
>> >
>> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. 
>> > Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to 
>> > anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. 
>> > But it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to 
>> > respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. 
>> > They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>> >
>> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF 
>> > exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule 
>> > them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be 
>> > throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where 
>> > apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence 
>> > against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run 
>> > ethos of the project.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez  
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > 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

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

2019-06-12 Thread Robert Fernandez
The board, including its community representatives.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due process 
> is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments start being 
> issued by them?
>
> To who /what can we appeal?
>
> Paulo
>
> A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez  
> escreveu:
>>
>> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
>> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
>> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
>> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
>> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
>> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
>> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
>> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
>> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
>> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
>> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Robert,
>> >
>> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. 
>> > Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to 
>> > anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. 
>> > But it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to 
>> > respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. 
>> > They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>> >
>> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF 
>> > exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule 
>> > them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be 
>> > throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where 
>> > apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence 
>> > against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run 
>> > ethos of the project.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez  
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > 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

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

2019-06-12 Thread Robert Fernandez
Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. 
> Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone 
> who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it is 
> natural in any community or organization to give more weight to respected, 
> long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. They've learned 
> the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>
> However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF exists 
> to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule them. And 
> since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be throwing 
> people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where apparently even 
> the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is 
> utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez  
> wrote:
>>
>> > 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 volunt

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

2019-06-12 Thread Robert Fernandez
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. 
> Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone 
> who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it is 
> natural in any community or organization to give more weight to respected, 
> long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. They've learned 
> the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>
> However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF exists 
> to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule them. And 
> since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be throwing 
> people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where apparently even 
> the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is 
> utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez  
> wrote:
>>
>> > 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 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>> >
>> > > The point made by pretty much everyone is n

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

2019-06-12 Thread Robert Fernandez
> 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 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did sign
> > the non-disclosure agreement.
> >
> > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF, since
> > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > activity is subject to the community policies.
> >
> > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> > on a number of occasions.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram
> > has
> > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how fast
> > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally,
> > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As
> > > simple as that.
> > >
> > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> > body
> > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > >
> > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not sure
> > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based on a
> > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm waiting
> > > for
> > > > an explanation from the 

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

2019-06-12 Thread Robert Fernandez
Because the English Wikipedia community is a garbage fire, and is
hellbent on demonstrating that this week.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> And why do you think the WMF would be the proper entity to step in on
> community issues related to the English Wikipedia?
>
> Paulo
>
> A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 13:46, Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> > 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 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> >
> > > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> > > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> > > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did
> > sign
> > > the non-disclosure agreement.
> > >
> > > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF,
> > since
> > > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> > > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > > activity is subject to the community policies.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> > > on a number of occasions.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram
> > > has
> > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how
> > fast
> > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally,
> > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As
> > > > simple as that.
> > > >
> > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> > > body
> > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > > >
> > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not sure
> > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based
> > on a
> > > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm
> > waiting
> > > > for
> > > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't
> > surprise
> > > > me
> > > > > at all.
> > > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind
> > of
> > > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> > > Movement.
> > > > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Paulo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> > > > 11/06/2019
> > > > > à(s) 05:45:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism
> > > and
> > > > > > lack of transparency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> > > > > weren't
> > > > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding
> > a
> > > > > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > > > > > communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own
> > > > autonomous
> > > > > > rules but the Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no
> > > complaints
> > > > > > on-wiki nor to Arbcom privately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> > > > > Arbcom
> > > > > > noticeboards.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > 

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

2019-06-11 Thread Robert Fernandez
Through various means I'm aware of the partial or full circumstances
of a number of office bans.  In all cases, T investigated thoroughly
and acted appropriately.   I don't know why this case would be any
different, or warrants pitchforks and torches from vocal members of
the community, but these are the same community members who break them
out at every opportunity in any case.

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Pine W  wrote:
>
>  I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.
>
> I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances, and
> if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would expect
> WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English
> Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct,
> and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating
> situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic
> evidence.
>
> In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem
> with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate cases
> in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are difficult
> to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with
> WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing
> concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith in
> the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a
> case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified.
> Even if a local community has well known problems with its self-governance,
> I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community.
> While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals of
> specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would
> likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global
> community for WMF intervention.
>
> Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and
> move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its
> consideration.
>
> 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] Wikipedia's sourcing

2018-08-29 Thread Robert Fernandez
Interesting metrics and ideas here, but nobody's going to take your
research particularly seriously if you choose to post it in an open
sewer.  I'd suggest a Medium or Wordpress blog.

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM sashi  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I thought I would ask if any of the junior or senior researchers here on
> this mailing list have conducted previous inquiries into Wikipedia's
> sourcing.
>
> I am currently working on a project of determining what proportion of
> Wikipedia is sourced to newspapers, the military, the Church, social
> media, etc.
>
> The data I've compiled this month, along with a brief write-up, have
> been posted to Wikipediocracy:
>
> http://wikipediocracy.com/2018/08/26/wikipedia-sources-methods/
>
> I imagine I'm reinventing the wheel... such studies have been done
> before, by the WMF, with power tools (bots), right?
>
> Thanks for any corrections / suggestions,
>
>sashi
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikimedia DC: Knight Prototype Fund support for the Wiki Art Depiction Explorer project

2018-07-17 Thread Robert Fernandez
Wikimedia District of Columbia is proud to be the recipient of $50,000 in
support from the Knight Prototype Fund, an initiative of the John S. and
James L. Knight Foundation.   Wikimedia DC will collaborate with the
Smithsonian Institution on a project called the "Wiki Art Depiction
Explorer", an effort to create an interface for museum visitors and other
art enthusiasts to crowdsource metadata about visual depictions in museum
artworks.  Making this data more accurate and robust will allow further and
deeper discovery of these works by anyone in the world.

The project was created by three longtime Wikimedia DC volunteers: Andrew
Lih, author of The Wikipedia Revolution, Effie Kapsalis, Chief of Content &
Communications Strategy at the Smithsonian Institution Archives, and Robert
Fernandez, member of the board of directors of Wikimedia DC.   Andrew Lih
is currently in South Africa for Wikimania and looks forward to talking to
other Wikimedia volunteers about this project.

The aim of the Knight Prototype Fund is to support the development of
innovative ideas to use technology to engage people with the arts and
cultural institutions.  The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has
previously supported organizations and projects related to Wikimedia,
including the Wikimedia Foundation.

For the announcement from the Knight Foundation, see
https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/knight-prototype-fund-awards-projects-that-explore-avenues-for-connecting-people-with-the-arts-through-tech
___
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] Concerns about WMF's "Manager of Community Development" job posting

2018-07-15 Thread Robert Fernandez
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 2:00 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> 1. It sounds like WMF intends to centralize the training and leadership 
> development work that in recent years has largely been done by affiliates and 
> grantees, meaning that affiliates should probably expect budget cuts, and 
> individual grants that have been used for outreach work would also probably 
> be reduced as WMF moves to take over this type of work.

My chapter is unaware of any of this type of work that we do that will
be taken over by the Foundation and we don't believe that a single
paid position at the Foundation will somehow lead to the elimination
of any of our many events or programs in these areas.  We welcome more
support from the Foundation in these areas.  Could you provide a
specific example of a program by any chapter that will be absorbed
into this position?

___
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

2018-05-07 Thread Robert Fernandez
The whole framing of this question is misguided.   There are lots of
people whose work is undervalued on Wikipedia for a lot of reasons.
If there is an effort to reach out to a particular group of volunteers
that is underrepresented then that should be celebrated as a positive
contribution to our projects and movement.   What we should not do is
say "how can I make this about my own personal situation?"   This is
about the movement and the mission, but too many volunteers think it
should be about catering to their own personal whims and needs.  If
there are legitimate grievances then we should address those problems
and not try to tear down efforts to address different problems.

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 wrote:
> Hi,
> I usually push diversity in any situation but only after I got a core quality 
> group of volunteer. the first degree of diversity is the diversity based on 
> wiki activity, IMHO.. I care about the rest and I try to be honest if I go in 
> that direction and why I do that. If anyone is offended for something, that 
> happens even if you do your best, in my experience being clear helps on the 
> long term.
> This a real documented example, if you want to read: 
> http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/people/ . For WSC2017 it was mostly my 
> job to find these profiles, 90% of them. I did my best to find motivated jury 
> members and, as a first step, I searched for expert wikimedians based on 
> their CV on the profiles and their activities. My goal was to be balanced per 
> topic, than per geographical area (language mostly, some description in 
> English are poor), than maybe per gender, in that order. The evaluation of 
> scientific images require expertise, that's the core business. I shared my 
> experience here: 
> http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/2017/11/16/how-was-the-jury-for-wiki-science-competition-2017-formed/
> In any case, I couldn't know who these people really were sometimes, I didn't 
> care at the first step. You know where they work, but they could be 
> foreigners. You know their enwikipedia activity (I need people with some 
> decent English fluency, so I started there and in any case I found what I 
> needed) but sometimes that does not reveal a lot, and English descriptions 
> are gender-neutral. So even if it wasn't planned I got some unbalance, and I 
> only discovered during the set up of the page that a certain nickname was a 
> blond guy and not a Arab or Chinese girl. I did my best to "fix it" at that 
> point but mostly because when you miss some positions and you look for 
> additional 3-4 names it's no big difference to look here or there. But still, 
> the first search was based on their expertise. And they all kew that.
>
> I think it was quite balanced in the end, taking care of the issue but not 
> ranking it more critical than the scientific quality of the profiles. Plus. I 
> told some of the female jurors that they could be "promoted" to the main jury 
> for next edition but that's because they deserve it.
> So, in the end  I look also for "girls" and "exotic profiles", I admit that, 
> but this was not my main goal, and it was never more important that the 
> quality. So at least these people knew that they were part of a team, that 
> they were there to share their expertise, not being displayed as a "token".
> I think it's more easy and relaxed if you always stick to the content and the 
> quality as a first step, IMHO. if you want the movement to grow roots you 
> need real people, motivated people, and real sharing. I really hope they will 
> set up real national challenges next time, thanks to the expertise we shared.
> Alessandro
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il Lunedì 7 Maggio 2018 14:33, Andy Mabbett  
> ha scritto:
>
>
>  On 7 May 2018 at 05:10, Romaine Wiki  wrote:
>
>> I recently received an e-mail
>> from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped
>> contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere
>> in Wikimedia.
>
>> She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
>> 1. she is a woman
>> 2. she is from a minority
>> 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
>> Europe/US)
>>
>> and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
>> mine (Caucasian).
>
> I'm sorry to hear that a contributor feels unable to continue because of this.
>
> In order to examine what improvements we can make, can you tell us -
> without breeching confidentiality - how this approach was made, and
> what exactly was said?
>
> --
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

2018-04-16 Thread Robert Fernandez
> "   The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for evil
people    " + a winking Baphomet as logo

I think we should change this to our slogan just for April 1.

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "   The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for evil
> people    " + a winking Baphomet as logo
>
> I find close to pointless derailing any discussion into a incircumstantial
> series of tirades.
>
> Vito
>
> 2018-04-15 16:21 GMT+02:00 Leigh Thelmadatter <osama...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> Not just English Wikipedia. All of the projects are hostile to "outsiders"
>> Those not in English might even be worse for several reasons
>>
>> Enviado desde mi LG de Telcel
>>
>> -- Original message--
>> From: Robert Fernandez
>> Date: Sun, Apr 15, 2018 9:17 AM
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List;
>> Cc:
>> Subject:Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia
>>
>> Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies,
>> organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English
>> Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia anyone
>> can edit" anymore.  So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and
>> relevant claim these days.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad linking
>> to
>> > wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We
>> used
>> > to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more honest
>> > than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of reliability and
>> > oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the discussion
>> > about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else
>> > uncomfortabe with this?
>> > --
>> > Anthony Cole
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

2018-04-15 Thread Robert Fernandez
Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies,
organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English
Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia anyone
can edit" anymore.  So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and
relevant claim these days.

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad linking to
> wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We used
> to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more honest
> than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of reliability and
> oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the discussion
> about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else
> uncomfortabe with this?
> --
> Anthony Cole
> ___
> 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] Announcing the Wikimedia Technical Conference

2018-04-03 Thread Robert Fernandez
Thanks for pointing that out Pine.  I believe WikiConference North America
will be on October 18 to 22 in Columbus, Ohio.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Victoria,
> I hope that you are OK with discussing this announcement on Wikimedia-l,
> which seems to me to be the most applicable mailing list for my questions.
> I have two questions and one comment.
>
> I think that I understand the desires here. However, it is unfortunate
> that a likely side effect of this scheduling is an increase in total costs
> and time spent traveling for those who will attend this conference and WMF
> All Hands, and additional costs from the lengthening of the All Hands
> conference. Since there are so many options for remote collaboration for
> WMF staff for follow up to All Hands discussions, and the additional costs
> for these combined changes sound likely to be in the tens to hundreds of
> thousands of dollars, I am less than enthusiastic about this aspect. Can
> you explain the cost-benefit analysis further, and why remote collaboration
> options at much lower cost are inadequate for extending the conversations
> from All Hands?
> Please ensure that the dates for this conference don't conflict with Wiki
> Conference North America.
> The cap of 50 participants, as stated on the MediaWiki page, seems to me
> to be low given the stated goals of the conference. Have you considered a
> higher cap?
> Thanks,
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>  Original message From: Victoria Coleman <
> vcole...@wikimedia.org> Date: 4/2/18  4:46 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: "Staff
> (All)" , MediaWiki announcements and site
> admin list  Subject: [MediaWiki-l]
> Announcing the Wikimedia Technical Conference
> Hi everyone.
>
> This is a time of important change for technology and the Wikimedia
> movement. We are evolving our platform to better support, grow, and prepare
> the movement for the future to realize our strategic goals of Knowledge as
> a Service and Knowledge Equity.
>
> Our vision is to host a different type of event in 2018 — to make informed
> decisions in the evolution of our platform while building our technical
> community engagement and enhancing our product vision. We want to be able
> to gather and discuss to determine our future direction and that of our
> shared platform; to communicate more broadly our product vision and to
> build a solid and stable base for our volunteer developer community. Future
> years will have have different focuses and themes.
>
> We also want to learn from our experiences during previous technically
> oriented events to improve our focus, enhance outcomes, and to give
> ourselves the time and space to have informed, substantive, and timely
> conversations — this all starts with the overall theme of the event.
>
> The January 2018 Developer Summit (in Berkeley, California) event had a
> broad goal to look at ways that technology can support our strategic
> direction. A concrete outcome of those discussions was acknowledging the
> need to evolve our core platform for the road ahead. In light of that
> outcome, we will hold future events with themes that reflect our evolving
> priorities and opportunities to support and enhance the Wikimedia movement
> with technology. Therefore, our next technical event will be focused on
> Platform Evolution.
>
> We will hold a 4 day conference with topics that pertain to the Platform
> Evolution goals that we want to achieve in the next 3 to 5 years with a
> shared understanding of the product vision around those goals while also
> enhancing technical engagement within the Foundation and embracing and
> empowering our large community of volunteer developers.
>
> Day 1: Product driven discussions on the how’s and why’s of our shared
> goals.
> Day 2 & 3: A deep dive into specific technical ideas, concerns, and
> outcomes around the newly formed Platform Evolution cross-departmental
> program.
> Day 4: An unconference / ‘get stuff done’ format along with sessions on
> building and sustaining our developer community.
>
> We are also moving the time of year that we’ll hold this new event. The
> previously established timeframe had been in January, typically adjacent to
> the annual Foundation All Hands gathering, to allow for co-location of
> events. However, feedback from both the DevSummit and All Hands
> participants indicates that both events need more time to accomplish their
> goals. All Hands is a once-a-year event that many teams use to come
> together, face to face, for working meetings; as well as the entire
> Foundation getting together for meetings. Going forward, we will decouple
> the DevSummit from All Hands, to give both gatherings the time and space
> that all attendees need to be productive and successful.
>
> This first of the event series will take place in Q2 of our fiscal year
> 2018-2019, in October 2018, and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikimedia Foundation's FY18-19 Annual Plan is on Meta-wiki

2018-03-30 Thread Robert Fernandez
Could we not conflate the US with the WMF?  There are a large number
Wikimedia volunteers in the US who fuel a robust group of chapters, user
groups, conferences, and individual outreach efforts who act independently
of the WMF just like affiliates in the Global South.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This seems to be an increase of $15 million USD in the WMF’s budget, with
> a $0.2 USD million increase in the international Wikimedia budget (through
> grants to chapters and other affiliates).
>
> That goes against the movement direction of "As a social movement, we will
> focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out
> by structures of power and privilege”. Why aren’t we increasing our
> spending in the global south (through local affiliates) at the same rate
> that we are increasing it in the US?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 29 Mar 2018, at 17:42, Katherine Maher  wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm delighted to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan for
> > FY18-19 is now on Meta[1].
> >
> > This year, we have organized our efforts around three goals that focus on
> > making critical improvements to our systems and structures to ensure that
> > we’re better positioned for our coming work against the strategic
> > direction[2]. The Foundation’s goals for this year should not only move
> us
> > closer to knowledge equity and service, but will prepare us to execute
> > against the 3- to 5-year strategic plan which we intend to develop this
> > year in order to guide the Foundation’s work into the future.
> >
> > As you’ll see, we’ve made some changes to the structure of this year’s
> > annual plan. This year’s plan is organized around three goals for the
> > Foundation’s work in the year to come. By restructuring the Annual Plan,
> we
> > have written a plan for the whole Foundation,  rather than an aggregation
> > of plans from all of our departments and teams. In this sense, we’re
> > seeking to become a better-integrated institution, rather than a
> collection
> > of teams and departments with disparate goals.
> >
> > We’ve also reduced the overall length of the published Annual Plan. We
> > wanted to make sure that the focus and goals of our work don’t get lost
> in
> > the details. Of course, we know that many community members enjoy reading
> > the particulars of our planned work, so you can still access the details
> of
> > departmental programs through links to their descriptions on Meta or
> > MediaWiki.org. These links will provide interested readers with detailed
> > departmental programs, which describe the specific and detailed program
> > goals, impact and outcomes. This change does not sacrifice the depth and
> > rigor of our planning process, but rather, it is meant to keep the Annual
> > Plan lean and focused while allowing interested readers to dive deep into
> > the details.
> >
> > Finally, we’ve expanded the planning framework we instituted last year
> for
> > cross-departmental programs to all of our programs across the Foundation.
> > This allows us to clearly link a program’s resources to outcomes and
> > measures. As such, we’ve presented the Annual Plan budget in terms of our
> > investments in the three defined goals rather than in terms of our
> internal
> > organizational structure.
> >
> > Thank you all for your support over the past year. I'm really looking
> > forward to your feedback on this year's proposed plan during the open
> > comment period -- a reminder it runs through May 15th.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Katherine
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Draft
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017
> >
> > --
> > Katherine Maher
> >
> > Executive Director
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> > San Francisco, CA 94104
> >
> > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885>
> > +1 (415) 712 4873 <(415)%20712-4873>
> > kma...@wikimedia.org
> > https://annual.wikimedia.org
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

2017-11-29 Thread Robert Fernandez
You're right, my mistake.  Sorry I did not get your allusion, just as you
didn't get the entire point of the Signpost piece.  These things happen.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Renée Bagslint <reneebagsl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Anti-elitism 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: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia mocks expert contributor

2017-11-29 Thread Robert Fernandez
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Renée Bagslint 
wrote:
>
> So there we have it.  A Wikpedian-in-Residence makes it clear that "experts
> are scum".


It is remarkably inappropriate for you to put this phrase in quotation
marks giving them impression that it is an exact quote when these words
appear nowhere in the piece.
___
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] Women in red

2017-10-16 Thread Robert Fernandez
Is the English Wikipedia the only Wikipedia which has problems with
misogyny and under-representation of female editors and articles? I am
relieved to hear that!


On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland <jpbel...@wikimedia.ca
> wrote:

> There is so many threads on this list that are only about English Wikipedia
> like it is the centre of the world... Why other communities are able to
> keep their internal discussions internal and not this community?
>
> Jean-Philippe Béland
> Vice President, Wikimedia Canada
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
> list-wikime...@funcrunch.org> wrote:
>
> > The people whose opinion should most matter in determining whether a
> > comment is sexist are women. Not men, and not non-binary transmasculine
> > people like myself.
> >
> > I support and echo Emily and Molly's earlier comments on this thread:
> >
> >
> > Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's
> >> message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
> >>
> >> I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns that
> this
> >> will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for in the
> >> document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this project
> >> will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including not
> >> mass-producing poor-quality content).
> >>
> >> As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between
> >> describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a sexist. I
> >> believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's said can
> >> be
> >> described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism of
> poor
> >> wording.
> >>
> >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare
> <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
> >> gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to
> this
> >> list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue with
> her
> >> email address.
> >>
> >> "This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some
> >> stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD
> >> everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
> >>
> >> I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about women
> to a
> >> higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia isn't
> going
> >> to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a bunch
> of
> >> stubs.
> >>
> >> And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women? It's
> better
> >> than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I
> shouldn't
> >> have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands."
> >>
> >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> >>
> >
> > - Pax aka Funcrunch
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/16/17 10:11 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> >
> >> Is that still going on?
> >>
> >> I'm against sexism and all for improving coverage of women on Wikipedia.
> >> I've helped to encourage events toward that end, and they've turned out
> >> pretty well. We now have quite a few more articles, for example, on
> women
> >> involved as pioneers in outdoor sports and activities because of them.
> >>
> >> But I'm unsure how asking the question "Is it wise to offer money in
> >> exchange for creating large numbers of articles without consideration of
> >> quality?" or "Will this effort have the intended result?" is sexist. The
> >> same question would apply if the proposed articles were about Russian
> >> literature or asteroids. It is not sexist to ask the question just
> because
> >> of what the subject happens to be.
> >>
> >> I think that needs to be discussed, not sidetracked by calling people
> >> sexists. If people really were making sexist statements, I'd be all for
> >> shutting that crap down. But I've seen not one such statement in this
> >> thread.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Oct 16, 2017 10:28 AM, "Robert Fernandez" <wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> So those who call out sexism are the real sexists, amirite?
> >>>
> >>> I am fed up with this double standard in the way we talk about these

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-16 Thread Robert Fernandez
So those who call out sexism are the real sexists, amirite?

I am fed up with this double standard in the way we talk about these
issues.  Some people are allowed to make broad, unsupported, sweeping
generalizations about the motives and actions of others and that's
considered just fine, but if you call them out in even the gentlest tones
it's treated as some horrific personal attack, and censure and apologies
are demanded.  We've culturally internalized sexism so much that even the
way we talk about sexism is sexist.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Vi to  wrote:
>
>
> But just a note: using the same behavior of phenomena you're trying to
> contast is, per se, a clear defeat.
> To be more clear, blind -because you obviously don't know *nothing* about
> their backgrounds- vilification of other's opinions is, incidentally, one
> the of the main instruments of "cultural" sexism.
___
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] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-25 Thread Robert Fernandez
I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
uncrossable line here.

Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
responding to the person in question despite his allegations against me.
It is a mistake to frame this as a free speech issue.  It is of course in
the interests of a person engaging in bullying and harassing behavior to
claim people are trying to suppress their powerful truths, but there is no
reason we have to accept this duplicitous framing.  The content of the
message is immaterial, the behavior is the issue.  Some people may see this
as a grey area given that it was a Foundation employee, but I see it as a
slippery slope.  Seddon's job is almost certainly safe, but this might not
be the case for the next victim.  Will the poster in question decide that I
am "bullying and harassing" him and attempt to contact my employer next?

Most of my fellow board members of my chapter are the employees of US
government agencies or connected to the Foundation as an employee or a
grant recipient.   Given the unusual political climate in the US I worry
that the former group are particularly vulnerable to harassment targeting
their employment.   (Media outlets favored by the current US presidential
administration have targeted individual Wikimedia editors, including
myself, in the past.)  If participants on this list are allowed to engage
in this sort of harassment without real consequence, I will advise that my
chapter and its board members and volunteers no longer participate on this
list due to the risk to their livelihoods.


On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Shani Evenstein <shani.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia-l,
>
> Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable,
> respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is
> important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard, including those of
> "frequent flyers" in the list, especially as we work collaboratively on
> next steps towards a healthier community atmosphere.
>
> In addition, we are asking everyone to refrain from focusing on specific
> individuals posting to the list, put any personal issues aside and stay on
> problem. We want as many people as possible to productively and objectively
> participate in the discussion, till we draft clearer guidelines for posting
> to the list. We are aware that these guidelines will not automagically fix
> all of our issues as a global community, but we believe they will help
> reduce the noise substantially. Do keep on debating. We are trying to
> intervene as little as possible at this point and let the debate run its
> course.
>
> Best,
> Shani Evenstein, on behalf of the Wikimedia-l Admins.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
>> length less than a year ago?
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Peri
>> odic_survey_prototype
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
>> <wikigamal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from
>> the
>> > list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
>> > why they will not do so.
>> >
>> > I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
>> > participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters
>> contacting
>> > your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm
>> that my
>> >> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
>> >>
>> >> And I stand by them.
>> >>
>> >> Seddon
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
>> domedonf...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Joseph
>> >> >
>> >> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.
>> I
>> >> said
>> >> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity
>> To
>> >> the
>> >> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to
>> ask
>> >> how
>> >> > that personal information is goin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-24 Thread Robert Fernandez
Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
why they will not do so.

I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
participation here than one of this list's most frequent posters contacting
your employer because he disagrees with what you have to say.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that my
> choice of words were very carefully chosen.
>
> And I stand by them.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Joseph
> >
> > I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that you do so too.  I
> said
> > that the proposal "involves", not "is equal to" real-life identity  To
> the
> > extent that real-life identities are involved, it is reasonable to ask
> how
> > that personal information is going to be handled.  For some reason, you
> > seem keen to derail that part of the discussion by elevating a quibble
> over
> > your hasty misunderstanding of my wording into an accusation, which I
> > reject, of generalised misconduct.  If you have some comment to make
> about
> > the handling of personal information, please do so.
> >
> > May I suggest that you withdraw your original posting, apologise to the
> > membership of this list for the unconstructive nature of your posting,
> and
> > to me for its aggressive, insulting and incorrect content.
> Alternatively,
> > perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is the
> > sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum.
> >
> > Reginald
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Seddon 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Real identity does not equal real-life identity. You can mask your
> > > pseudonymous identity and pose as a third party similarly pseudonymous
> > > individual.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
> > >
> > > Seddon
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *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] New style banner - A heads up

2017-08-23 Thread Robert Fernandez
Is anyone actually confusing the banner with article content, or are they
just assuming others will do so?
___
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] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-23 Thread Robert Fernandez
Agreed.  This sort of thinly veiled threat towards someone, whether the
Foundation is their employer or not, should be grounds for moderation or
banning.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Dan Rosenthal  wrote:

> Hey Rogol:
>
> "Alternatively,
> perhaps you would prefer me to ask your line manager whether this is the
> sort of behaviour that she expects you to exhibit in a public forum."
>
> This is the kind of "unconstructive" behavior the list is talking about. I
> fail to see how threatening to tattle to someone's manager, because they
> disagreed with you about the wording of your posts in public, is either
> constructive or the "sort of behavior" one would "expect you to exhibit in
> a public forum." But then again, I'd venture to guess you knew that
> already.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > Thoughtful, practical, good. Thank you.
> >
> > On Aug 22, 2017 9:03 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi list members,
> >
> > The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
> > humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> > posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
> > posters (some of them frequent) create.
> >
> > It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
> > frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
> > to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
> >
> > We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> > volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
> > but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> > quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
> >
> > The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> > three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
> > which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> > are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> > will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> > need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> > volume will often achieve the same result.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
> >
> > The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never
> > been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
> > clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests
> > the current quota is too high.
> >
> > A review of the stats at
> > https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few
> > people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
> > exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
> > members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are
> > repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating
> > themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their
> > opinion heard.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
> >
> > As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
> > proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have
> > been globally banned by the community according to the
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
> >
> > This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat
> > puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy.  The list admins
> > would prefer that globally banned people communicate their grievances
> > via established members of our community who can guide them, rather
> > than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned people on
> > how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience, and
> > then required to block them when they do not follow advice.  The role
> > of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only patrolling
> > the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping
> > globally banned users.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by two
> > Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month
> >
> > This proposal is intended to strike a balance between openness and
> > quality of discourse.
> >
> > Banned people occasionally use the wikimedia-l mailing list as a
> > substitute of the meta Request for comment system, and banned people
> > also occasionally provide constructive criticisms and thought
> > provoking views.  This proposal hopes to allow that to continue.
> >
> > However people who have been banned on a few projects also use this
> > list as their “last stand”, having already exhausted the community
> > patience on the wikis.  Sometimes the last stand is brief, but
> > occasionally a banned person is able to maintain sufficient decorum
> > that they are not 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

2017-08-23 Thread Robert Fernandez
It is a mistake to frame the use of a community resource in terms of a
legal or justice system, or an individual's rights or punishment.   This is
an issue of the management of a community resource, and a community
resource must be managed in a way that works for the community as a whole,
not just the most frequent or longest participating posters.  If community
members are unwilling to participate because of the volume or vehemence of
particular posters, that must be considered.  The community should not
belong to only the loudest voices.

These issues have a long-term effect on community health and transparency.
If community members and Foundation staffers do not feel they can
participate in a forum like this, they will find other channels to
communicate, and those channels may not be as transparent and accessible as
this one.


On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> You indicate that you aim to reduce the volume. I think the number of posts
> is at a record low. The notion that the number of edits per person must be
> brought down is not a reflection of the number of posts made to this list.
> When you disagree on this, show some statistics.
>
> When you put people on moderation and then further reduce the number of
> edits they can make, you are punishing twice. In this the moderators are
> judge jury and executioner.
>
> The notion that people prefer to post on a meta is also not a given.
> Personally I do not have the time and the inclination. It is like facebook
> a timesinc that is unlikely to make much of a difference because of the
> vested interest of those at Meta.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 23 August 2017 at 06:03, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
>
> > Hi list members,
> >
> > The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your
> > humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent
> > posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some
> > posters (some of them frequent) create.
> >
> > It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more
> > frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due
> > to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages.
> >
> > We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the
> > volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more,
> > but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the
> > quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation.
> >
> > The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last
> > three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within
> > which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics
> > are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that
> > will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing
> > need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the
> > volume will often achieve the same result.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15
> >
> > The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never
> > been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still
> > clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests
> > the current quota is too high.
> >
> > A review of the stats at
> > https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few
> > people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people
> > exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list
> > members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are
> > repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating
> > themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their
> > opinion heard.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted
> >
> > As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this
> > proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have
> > been globally banned by the community according to the
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy.
> >
> > This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat
> > puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy.  The list admins
> > would prefer that globally banned people communicate their grievances
> > via established members of our community who can guide them, rather
> > than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned people on
> > how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience, and
> > then required to block them when they do not follow advice.  The role
> > of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only patrolling
> > the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping
> > globally banned users.
> > --
> >
> > Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by two
> > Wikimedia communities 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement of the Scoring Platform team

2017-07-25 Thread Robert Fernandez
Come on, Aaron.  You can't expect people to read the entire blog post.


On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> Hi Rogol,
>
> In the blog post, I include a major section titled "Where we plan to go
> next" which gives a high level overview of our plans for the next year.
> There's a section right beneath that called "How to learn more and get
> involved" with links to our team documentation, out technical blog, ORES'
> documentation, our mailing list, and our IRC channel.
>
> -Aaron
>
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > James
> >
> > In the light of what you say, I expect that Aaron will have no problem
> with
> > being asked to follow his announcement on this list of "Democarizing
> axxess
> > to AI" by posting in the same location as the original announcment a
> > follow-up with a pointer to the plans and places for the community to be
> > able to engage with his team in this democratic enterprise.  It seems
> that
> > you yourself do not have this information, or if you do, that you do not
> > wish to share it with the rest of us here.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:46 AM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Rogol, you might want to look at the history of Aaron's talk pages and
> > > e.g. on Jimbotalk and various places on meta. He's been incredibly
> > > receptive to suggestions and ideas from the community, moreso than
> > > perhaps any other Foundation employee.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Rogol Domedonfors
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Aaron,
> > > >
> > > > You write of "Democratizing access to AI."   But it seems that what
> you
> > > > mean is publishing the results of your work more widely.  Do you have
> > > plan
> > > > to democratize in the sense of involving a wider range of people in
> the
> > > > decisions about how you work and what you work on – the wider
> Wikimedia
> > > > Community, for example – and if so, how will you engage with that
> wider
> > > > decision-making group?
> > > >
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Aaron Halfaker <
> > ahalfa...@wikimedia.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hey folks,
> > > >>
> > > >> This is a little overdue, but I wanted to work with comms to craft a
> > > blog
> > > >> post that would help us do a bit of outreach around the announcement
> > of
> > > the
> > > >> team.  That just went live.
> > > >>
> > > >> See https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/07/19/scoring-platform-team/
> > > >>
> > > >> -Aaron
> > > >> Principal research scientist
> > > >> Lead of the Scoring Platform team
> > > >> 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
> > ,
> > > >>  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/wik
> > i/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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

2017-06-29 Thread Robert Fernandez
>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially,

Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that
their response was quite clear.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Greg and Anna
>
> This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of
> transparency.  By not explaining clearly to the community what was
> happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the
> community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten
> hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the
> Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this
> multi-million dollar project.
>
> Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question
> about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and
> able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and
> pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion.  The more information you
> share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will
> build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to
> help you.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
>
> > Pine,
> >
> > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of
> > things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> >
> > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses
> > related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year
> > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June
> > 2018).
> >
> > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on
> the
> > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> calling
> > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> Board),
> > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I
> > imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went
> > from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight,
> > to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> >
> > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a
> > demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of
> > this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> >
> > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders
> > • 2: Number of Board members now involved
> > • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far
> > • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far
> > • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > salary)
> >
> > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to
> > provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we
> > would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this
> > level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this
> > community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is
> > why we have established processes.
> >
> > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that
> it
> > was written.
> >
> > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Anna,
> > >
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >
> > > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
> projected
> > to
> > > cost,
> > > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> > >
> > >
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > >>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > >>> perspective.
> > >>>
> > >
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> > > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > >> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

2017-06-28 Thread Robert Fernandez
You're right, it is way too much weight to assign to it.  It's a perfectly
reasonable statement that can be read as "The fact that we are under budget
is a sign that our normal fiscal controls are working" so I'm baffled that
it is being interpreted as "We don't care what we spend money on at all as
long as it is under this arbitrary number".

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Budget control is not just accounting.  When a process that employs a lot
> of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is
> then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs.
> Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures
> in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they
> are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like
> that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity
> and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out,
> whichever happens first.  This would not now be best practice, but perhaps
> it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> What kind of answer are you expecting here?  Do you have any reason to
>> believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
>> procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process?  What
>> measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
>> regards to the strategy process?  Why is "the regular accounting stuff we
>> do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a
>> specific enough answer?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
>> need
>> > > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
>> > > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
>> detail
>> > > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>> >
>> > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
>> > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
>> > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
>> > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
>> > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
>> > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
>> > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
>> > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
>> satisfied.
>> > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
>> > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
>> seems
>> > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

2017-06-27 Thread Robert Fernandez
What kind of answer are you expecting here?  Do you have any reason to
believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process?  What
measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
regards to the strategy process?  Why is "the regular accounting stuff we
do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a
specific enough answer?


On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>
> > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
> My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems
> very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
___
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] Wikimedia District of Columbia: New Institutional Partnerships Manager

2017-05-03 Thread Robert Fernandez
Wikimedia District of Columbia is pleased to announce the hiring of our
first employee.   Ariel Cetrone has joined WMDC as our Institutional
Partnerships Manager, where she will plan and facilitate events with our
many institutional partners, including cultural, academic, and professional
organizations.  Her work will help expand our outreach role in DC and
surrounding states and maximize the effectiveness of our volunteer time and
energy. A native of Philadelphia, Cetrone is a graduate of George
Washington University and Drexel University.  She previously worked for
Historic RittenhouseTown, a Philadelphia nonprofit organization and
historic site, and the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities.
___
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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Robert Fernandez
>Personally I'm much more grateful for the people who did not
>spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally"
>exercise power over others

If the organizers of this proposal responded in kind with even a fraction
of the bad faith accusations that have been leveled at them, the howls of
outrage would be deafening.


On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Tim Landscheidt 
wrote:

> Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > […]
>
> > On a separate note to those of you who contribute to technical spaces and
> > are not happy about how some aspects have gone:
>
> > Matthew and a few other people have been trying /really hard/ to make
> > Wikimedia's technical spaces better. You know that embarking on such a
> path
> > is very difficult: it requires spending many many hours of your time
> (read
> > life) on it, elaborating, deliberating, documenting, discussing things
> with
> > people from different paths of life, etc. They have been doing it for
> > months now. It's my understanding that they are doing this not to
> exercise
> > power over others but to make our technical spaces better, to make them
> > more enjoyable to contribute in.
>
> > For all of us who contribute in technical spaces, we should remember: We
> > may not agree with every step they take, but we all owe it to them to
> help
> > them on this path. What they are doing is a good thing and that's
> something
> > that sometimes gets lost in these lengthy conversations.
>
> This is a circular and illogical argument.  Just because
> someone has good intentions or invested time and effort does
> not mean that the path they chose is the right one to take.
> And if someone is steering towards a cliff, encouraging peo-
> ple to keep pushing the cart to honour the navigator's dedi-
> cation is self-destructive.
>
> Personally I'm much more grateful for the people who did not
> spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally"
> exercise power over others, but made our technical spaces
> better and more enjoyable by reporting bugs, debugging, an-
> swering questions, writing patches, reviewing contributions
> or creating or translating documentation.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> 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] WMF advanced permissions for employees

2017-02-17 Thread Robert Fernandez
There is actually quite a bit of community involvement in the process.
They repeatedly respond to community requests for information about
processes and are open to community feedback regarding them.  What they
won't do is give you specific information about specific cases, and so the
demands for extreme transparency will never be satisfied.   I would support
a call for an independent professional audit, from inside or outside the
WMF, of cases or processes, but these details should never be revealed to
volunteers who do not possess the training to deal with these sensitive
issues or have any professional or legal accountability if they screw up or
release personal information, as has happened numerous times when community
volunteers were entrusted with these tasks.

Personally I have completely lost faith in the clown car of community
governance, but I understand that to many in our community it is an
important value.  But as Nathan said, community governance is not always
the best tool.  Why do we believe that the same tools can deal with the
problems of deciding what to put on the front page and what to do about a
victimized child?

And to this I would add that these are not issues of community governance
at all.   The WMF should not interfere in matters of community governance
like policy issues regarding article content, etc.  But when we are talking
about issues regarding off-wiki harassment, sexual predators, etc., why
should this fall under the banner of community governance as it has nothing
to do with writing an encyclopedia?  These are legal, real world issues and
should be handled by professionals and/or law enforcement.



On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple
> people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community
> involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the US
> we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions
> about who should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a trial
> by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
> (which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it is
> both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
> decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in the
> process.
>
> I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
> enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have been
> made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose letting
> "the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
> ___
> 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] WMF advanced permissions for employees

2017-02-16 Thread Robert Fernandez
If WMF staff members are blocking volunteers out of revenge, we have much
larger problems than transparency.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Still, in some cases the WMF global ban sounds like a revenge to an
> individual, and when (understandably) WMF refuses to elaborate what was the
> motivation for a global ban this impression gets even stronger.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't see the point of paying for legal and community safety experts
> > if we aren't going to allow them to engage in their area of
> > professional expertise.  Transparency, due process, and community
> > governance are important values, but they are not the skills you need
> > to bring to bear when it comes to issues such as, for example,
> > predatory individuals victimizing underage editors.   I know this
> > sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of
> > untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are,
> > attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the
> > thought of what passes for community governance on the English
> > Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling.  It
> > has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and
> > opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to
> > site-ban
> > > individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community,
> > particularly
> > > when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
> > > incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance
> of
> > > Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

2017-02-16 Thread Robert Fernandez
I don't see the point of paying for legal and community safety experts
if we aren't going to allow them to engage in their area of
professional expertise.  Transparency, due process, and community
governance are important values, but they are not the skills you need
to bring to bear when it comes to issues such as, for example,
predatory individuals victimizing underage editors.   I know this
sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of
untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are,
attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the
thought of what passes for community governance on the English
Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling.  It
has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and
opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.


On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:

>
> * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to site-ban
> individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community, particularly
> when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
> incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of
> Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).

___
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] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Robert Fernandez
>The world is not San Francisco.

That's rather dismissive of those of us who have nothing to do with
San Francisco.   You complain about the WMF not listening to voices in
the community but you ignore a large part of that community who
disagrees with you.


On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter  wrote:
> The
> people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the
> Wikimedia movement.
>
>
> The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the Trump 
> administration are not representative of the Wikimedia movement either... 
> they have been WMF employees and those closest to them. This is maybe why 
> most non-profits hire EDs from outside the organization then from within. As 
> you show, Gerard, there has been no effort to find out what the movement 
> thinks, and that may have been those behind the statement and amicus brief 
> just assumed everybody would agree with them. The world is not San Francisco.
>
>
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of 
> Gerard Meijssen 
> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51:24 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
>
> Hoi,
> As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter.
> What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and are
> not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some extend
> policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from thinking.
> The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of
> many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It is
> however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from
> the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception
> is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and because
> of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I
> most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non
> professional communities because there are errors in their work. Obviously
> self reflection is lacking.
>
> Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I know.
>
> When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite
> happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US
> American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people to
> come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again, we
> are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real world.
> In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the
> situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this
> field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.
>
> The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do not
> represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the
> WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The
> people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the
> Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board
> that reflects the international composition of our movement does really
> well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they
> are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are
> seen as law.
>
> Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to
> empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The
> current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this
> invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are
> invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the
> pace whereby new ukazes are issued.
>
> If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to inform,
> to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our general
> practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face a
> world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those who
> are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I am
> happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different
> outcome in the Netherlands.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight  wrote:
>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us
>> care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world,
>> I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our
>> movement-wide political processes are.  To my understanding, our tools
>> consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing list,
>> a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Robert Fernandez
The same way I would respond any time they do something non-political
I strongly disagree with.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:00 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> You somewhat conveniently avoided addressing Nathan's point. If the
> Wikimedia Foundation issued a political statement with a view that you
> found deeply offensive and strongly disagreed with, how would you respond?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Robert Fernandez
That is an obvious false equivalence.  The issue isn't people rooting
for the WMF to take political stances that mirror their own.  The
issue is whether or not that the WMF should recognize that its mission
can intersect with or conflict with political stances and then act
appropriately.  The free dissemination of factual, neutral information
and the ability of editors to participate in that dissemination is in
many contexts a political act and the WMF should recognize this.  To
contend that Wikimedia activity is, can be, or should be always
politically neutral is naive and comes from a place of privilege where
your personal engagement will likely never be threatened by political
interference.



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:
>
>> ...After all there is a notion called "freedom of speech"  Katherine
>> Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent wikipedians from
>> editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV (actually there is no
>> achieved NPOV on Wikipedia in what concerns the gender biases as far as I
>> see it).
>
>
>
> I imagine that your response would be different if Katherine's position
> didn't match your own. What if she posted that she agreed that "extreme
> vetting" was an appropriate response to the risk of terrorist attacks, that
> nations with liberal refugee policies had experienced multiple attacks in
> recent years, and that radicalism is an existential threat to free
> societies? These are views shared by hundreds of millions of people
> (although not you, Katherine, or me). This hopefully illustrates why taking
> political positions beyond the mission is fraught with risk, and why the
> frequent demands that the WMF (or the community) do so are misplaced.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

2016-12-20 Thread Robert Fernandez
"My perspective is that the 2015 board was not particularly responsive to
community (or WMF employees') questions or input, including questions and
input regarding human resources and governance matters. (For example, I
still haven't seen a good explanation of why WMF shouldn't undergo a
governance review in the wake of Doc James' dismissal; WMF has appeared to
try to brush that issue under the rug rather than address it with the level
of transparency and rigor that I feel it deserves.)"

Have to agree with Pine here.  Some members like Dariusz Jemielniak went
out of their way to attempt to address community concerns, but as a whole
their response to the craziness of the last year seems to be silence and
platitudes.



On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Christophe,
>
> I wish it was true that the Board is required to answer the community's
> questions, but that isn't the case. WMF isn't a membership organization,
> there isn't a policy that requires the Board to be responsive to community
> input and questions, and the community has limited ability to influence the
> Board (though I think it is wise for the Board to listen).
>
> My perspective is that the 2015 board was not particularly responsive to
> community (or WMF employees') questions or input, including questions and
> input regarding human resources and governance matters. (For example, I
> still haven't seen a good explanation of why WMF shouldn't undergo a
> governance review in the wake of Doc James' dismissal; WMF has appeared to
> try to brush that issue under the rug rather than address it with the level
> of transparency and rigor that I feel it deserves.) Thankfully the level of
> responsiveness has improved since 2015, but it's incorrect to say that the
> Board is required to respond to community questions.
>
> The vague nature of the resolution as MZMcBride quotes it makes me
> uncomfortable. I would suggest revising the language of this resolution so
> that it is clearer which kinds of changes the Board will require the
> Executive Director to submit to the WMF Board for approval. I realize that
> it may seem expedient to grant the Executive Director wide latitude, but I
> feel that the Board should provide more specificity, particularly given
> what happened when the Board was apparently so lax with the supervision of
> the previous Executive Director.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Christophe Henner  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need to do
> > small and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the whole
> > resolution process to change a comma.
> >
> > We're still informed and are talking with staff about those changes.
> >
> > As for responsibility, we decided to delegate responsibility, but at the
> > end of the day we still will have to answer the community's question :)
> >
> > Have a good day
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 20 déc. 2016 6:50 AM, "MZMcBride"  a écrit :
> >
> > This is probably of interest to this list.
> >
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Delegation_of_policy-
> making_authority
> >
> > ---
> > Delegation of policy-making authority
> >
> > This was approved on December 13, 2016 by the Board of Trustees.
> >
> > Whereas, the Board of Trustees has traditionally approved certain global
> > Wikimedia Foundation policies (such as the Privacy Policy and Terms of
> > Use) as requested during the July 4, 2004 Board meeting
> > ;
> >
> > Whereas, the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director has authority to
> > conduct the affairs of the Wikimedia Foundation, which includes adopting
> > and implementing policies;
> >
> > Resolved, the Board hereby delegates the authority to adopt, alter, and
> > revoke policies to the Executive Director, who may further delegate such
> > authority to Wikimedia Foundation staff as they deem appropriate;
> >
> > Resolved, the Board may continue to review and approve policies for the
> > Wikimedia Foundation upon request to the Executive Director or as
> required
> > by law.
> >
> > Approve
> >
> >Christophe Henner (Chair), Maria Sefidari (Vice Chair), Dariusz
> >Jemielniak, Kelly Battles, Guy Kawasaki, Jimmy Wales, Nataliia Tymkiv,
> >and Alice Wiegand
> > ---
> >
> > I wonder how much of this resolution is formalizing what was already
> > happening and how much of this is moving the Wikimedia Foundation in a
> new
> > direction. After a very tumultuous year at the Wikimedia Foundation, this
> > is certainly a notable development.
> >
> > I also wonder in what ways this abrupt change will alter the relationship
> > between the editing communities and the Board of Trustees. The Wikimedia
> > Foundation Board of Trustees seems to be committing itself to downsizing
> > its role and responsibilities. The concern is that a change 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)

2016-07-15 Thread Robert Fernandez
> If I can get a
few hundred people to click on a link like this
,
I can get any message I want on that list. (Curious? Did you click?) The
message could be less anonymous and much more obnoxious, obviously

They could vandalize any one of over ten million pages on the English
Wikipedia and get the same result.  We should be conscious of the
dangers but we can easily route around them like we do with other
kinds of vandalism.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Improving search (sort of)

2016-07-15 Thread Robert Fernandez
Excellent idea.  Librarians use patron catalog searches to gauge what
their patrons are looking for and supplement their collections
accordingly, there's no reason we can't adopt this practice as well.

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:32 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> A while ago I requested a list of the "most frequently searched for terms
> for which no Wikipedia articles are returned". This would allow the
> community to than create redirect or new pages as appropriate and help
> address the "zero results rate" of about 30%.
>
> While we are still waiting for this data I have recently come across a list
> of the most frequently clicked on redlinks on En WP produced by Andrew West
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks Many of
> these can be reasonably addressed with a redirect as the issue is often
> capitals.
>
> Do anyone know where things are at with respect to producing the list of
> most search for terms that return nothing?
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Robert Fernandez
"No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
them."

This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to the
encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to improve the
encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by withdrawing
those resources.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not.
> The
> > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> >
> > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
>
> Dear Gerard,
>
> You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
>
> No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> them.
>
> Sincerely,
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Robert Fernandez
The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
 (Here's my take on that debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial).
I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
abandon this arrangement.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni 
> wrote:
> > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> despicable
> > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
>
> There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> projects.
>
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Robert Fernandez
I watched this remotely, good stuff.  Everyone seemed to be in basic
agreement on the issues.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please see the video archive and blog posts from our panel discussion about
> the Wikipedia Library and its engagement with Elsevier and various
> proprietary sources of information:
> http://wikistrategies.net/oa-wikipedia-panel/
>
> On the panel were Jake Orlowitz of the Wikipedia library, and several Open
> Access publishing advocates.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> (I convened and moderated the panel)
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
> > Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
> >  (Here's my take on that debate:
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial
> > ).
> > I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
> > abandon this arrangement.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni <
> zanni.andre...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > > > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > > > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> > > despicable
> > > > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > > > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
> > >
> > > There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> > > and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> > > projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Milos
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> > 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
> 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
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] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

2016-02-12 Thread Robert Fernandez
Actually, you are complaining.

I am against relentless negativity of the kind you see from many
self-styled and self-important Wikipedia critics.  I'd hardly put Pine in
that group.  The idea that Pine's measured and reasonable post could be
described as "baying for blood" is ridiculous.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
> beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official
> query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
>
> My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> >
> > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> and
> > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
> > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> are
> > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
> > are
> > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > forward.
> > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
> > >
> > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> have
> > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
> > it
> > > and that is ok.
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > questions
> > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > >
> > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
> not
> > > > mentioned in
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > relatively
> > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> > about
> > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
> about
> > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > > question
> > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> > about
> > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> > direction,
> > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > >
> > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> > address
> > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> > > those
> > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > > recent
> > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> > > making
> > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult
> to
> > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
> > this
> > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
> Personally,
> > I
> > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with
> the
> > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> > > restoring
> > > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
> > goodwill.
> > > I
> > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> > > interested
> > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-10 Thread Robert Fernandez
The US may be too geographically spread out to develop a robust chapter
system.  We have vibrant chapters in a few dense population areas.
Wikimedia District of Columbia is particularly awesome.  But for most US
editors there isn't a critical mass of editors in some areas.  Often we
work with with chapters that are geographically distant.  There's at least
two of us on the Board of Directors of WMDC who don't live particularly
close to DC.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> "We also do not have a strong chapter system"
>
> This has always puzzled me, because I am a firm believer in the chapter
> system, despite its faults and limitations. Isn't it time to address this
> for the more active areas of the USA?
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> > GerardM,
> >
> > As much as I agree with you on many things related to Wikimania, your
> > statement about en.wp and USA being “over subsidized” is off base.
> >
> > For the last few years I’ve held my tongue as American applicants get a
> > fraction of 10% of all the funding for Wikimania scholarships. That’s
> > because 10% is allocated to all of North America, so US based folks
> compete
> > with Canadians for that small slice of the pie. Indeed, key community
> > members from the US could not afford to go to Wikimania, and did not,
> > because of the limited funding. We also do not have a strong chapter
> system
> > to make up for that shortcoming, where European chapters can, and do,
> > underwrite their local members with other funds.
> >
> > I am not against the bulk of the scholarship money going to
> > underrepresented developing markets and giving new voices a chance to
> > attend. But I wanted to dispel the myth that Americans are always gorging
> > at the trough.
> >
> >
> >
> https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Scholarship_selection_process
> > https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Selection_process
> >
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Pine with all due respect, the USA is not the problem and English
> > Wikipedia
> > > has been overly subsidised, given way too much attention. Indeed having
> > > more people from the USA attend Wikimania is not a good value
> > proposition.
> > > The USA and Britain is overrepresented as it is.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > On 10 February 2016 at 10:13, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > From a US perspective, even here in the global north we have plenty
> of
> > > > students and middle-class participants for whom $1500 in travel, food
> > and
> > > > lodging plus 5 days away from work, family, or school amounts to a
> > > > significant or impossible sacrifice.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps someone could tell us the statistics for how many people have
> > > > attended Wikimania each year who were not WMF employees, FDC or WMF
> > Board
> > > > members, scholarship recipients, or financially sponsored by WMF
> > > affiliates
> > > > or WEF. Of those people who pay 100% of their own costs plus the cost
> > of
> > > > admission tickets, my guess is that many live within a day's travel
> > time
> > > by
> > > > train, car, or bus.
> > > >
> > > > I would hypothesize that thematic conferences also have a low
> > percentage
> > > of
> > > > people who pay 100% of their own costs, but that regional conferences
> > > which
> > > > have lower travel costs for the average attendee receive modestly
> > higher
> > > > percentages of unsubsidized attendance.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that WMF finacial support for conferences, including
> > > > regional and thematic conferences, will continue to be the norm.
> > > >
> > > > Whether $1 million is appropriate for Wikimania and whether a more
> > modest
> > > > budget would be appropriate and feasable are different questions that
> > > merit
> > > > careful reflection.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > 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
> > > 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
> > New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-10 Thread Robert Fernandez
I just want to clarify something.  I apologize in advance for being
pedantic.

In the US the term Latino is also applied to those of us who live in the
United States who have cultural and ethnic ties to Latin America.  Based on
my reading of the selection process those Latinos would not be preferred
applicants.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Béria Lima  wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> *For the last few years I’ve held my tongue as American applicants get a
> > fraction of 10% of all the funding for Wikimania scholarships.*
> >
>
> Actually you are looking at the old numbers. Both Wikimanias 2015 and 2016
> uses a new method of selection. Now, the Global North*[1]  *has 25% of all
> scholarships, and the Global South*[2]* has 75%. Now that you have to
> compete with most of the rich countries in the world. And is not all: If
> you get into the final 10% of the "cutoff",your place may be taken away by
> a woman (or transgender) or a Latino, since that is the policy now*[3]*.
>
> And I for one agree with the new policy. The effort made by a European (or
> American, or Canadian) to travel to a Wikimania, is something like one
> month of salary. For a woman from the same place will probably be 2 months
> (pay gap at its finest!) and for a Latino, African, or Asiatic the effort
> starts at 6 months and go on to even a decade*[4]* (A full decade of your
> salary to go to Wikimania).
>
> So no, I don't feel sorry that most of the scholarships don't go to
> Americans, I'm not denying that there is poor people in rich countries but
> the level of poverty is *way* too different.
>
> ​
> Béria L
> ​. de Rodríguez (a Latino Woman )
>
> ___
> *References:*
>
> [1]: Australia, Canada, Israel, Hong Kong, Macau, New Zealand, Japan,
> Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States and all of Europe
> (including Russia, but excluding Turkey) (source
> )
> [2]: Asia (with the exception of Japan, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, South
> Korea and Taiwan), Turkey, Central America, South America, Mexico, Africa,
> and the Middle East (with the exception of Israel) (source
> )
> [3]: For applicants within 10% of the "cutoff", preference will be* first*
> given to the* non-male* applicant, and *secondary* preference to applicants
> from* Latin America*.(source
> 
> -
> enfasis added by me)
> [4]: Venezuela for example has a exchange rate Bolivar-US dolar of 1026 BSF
> to 1 dolar. Their average salary is 9,500 BSF (about $ 9,00) at that pace
> their probability to attend Wikimania on their own tends to zero. (source
> for the exchange rate )
>
> _
>
> *​​**Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho.*
>
> 2016-02-10 13:43 GMT-02:00 Andrew Lih :
>
> > GerardM,
> >
> > As much as I agree with you on many things related to Wikimania, your
> > statement about en.wp and USA being “over subsidized” is off base.
> >
> > For the last few years I’ve held my tongue as American applicants get a
> > fraction of 10% of all the funding for Wikimania scholarships. That’s
> > because 10% is allocated to all of North America, so US based folks
> compete
> > with Canadians for that small slice of the pie. Indeed, key community
> > members from the US could not afford to go to Wikimania, and did not,
> > because of the limited funding. We also do not have a strong chapter
> system
> > to make up for that shortcoming, where European chapters can, and do,
> > underwrite their local members with other funds.
> >
> > I am not against the bulk of the scholarship money going to
> > underrepresented developing markets and giving new voices a chance to
> > attend. But I wanted to dispel the myth that Americans are always gorging
> > at the trough.
> >
> >
> >
> https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Scholarship_selection_process
> > https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Selection_process
> >
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Pine with all due respect, the USA is not the problem and English
> > Wikipedia
> > > has been overly subsidised, given way too much attention. Indeed having
> > > more people from the USA attend Wikimania is not a good value
> > proposition.
> > > The USA and Britain is overrepresented as it is.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > On 10 February 2016 at 10:13, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > From a US perspective, even here in the global north we have plenty
> of
> > > > students and middle-class participants for whom $1500 in travel, food
> > and
> > > > lodging plus 5 days away from work, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-07 Thread Robert Fernandez
I understand the situation that Denny, Dariusz, Patricio, et al are in and
I appreciate their attempts to address this issue.  As a new member of the
Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia, I've discovered that there
is a great deal of anger about some of our decisions, and it is frustrating
when we cannot release the information that shows that those decisions are
clearly justified.  So sometimes we have to say "trust us".  Perhaps this
is the situation here.  Perhaps there is something James did, or perhaps
the clash of personalities was too much.  So they may have to do the same
here and say "trust us"

However, for the community to have that trust, there has to be
accountability and transparency in other areas.  Members of the Arbitration
Committee are known to the community and voted in by them, while most
members of the Board are not accountable to the community in any way.  The
Committee does as much as it can transparently and is as forthcoming as it
can be with public deliberations.  The Board and the Foundation are not
sufficiently transparent about things like the Knowledge Engine, and don't
have a great track record with things like Superprotect.  There are also
concerns that Silicon Valley and the technology sector are over-represented
on the board, while much of what the community and the Foundation
supposedly represent  - the entire world as opposed to the Global North,
the open source community, cultural and knowledge institutions that work
with GLAM, academia - are barely or not represented at all.  So when you
say "trust us", and you haven't addressed those issues, it's difficult to
just accept what vague assurances are provided about this matter.

Gamaliel
(speaking for myself only and not the Arbitration Committee)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,