You raise some interesting points. I quite agree that this list is a
useful venue where one can discuss overarching strategic issues and where
senior WMF staff and trustees are able to engage with community members
about those issues. I myself have had some quite productive discussions
supporting volunteer content contributors, such as purchasing
books, journal and library subscriptions and so forth.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com>
> On 8/21/17 6:48 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> > I'm know that the WMF has
Then perhaps the blog posts were over-enthusiastic. There is a current
discussion on this topic at the English-language Wikipedia, but not at the
link Andrew gave: it is at
edia Foundation role in these areas. Please
> take this discussion to the proper places on Wikipedia [[
> Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news]] and/or Wikinews.
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > I
ords 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
In a recent blog post, "No, we’re not in a post-fact world. On Wikipedia,
facts matter.", the Foundation referred to Wikipedia editors"sharing
breaking news in record time". It is true that the English-language
Wikipedia is increasingly carrying articles about newsworthy events, and
this in spite
Thank you for your thoughtful response -- I regret that numerous other
posters have not chosen to take the same approach. You are quite right
that I believe the the Foundation and its projects need radical change --
revolution if you will -- to become successful. I do not dispute the
Actually, being insulted and falsely accused of generalised misconduct by a
paid employee of the Foundation who has failed to read my post correctly is
what I call unconstructive behaviour. But perhaps that is what you expect
the donors money to be spent on.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at
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
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:40 PM, you wrote:
> Rogol you yet again misrepresent what has been stated.
If you believe that I have misrepresented some statement on this list, by
all means quote me directly and explain your belief. A general statement of
this nature coupled with a vague
One proposal involves posters being asked to verify their real-life
identity to the list moderators. Perhaps the moderators will supplement
that proposal with a description of the forms of identification they would
ommunity and stability.
> Could you explain?
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > Lisa
> > Thanks anyway. Perhaps one of the members of the Board will comment, in
> > the
Thanks for that explanation. If it had already been decided to contribute
the $5M to the Endowment before the offer of matching funds, then there
would be no appearance of the offer influencing the Board's decision. Can
you confirm that was the case? But the main point of my question to
t; Try to read it from a different perspective. Before donating *lots* of
> > money donor wants to be sure WMF will be truly committed in pursuing the
> > plan of an endowment. Putting the same amount of money is a prove, for
> > donors, WMF truly wants to create an endow
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:16 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of
You seem rather too quick to leap to the conclusion that anyone who
disagrees with you on intellectual property has an imperfect understanding
or is consciously committing "copyfraud". Have you made any attempts
whatsoever to engage with the organisation in question to find what their
I was surprised to read the record
of the decision to place $5M into the endowment. After the anouncement by
Lisa Gruwell on
> On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors" <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be, towards
> > the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the s
Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be, towards
the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human
knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to determine
the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades? Surely by
If you allow yourself to think that on time and on budget are optional,
then you will certainly not get them. I would expect the WMF to aspire to
deliver products that are fit for purpose, on time and on budget. I would
also expect the staff and, especially, management to be held
ight negatively impact the work or
> image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
> months notice.
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a
Is it wise for the Foundation to be seen to controlling content in this
way? Would that not jeopardise their legal immunity?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, at 06:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at
views and needs of our users and our contributors.
> Best regards,
> > On Jul 29, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > Victoria
> > Thanks you for your prompt and full rep
mmittee and its charter and take questions.
> > On Jul 29, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > Victoria
> > Thanks for that. I am sure we all welcome the new Committee.
> On 28 July 2017 at 21:49, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Fae,
> > That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are
> > aware. I imagine it does not entirely
er-excited claims of "fraudulent" conduct and it would be wise to
actually find out what the BM's stance is before criticising it, or calling
for social media campaigns to change it.
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 July 201
. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of
> taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot
> reoccur in the display of future loans.
> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
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.
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:
It is for the Board members, collectively and individually, to oversee the
management and affairs of the Foundation. You should ask them as Trustees
to comment. I myself have had little success in that direction, but
perhaps you will do better. However, the staff of the Foundation are
> 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 S
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
You don't mean "election" when it comes to the Board, unless you mean
"election to the position of being considered for appointment by the
Board". Unless and until those positions are either truly directly elected
by the Community, or the Board commits itself to appointing whomsoever the
As I undestand it, the Swedish Supreme Court determined the general
principles of law involved and remitted the case back to the Patent and
Market Court to resolve the specific issues between the parties.
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:20 AM, you wrote:
> Whether the staff concerned feel it's a good use of their time to respond
> in detail on Meta or on this email list, who knows. There is always a
> judgement call to be made about what it's helpful for staff to spend their
> time replying to.
1: Surely the audit is of interest to those with whom the Foundation wishes
to communicate, which includes the donors, who are paying for it, and the
volunteers, whose work is being presented to the world at large in ways
that might not always be consistent with their values and
peak 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 <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > Greg and Anna
> > This is a most interesting response and illustrates very
ement strategy is
> because the insights they are bringing forward are so rich we think we all
> need more time to reflect upon them and integrate them into all existing
> community discussions.
> For the on-wiki team:
>- We invested into ongoing translation in 17 la
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
t 11:14 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
> I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.
> On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors" <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > Craig
> > Thanks for your thou
at of anyone interested in this subject.
> Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and w
This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu
> Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion :-)
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and was
required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in 2015,
so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding page
for how to deal with breaches, which
the organisers and others are required to adhere to.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> Why would it be and how does that make a difference?
I assume this conference will be considered a "Wikimedia technical event"
and as such it will fall under the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct (
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct) and its Committee?
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Shani Evenstein
> On 19/06/17 16:20, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> > I quite agree that Phabricator is not suitable for these discussions.
> > Perhaps Tim would like to say where and how discussions between the
> > Community and Foundation staff about the need for, a
I quite agree that Phabricator is not suitable for these discussions.
Perhaps Tim would like to say where and how discussions between the
Community and Foundation staff about the need for, and desirability of,
projects like this should be held. After all, we all want projects to go
ahead on the
I would agree that it is a good idea for the Board to be discussing
transfers to the Endowment but perhaps not for the same reasons as SJ. The
money raised by the Foundation has been given by donors, usually in small
amounts, to the Foundation where it is administered by the Board as
Of course there is a doubt. The Community runs a process which for
presentational purposes is called an election, but only to put forward
potential new Borard members. The appointment is entirely in the hands of
the Board. They can accept or reject the names put forward by the
I think the first step in this direction is for the Board to decide whether
or not they wish to engage with the Community in this way – whether they
have the time, energy and bandwidth to handle such communications, and
whether they see the reward as commensurate with the investment. So
Do you have a position or preliminary views you would like to share with
the community about Board Governance? Is there anything specific you will
be seeking to look into, or change, or start, or stop. Are there areas for
improvement or is everything fine? In particular, do you think
Would it be possible to point to an explanation of what this partnership
means in practical terms, please? What will actually happen now that would
not have happened before, and how will it be funded?
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
> On Fri, Jun
Thanks for explaining that. You said that two of the main goals were "to
improve our engagement with the community during product development,
develop a more audience-based approach to building products", and yet you
do not mention any discussion with people outside the organisation over
I agree with Risker that it would be improper to select candidates on the
basis of their own personal political views. But I do agree with your
point that expertise in the field of party-political camapigning would not
be an appropriate criterion for the post of CCO.
On Sun, May
Page 52 reports that Moeller received $208,306 in severance: that seems to
be a year's salary. There is no stated reason for the payment.
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Tony Le
g companies. If you have any reason to believe otherwise,
> please say so.
> Secondly, where did you find that mission statement you quoted? It is
> not the one at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Rogol Dom
Could you articulate how, in your view, the implementation of the proposed
directive, or otherwise, would affect the Wikimedia Foundation's mission of
"encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free,
multilingual, educational content, and to providing the full content of
Indeed. It would be appropriate for members of the Board to state now, in
public and for the record, that they accept the democratically expressed
wishes of the community and will reappoint James at the due time.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:18 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
One billion dollars, judiciously invested, is an income of present-day
value around 20 to 30 million dollars a year for ever. That would buy any
of the following
* One reasonably expensive book per month for every one of the 30,000 most
active content contributors for ever
* 300 full-time
Do you believe that your recovery plan was adequate or will you be
reviewing it in the light of this widespread outage?
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Faidon Liambotis
> Hi Cristian,
> We've had some network connectivity issues with one of our
> On 29 Apr 2017 20:41, "Rogol Domedonfors" <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > James
> > If you cannot say who "We" are who do not support terrorism, then your
> > statement is both meaningless and ineffect
If you cannot say who "We" are who do not support terrorism, then your
statement is both meaningless and ineffectual. If you are specific, then
"we" need to know why you feel able to speak for "us".
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:33 PM, James Heilman wrote:
Presumably the WMF will be taking prompt, strong and effective action to
protest against and reverse this decision? A case in the Constitutional
Court, for example?
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Mardetanha
> more info
Will the Foundation be seeking to join in the initiative and possibly
secure some funding to support and enhance the Wikinews projects? It seems
that some of the supporters of this project are already donors to the
Foundation, so there is a pre-existing relationship.
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017
I support this suggestion. The Wikitribune trademark is assigned to Jimmy
Group Ltd, a company in which all the shares are owned by you – it is a
conventional commercial operation of which you are the owner. Its
activities directly overlap with one of the Foundations projects, Wikinews,
Thanks, but I think this is a Board issue, and that the Board Governance
Committee should be invited to consider it. However, as I'm sure you are
well aware, real names are required in a wide variety of contexts. It is
the extent to which they are made public that differs.
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, you wrote:
> [...] your usual
> MO of presenting ideas that only you care about is, yet again, unhelpful
This is both aggressive and fallacious. At least one other person cared
enough about this issue to post a polite, thoughtful and reasoned
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it
Thank you for that information. It seems that you are happy to introduce
the new members of this Committee to the community under pseudonyms. I
back in July 2016 that, considering that this
On a related note, the Foundation Blog
announces that "the Wikimedia Foundation joined a handful of media
organization at the MIT Media Lab to lend their expertise at MisInfoCon".
That's certainly good to hear, but a little short
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Yaroslav Blanter wrote:
> [...] On the Russian Wikivoyage, all of our active partipants produced
> a document, to be told by the facilitator that this is not what WMF wants
> to see.
This does not strike me as a description of what a
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:24 PM, you wrote:
> Please do not twist my words. I said technical considerations are relevant,
> not that customer needs do not come first. If something is incredibly
> difficult to do, that is factored in to prioritisation, alongside the size
> of the audience
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, you wrote:
> Well, folks are free to ignore invitations to comment; there are indeed a
> lot of discussion notices for various matters, so I don't blame them if
> they world rather volunteer their time in other places.
> But they cannot then also
Thanks for that. You write
we are actively working on trying to reduce
> the mandatory time board members have to allocate to WMF. Goal is between
> this year and next year to lower it down to what we benchmarked as average
> (and I can't find the number again, I'll dig into that).
By the same argument, then, the Foundation should be compensating the
unpaid volunteers who actually create the content of the projects, and
supporting them with the tools and resources they need to do that work.
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Pine W wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:11 PM, you wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation continuously monitors events around the world that
> may impact the Foundation’s ability to support the projects and
> communities. When that capacity is threatened, as in the case of these
It might be as well to understand why ODP folded and whether there is
likely to be volunteer effort available for its continuation before
spending time effort and money on reconstituting it as a WMF project.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:56 PM, James Heilman wrote:
I wonder if there's a lesson for other knowledge projects here ...
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:03 AM, carl hansen
> I see dmoz.org is going offline in few days after a couple decades. It is
> community-written project. Will it be absorbed into
I am surprised that this discussion would be held now, *after* the work has
been done. Was it really not possible to plan ahead and have this
discussion before doing work that might turn out to be wasted? Was it
really so hard to predict this difficulty? Who was in charge?
On Sat, Mar
>  https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151798
>  https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
>  http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:47 PM, James Salsman
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, you wrote:
> Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with
> remaining accurate?
I would say yes. Let me put two converse questions to you. Do you believe
truth and accuracy are to be found only at one ppint on the spectrum of
At some point it would be interesting to learn how the external consultants
were selected. I note, for example, that Lake Associates describes itself
as working "side by side with our clients on developing communications and
paid media, targeting supporters, and honing the messages
> 2017-03-05 15:30 GMT+01:00 James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>:
> > Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a lawyer.
> > Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask him.
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:45 PM, you wrote:
> The way that you phrase your questions sometimes comes across to me as
> having an edge than is more confrontational than I think is necessary, and
> I am finding the tone to be a distraction from what is, I think, our mutual
James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that
violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I
wrote. What's the best way forward? Should the WMF represent the
community by engaging directly with the company responsible? Or should it
s the relevant Community is here now on this very list,
> > which is an extremely questionable assumption. As has been noted ad
> > nauseam already. At this point this thread appears hard to distinguish
> > from forum shopping.
> > On 2 March 2017 at 1
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> Hey Rogol,
> I think Zach's email (above / March 2nd) describes the changes.
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf
We were asked for help. I posted a message asking how we could help in
this process. We got a reply saying the process "already took place". I
interpret that as meaning that our help is not needed after all. Perhaps
you read it differently. I don't think that makes my response, or yours
ges in good faith.
> Have a lovely weekend. I really need a break.
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > Anna,
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
> And I'm struggling with a process problem (not one of substance) that I
> don't know how to solve. I truly don't. And it's kind of killing me.
> We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
> We need a way
Perhaps we could refer this question to the Advancement department. Does
appealing for money for one thing and spending it on another damage the
Foundation's ability to raise funds in the future?
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:13 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> > politics damages our
> On 2 March 2017 at 17:16, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not asking Matt. I'm asking the Community – here, now, on this very
> > list.
> > "Rogol"
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Pine W <w
ly on the relevant talk page.
> I'm well aware of the challenges with the TCoC, but let's not make it more
> difficult than it is already, OK?
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
Matt Flaschen has declared the final amendment to the code of conduct for
Wikimedia technical spaces approved and although he has not said so
explicitly, I assume that his current position is that it is now in force.
Even asuming that is correct, and previous consensus was against that, andI
Recall that the Foundation have rewritten their values to include "we seek
to continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our
The previous version
It seems to be in line with the new Values statement: "we seek to
continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our world".
Of course that's political.
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Lodewijk
> I didn't see the banner, but the page
So is there a Community RFC or not? If so, where?
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Pine W wrote:
> As I'm looking at that talk page, I see a situation which looks like no one
> will "win", which is the opposite of how I would like discussions about
> policy to go
Perhaps this need for use cases was addressed in the "report" which the
staff commissioned from consultants over a year ago but which was never
shared with the community at large – assuming that it was ever produced.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Isarra Yos
I don't think the WMF is "trying to exempt itself from its own creation",
it is simpy giving its own staff a privileged position within it. Anyone
who makes a complaint against a member of staff will have the privacy of
their complaint breached by having details sent to the WMF with its
An interesting idea, and if it reduces the survey load on the community
that would be good. But one should never survey for the sake of it. Any
proposed survey question should be able to meet the test "What will you do
with the answer to this question?" In my experience, the response to that
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo