Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Gerard

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
here along those lines.  I do hope that whatever arrangements are made for
reformulating the parameters of engagement here do not prejudice that
usefulness.

One issue I have observed is that list members in their zeal to be helpful
can sometimes obscure the issue.  For example, if one asks "What is the
Foundations policy on X?", it is apt to start up a discussion about X, or
about what the policy might be, or ought to be, or what English-language
Wikipedians think of X, rather than what the WMF policy on X actually is.
This can sometimes lead to confusion.  Perhaps new posting limits will help
to alleviate that.

Reid

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Natacha Rault  wrote:

> Hello, my short comment on this: the posts are lengthy, and from the
> outside it is hard to understand what it is all about. It would be great if
> at some point in long conversations, someone could resume the issues in a
> short paragraph.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Nattes à chat
> > Le 27 août 2017 à 11:17, Fæ  a écrit :
> >
> > Several emails on this topic have been essay length, including some from
> > list moderators. If post limits are halved, this may become more common.
> >
> > Many readers, especially those like me viewing on a phone when scanning
> > through emails, will skip essays which are several screens long. Please
> > consider the good practice of opening with a one paragraph precis, or
> TLDR
> > section, for any long post. This way, those who have tiny screens, or
> short
> > attention spans, can get the point and will be much more likely to return
> > to the essay later.
> >
> > Thanks, Fae (writing without a keyboard)
> >
> > On 27 Aug 2017 09:50, "Peter Southwood" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hey, it is nearly the end of the month, I will expend another rationed
> > posting to agree with  Gerard on this point because I think it is vitally
> > important. He expresses my sentiments very closely on this point, and
> > although I may disapprove of his tone occasionally, I think he is a fine
> > example of someone who may not always echo the mainstream opinion, but I
> > have never doubted his good faith intentions to improve the Wikimedia
> > projects.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Sunday, 27 August 2017 8:25 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] What is the purpose of the Wikimedia mailinglist
> >
> > Hoi,
> > I was invited to positively give my opinion about the Wikimedia
> mailinglist
> > and its use by one of the list managers.
> >
> > So the first thing to consider is what is the list for. This is largely a
> > given because of its name; it is to discuss things that are primarily
> > concerned with "Wikimedia" both as a movement and as an organisation. It
> is
> > not about Wikipedia in general, it has its own list; wikipedia-l, and
> there
> > are even lists for language specific Wikipedias.
> >
> > The topic of Wikimedia makes it very much a macro or high level. It
> follows
> > that many of the subjects that are not topical elsewhere have there
> proper
> > home on this list. When a post transcends a local list because there is a
> > high level consideration, Wikimedia-l is also the right venue.
> >
> > Some topics that are of interest to me and are high level are: the multi
> > linguality of our projects and its support. As a consequence the lack of
> > funding and interest in other languages. As a movement we agree on the
> need
> > to consider the gender gap. However there are other diversity issues that
> > do not get attention. When quality improvements are possible in multiple
> > projects, the discussion about this starts here.
> >
> > What I have found is that this whole notion of the purpose of this list
> is
> > lost. When a topic raised on the list is answered with high level
> > arguments, it is easily seen as "highjacking". That is normal because
> from
> > a sociological point of view, high level considerations and low level
> > considerations often work in different directions (think Coleman).
> >
> > Then there is another consideration; intent. The objective of this list
> is
> > to discuss ways whereby we can understand and improve what is happening
> in
> > our movement. For me it follows that when it is known for a list member
> to
> > actively undermine our foundation, he has no place here. That *is *the
> kind
> > of noise we can do without. When someone is punished for having a point
> of
> > view that aims to improve what we do but has a position that is not the
> > flavour of the month, it is a different story. The list itself has a
> > problem 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Jimbo

I understand you to say that the WMF could have afforded to spend $5M on
direct support of volunteer contributors had it chosen to, without
prejudice to the decision  to place $5M into the Endowment.  I seem to
recall that you stated on Wikipedia that "I support expansion of the
scholarship program (and thus spending more money on Wikimania overall)"
 Given that you believe that the money was in fact available for such a
purpose, it seems that we are united in our regret that it was not spent
for that purpose -- a full fee scholarship for all attendees would have
consumed something like 5% of the sum which you say could have been made
available,

Perhaps you could persuade the Board of Trustees to consider your proposal
in time for the Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town to use in their financial
planning.  It would also be splendid if the Board were to consider other
ways of supporting volunteer content contributors, such as purchasing
books, journal and library subscriptions and so forth.

Redmond

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Jimmy Wales 
wrote:

> On 8/21/17 6:48 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> > I'm know that the WMF has determined that it should have some form of
> > endowment,  The question is -- as is usual in question of this sort --
> one
> > of balance: in this case, balance between current spending for the
> benefit
> > of the projects today, and accumulating capital for the benefit of the
> > projects tomorrow.  I am asking the Board to say why they decided to
> strike
> > that balance where they did -- given the obvious need for that support
> > right now -- and whether it is appropriate for large donors to apparently
> > influence that decision.
>
> I can't speak for anyone other than myself.
>
> Given the level of reserves that the WMF has today, your entire approach
> here (the assumption that $5 million going into the endowment therefore
> reduces spending) is invalid.  There is enough money to do both.
>
> The question is therefore not "Why did you save the money for the future
> rather than spend it today?"
>
> The question is: why don't we increase spending today?
>
> We have always followed, and should continue to follow, a thoughtful
> process of strategic planning and budgeting.  A windfall of cash from a
> successful fundraising should never give rise to immediate and poorly
> planned spending.
>
> If you believe, as I do, that we have a great opportunity to responsibly
> spend more money at the Foundation on suporting the projects in the next
> few years - then please support the strategic planning process - that's
> the right forum to have a voice in what happens next.
>
> Random demands for explanations on the mailing list - particulary when
> so fundamentally mistaken in basic assumptions - aren't really helpful.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> ___
> 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] News on Wkipedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC:_New_subsection_under_.22Not_a_Newspaper.22_about_commentary

Rod

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> As far as I can tell, the Foundation does not have "policy on news across
> its various projects".
>
> So the answer to your original question:
>
> > > Has the Foundation made a conscious decision to promote Wikipedia as a
> > > > source of news, and if so, what were the results of its discussions
> > with
> > > > the Wikipedia and Wikinews communities?  Will the Foundation allocate
> > any
> > > > extra resources to this effort?
> >
>
> would seem to be this: No, there is no particular decision to promote
> Wikipedia as a source of news.  There have, however, been a number of blog
> posts and communications celebrating Wikipedia's success at providing
> relatively up-to-date and accurate information on current events.  No
> discussion with either Wikipedia or Wikinews communities took place, or
> needed to, as this was just another aspect of Wikipedia being showcased on
> the Wikimedia blog.
>
> As far as I can tell, the Foundation has not allocated any extra resources
> to promoting Wikipedia as a news source.  You are mistaking a couple of
> blog posts to signify Some Grand Policy Change, but it is not so.
>
> Asaf
> ___
> 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] News on Wkipedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Andrew

Thank you for your suggestion, but I think that a discussion about the
Foundations policy on news across its various projects is more suitable to
this list than to one of the Wikipedias.  Your comments on the
English-language Wikipedia policy on news are helpful.  Do you see the
Foundation's communications as being entirely consistent with that view?

Rutherford

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Lih  wrote:

> 1. You misread en:WP:NOTNEWS . The policy doesn't say news is forbidden. It
> is that Wikipedia should consider notability and original research concerns
> and not act as a newspaper.
>
> Actual wording: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date
> information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on
> significant current events."
>
> 2. You misunderstand the Wikimedia Foundation role in these areas. Please
> take this discussion to the proper places on Wikipedia [[
> Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news]] and/or Wikinews.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 of its WP:NOTNEWS policy.
> >
> > Has the Foundation made a conscious decision to promote Wikipedia as a
> > source of news, and if so, what were the results of its discussions with
> > the Wikipedia and Wikinews communities?  Will the Foundation allocate any
> > extra resources to this effort?
> >
> > Rognvald
> > ___
> > 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] RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Robert

If someone posts to an email discussion list owned and run by their
employer, using an email account provided by their employer, with a
signature block giving the name of their employer and their name and
position with that employer, and if their line manager is not only a
regular reader but a participant in discussions on the list, as recently as
yesterday, then it may reasonably be presumed that they expect their
employer to be aware of their posting.

Since you are unable to imagine many actions more chilling than reporting
bullying and harassment to an appropriate authority, let me suggest
something that might be equally chilling -- calling for the banning from
the list of someone because you disagree with what they have to say.

Roibéard

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Robert Fernandez 
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 
> 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 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,
> > > > <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>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > Unsubscrib

[Wikimedia-l] News on Wkipedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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 of its WP:NOTNEWS policy.

Has the Foundation made a conscious decision to promote Wikipedia as a
source of news, and if so, what were the results of its discussions with
the Wikipedia and Wikinews communities?  Will the Foundation allocate any
extra resources to this effort?

Rognvald
___
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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna

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
goodness of the intentions that you list, but rather whether the current
organisational structure, culture and ethos of the Foundation are able to
deliver them.  Over the past few years I have sadly come to the conclusion
that they are not.  To the extent that the work of the Foundation supports
its mission I wish to support it -- to the extent that it undermines its
mission then I wish to undermine it.  Is that so surprising?

Rutherford

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

>  Rogol,
>
> Good evening.
>
> In my mind, constructive dialogue is about making *something* work better,
> not about making others feel worse. The tricky part is, other people get to
> decide whether we make them feel worse. That one is not up to us. Critique
> and truly constructive dialogue should be in service of a better
> outcome. Now, that’s not always attainable. We all know I have my days, but
> it’s good as a general marker.
>
> Additionally, constructive dialogue isn’t just whether everybody plays by
> some explicit and implicit interpersonal rules--though social rules really
> do matter--it’s about whether we accomplish something important together,
> something significant. Whether it's creating and enjoying The Cuteness
> Association  Association>,
> building the next generation of content on women scientists
> , delivering used laptops
> to people who create free knowledge [1], or making verifiable medical
> information available on the ground during an outbreak of ebola
> , most
> volunteers would like to accomplish good things together. My hope is that I
> can do my part to help make it enjoyable enough for them. Hey, a girl can
> dream.
>
> I’ve read your penned letters on Wikipediocracy (yes, I know WP: NO BEANS
>  >,
> but establishing intent and faith is relevant). In your posts you make it
> clear that your entire aim is to undermine the work of the foundation.
> Readers could not interpret your intent otherwise because you spell it out
> and offer a how-to-guide
>
> I am asking you to shift your intent. Your obviously a bright guy, who has
> considerable cognitive gifts at his disposal. You can truly reason, it's
> plain as day. And we need all hands on deck, all able minds working toward
> the development of free knowledge and building an open infosphere for
> future generations. You seem like a guy uniquely fit to help, so I
> am asking you to build with us.
>
> There have been a number of times on this list where I’ve valued your point
> of view and your insights. It would be much easier to trust and receive
> your insights if I knew your intent matched your other good gifts.
>
> Good evening,
> /a
>
> [1] Thanks Eliza, Asaf, and everyone behind the laptop brigade.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Craig Franklin  >
> wrote:
>
> > Joining the pile-on here.  The focus on nitpicking semantics rather than
> > substantive issues, passive-aggressive grandstanding ("May I suggest that
> > you withdraw your original posting"), and the threat to tattletale on
> > someone to their boss for expressing a perfectly reasonable perspective
> are
> > exactly the sort of toxic conduct that is outside of the community's
> > expectations and outside of what I believe the community wants to see on
> > this list.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 24 August 2017 at 12:05, Robert Fernandez 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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.

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Lodewijk

I agree that your second paragraph is quite likely to be correct.  I have
consistently argued that the performance of the Foundation could be
significantly improved if it were to engage more effectively with the
Community, and that in the past it has failed to do so.  I have also
suggested a number of ways that engagement could be enhanced.  I am aware
that this is not always comfortable for the people who find themselves
being criticised.  But I believe that it is in the long-term best interests
of the Community, the Foundation and the Mission.  I hope and believe that
the majority of the participants on the list can say the same about their
own postings.

Roland

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> R,
>
> if it's worth anything (probably not), what Seddon wrote on this list could
> in those exact wordings equally well have come from me. I don't think his
> words are why this conversation turned sour.
>
> Unrelated to that: I'm pretty confident indeed that several of the
> participants in this conversation are discussing these guidelines with your
> behavior in mind in particular.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Dan
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Roald
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:14 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

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Dan

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.

Roald

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:14 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 

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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, 

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Joseph,

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 and unsubstantiated allegation of poor
conduct is not a good example of the sort of constructive criticism that
this proposal is intended to foster.

I guess, but do not know, that you believe my comment "One proposal
involves posters being asked to verify their real-life identity to the list
moderators." does not accurately reflect the proposal "Where a poster does
not clearly link to either Wikimedia account, or does not appear to be
using a real identity, and only after it is exceeding the five post limit,
the list admins will privately ask the poster to either verify their
identity or stop posting until the end of the month". I do not accept that
my comment misrepresents that proposal.

If this is indeed the subject of your somewhat unhelpful posting, then I
reject your claim that this is a "misrepresentation" and suggest that you
reconsider whether that was a posting you should have made.

Ruud


>
___
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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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
require, and  privacy policy that they would apply to protect such
information.

Reed

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> For 1 I like the higher soft limit at 30 15 feels to low, though maybe we
> could encourage a bit id discretion on the list admins behalf if someone is
> approaching the soft limit but not productively contributing to discussions
> or being repeative.
>
> For 2 global ban should see a person removed form all activities of the
> community.
>
> For 3 person person is banned by more than one community should be limited
> to topics not related to those communities or the ban
>
> For 4 I think we need to put some trust in the list admins purely because
> the purpose for posting anonymously may require significant discussion and
> information, though it should be noted that such activity should restrict
> the use of their "public" account for that particular discussion
>
> On 23 August 2017 at 19:35, Lodewijk  wrote:
>
> > Thanks Gerard for pointing out that the 'goals' are probably not as
> clear.
> > And maybe we are talking with different goals in mind. So let me phrase
> my
> > goals for this discussion:
> >
> > I would like to see this list develop into a forum that facilitates
> healthy
> > and constructive discussions within and between the wider Wikimedia
> > communities and the Wikimedia Foundation staff, board and committees
> > especially. I would like to see that this list becomes a venue where
> people
> > feel safe enough that community and staff members no longer feel it
> > necessary to warn newcomers that they should not subscribe to this
> mailing
> > list. I also hope this will be a place where people can expect honest
> > feedback, also when the opinions are not what they expect them to be, or
> > are inconvenient.
> >
> > I think volume is a component of it. However, I wouldn't mind a volume
> > increase when that is an increase in sensible and constructive
> > contributions with new facts and information to a discussion, or when
> that
> > is because more people find it sensible to ask for input here. It is the
> > repeating of positions and the unhelpful snarky remarks that I would like
> > to see reduced to a minimum.
> >
> > Hopefully that makes sense :)
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James

Certainly.  When the probability of last year's fundraising effort
generating more income than had been expected emerged, there was a
discussion here about how that "surplus" might be used.  There were some
suggestions for using it to directly assist the members of the volunteer
community in their work of contributing content -- such as funding books,
on- and off-line library subscriptions, for the content contributors -- or
improving the contributing environment -- such as hiring more devs for
community tech projects -- or building the community -- such as extra
funding for community events.  That money, once gone, would be gone
forever, and there is the risk that further donations would not be
forthcoming at the same rate.  The alternative, which was adopted, was to
give it to the Endowment to generate a permanent income which might be used
to fund such acitivities in the future.  That money once in the Endowment
is, presumably, always in the Endowment, and the income can be relied on to
a reasonable extent.

The Board has chosen to favour long-term stability over short-term content
contribution.  That is clearly their prerogative, but it is a choice, and a
choice that affects the community her and now.  It seems reasonable to ask
the Board to explain to the community, who provide the content, and whose
work sustains the entire mission, and which ultimately motivates people to
make such generous donations, why, given that opportunity, they did not see
it as so important to give them more in the way of direct help in
contributing that content and building that community.

Rod

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> Rogol I don't understanding how you have interpreted this as a choice
> between community and stability.
>
> Could you explain?
>
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Lisa
> >
> > Thanks anyway.  Perhaps one of the members of the Board will comment, in
> > the interests of transparency.
> >
> > Ronald
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, I wasn't at the meeting, so I can't speak to that.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lisa
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > the
> > > > Board is to ask why they decided that placing this large sum into the
> > > > Endowment was more important than using it to support the work of the
> > > > volunteer community (whether or not the offer of matching funds was
> > part
> > > of
> > > > that decision) directly.  Can you throw any light on their reasons?
> > > >
> > > > Rudyard
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Lisa Gruwell <
> lgruw...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just jumping in with a few points of information regarding the
> > > Endowment:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) I met with Lukas at Wikimania regarding SRI and the endowment.
> As
> > > > James
> > > > > indicated, the endowment is invested through the Tides Foundation
> and
> > > > this
> > > > > is one of the areas of expertise.  We have been looking at
> > > environmental,
> > > > > social, and governance (ESG) ratings as well as how funds perform
> > > against
> > > > > the benchmarks financially.  We are going to be publishing more
> > > > information
> > > > > about this soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Regarding the matching grant, this funder has made large grants
> to
> > > the
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation for general support for our annual work for
> > > almost a
> > > > > decade.  They have also now provided major support to the
> endowment.
> > > > They
> > > > > have provided generous support for our present work and our future
> > > work.
> > > > > It is positive thing that this grant was positioned as a matching
> > > grant.
> > > > > It doubles the impact of a portion of the con

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Lisa

Thanks anyway.  Perhaps one of the members of the Board will comment, in
the interests of transparency.

Ronald

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
wrote:

> Sorry, I wasn't at the meeting, so I can't speak to that.
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Rogol Domedonfors  >
> wrote:
>
> > Lisa
> >
> > 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 the
> > Board is to ask why they decided that placing this large sum into the
> > Endowment was more important than using it to support the work of the
> > volunteer community (whether or not the offer of matching funds was part
> of
> > that decision) directly.  Can you throw any light on their reasons?
> >
> > Rudyard
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Just jumping in with a few points of information regarding the
> Endowment:
> > >
> > > 1) I met with Lukas at Wikimania regarding SRI and the endowment.  As
> > James
> > > indicated, the endowment is invested through the Tides Foundation and
> > this
> > > is one of the areas of expertise.  We have been looking at
> environmental,
> > > social, and governance (ESG) ratings as well as how funds perform
> against
> > > the benchmarks financially.  We are going to be publishing more
> > information
> > > about this soon.
> > >
> > > 2) Regarding the matching grant, this funder has made large grants to
> the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation for general support for our annual work for
> almost a
> > > decade.  They have also now provided major support to the endowment.
> > They
> > > have provided generous support for our present work and our future
> work.
> > > It is positive thing that this grant was positioned as a matching
> grant.
> > > It doubles the impact of a portion of the contributions that our online
> > > donors made this year.  It is a great story that we are sharing with
> > other
> > > potential endowment donors.  We are hoping to find another major donor
> > (or
> > > donors) that will match the $5 million for the endowment that is in the
> > FY
> > > 2017-18 annual plan as well.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Lisa
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:15 AM, James Heilman 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have been send further details. As expected Tides (who runs our
> > > > endowment) has a strong philosophy around social justice.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.tides.org/
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Cristian Consonni <
> > crist...@balist.es>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 22/08/2017 17:03, James Heilman wrote:
> > > > > > Andrea I agree completely that movement monies should be invested
> > > > inline
> > > > > > with our values. We should not be invested in stuff that promotes
> > war
> > > > or
> > > > > > surveillance for example. I would image this is currently the
> case
> > > but
> > > > > > would have to verify.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wholeheartedly agree with Andrea.
> > > > >
> > > > > C
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > James Heilman
> > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > >
> > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Lisa

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 the
Board is to ask why they decided that placing this large sum into the
Endowment was more important than using it to support the work of the
volunteer community (whether or not the offer of matching funds was part of
that decision) directly.  Can you throw any light on their reasons?

Rudyard

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
wrote:

> Just jumping in with a few points of information regarding the Endowment:
>
> 1) I met with Lukas at Wikimania regarding SRI and the endowment.  As James
> indicated, the endowment is invested through the Tides Foundation and this
> is one of the areas of expertise.  We have been looking at environmental,
> social, and governance (ESG) ratings as well as how funds perform against
> the benchmarks financially.  We are going to be publishing more information
> about this soon.
>
> 2) Regarding the matching grant, this funder has made large grants to the
> Wikimedia Foundation for general support for our annual work for almost a
> decade.  They have also now provided major support to the endowment.  They
> have provided generous support for our present work and our future work.
> It is positive thing that this grant was positioned as a matching grant.
> It doubles the impact of a portion of the contributions that our online
> donors made this year.  It is a great story that we are sharing with other
> potential endowment donors.  We are hoping to find another major donor (or
> donors) that will match the $5 million for the endowment that is in the FY
> 2017-18 annual plan as well.
>
> Best,
> Lisa
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:15 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > I have been send further details. As expected Tides (who runs our
> > endowment) has a strong philosophy around social justice.
> >
> > https://www.tides.org/
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Cristian Consonni 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 22/08/2017 17:03, James Heilman wrote:
> > > > Andrea I agree completely that movement monies should be invested
> > inline
> > > > with our values. We should not be invested in stuff that promotes war
> > or
> > > > surveillance for example. I would image this is currently the case
> but
> > > > would have to verify.
> > >
> > > I wholeheartedly agree with Andrea.
> > >
> > > C
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > ___
> > 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] Windows 10 lockscreen images

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Perhaps a randomly chosen image every time the user logs in?

Rudigerd

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> it does not hurt to ask - Microsoft does some CSR, after all, and using
> beautiful images under an open license is in their interest, too anyway. I
> would not be overly optimistic though.
>
> dj
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> wrote:
>
> > In some geographies this feature is used as an advertising tool - I guess
> > promoting of Commons via this feature could be quite costly.
> >
> > 2017-08-20 1:08 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :
> >
> > > Those of you running Windows 10 will be familiar with the
> > > regularly-changing "lockscreen" images showing things like beautiful
> > > scenery and scenes from nature:
> > >
> > > https://www.tekrevue.com/tip/find-windows-spotlight-lock-
> > > screen-images-windows-10/
> > >
> > > The last one I just saw was labelled "copyright [photographer name]
> > > and Shutterstock"
> > >
> > > Is there someone at WMF, with contacts at Microsoft, who could
> > > persuade them to use some featured images from Commons, with a small
> > > piece of text explaining that people may upload their own images?
> > >
> > > That would seem to be a simple way to do a massive piece of outreach,
> > > to a new audience.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> __
>
>  prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies)
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl  
>
> associate faculty w Berkman-Klein Center for Internet and Society,
> Harvard University
>
> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University
> Press) mojego autorstwa (Dorothy Lee Award 2015, Nagroda
> Naukowa Prezesa PAN 2016)  http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> ___
> 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] Funding the endowment

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I'm know that the WMF has determined that it should have some form of
endowment,  The question is -- as is usual in question of this sort -- one
of balance: in this case, balance between current spending for the benefit
of the projects today, and accumulating capital for the benefit of the
projects tomorrow.  I am asking the Board to say why they decided to strike
that balance where they did -- given the obvious need for that support
right now -- and whether it is appropriate for large donors to apparently
influence that decision.

Reinhard

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> I am often critical of WMF, but I can only support this decision. The idea
> of creating of an environment was widely discussed in the community,
> including this mailing list, and had a widespread support. WMF merely
> follows the community wish in this case, and it is great to know that a
> donor agreed to match this amount.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Vi to  wrote:
>
> > Caveat: I support a definitely more frugal WMF so also the endowment.
> >
> > 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 endowment.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2017-08-19 10:33 GMT+02:00 Rogol Domedonfors :
> >
> > > I was surprised to read the record
> > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_
> > > of_Endowment_funding_(Fiscal_Year_2016-2017)_and_matching_$
> > > 5_million_gift_from_Peter_Baldwin_and_Lisbet_Rausing
> > > of the decision to place $5M into the endowment.  After the anouncement
> > by
> > > Lisa Gruwell on this list
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-
> > > December/085712.html
> > > there was a discussion of what might be done with the funds raised,
> and a
> > > number of suggestions were made for how these funds could be used to
> > > directly support the work of the volunteers who contribute the content
> to
> > > the projects, such as
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> > January/085835.html
> > > .
> > >
> > > It is disappointing that the Board has chosen not to fund support of
> this
> > > kind.  What is more than disappointing, but positively disturbing is
> that
> > > the decision was made in the light of an offer from a donor to match
> the
> > > sum put into the endowment.  I suggest that this was not a fair offer,
> > and
> > > the Board's decision was the wrong one.  Effectively this donor has
> said
> > to
> > > the Board that they will pay the Foundation not to support the
> > volunteers,
> > > and the Board has agreed to follow their wishes.  If the donor believes
> > so
> > > strongly in the necessity to build up the mission by means of an
> > Endowment,
> > > why did they not simply gift the money directly into the endowment
> > without
> > > conditions?  Equally, if the donor believes so strongly that money
> should
> > > not be spent supporting the volunteer community, then I challenge them
> to
> > > say so explicitly in public and to defend their position.
> > >
> > > I call on the Board to explain to the community of volunteers precisely
> > why
> > > they have chosen not to offer that support to the community and to
> state
> > > that they will not allow future decisions of this nature to be
> influenced
> > > by the wishes of one donor, however generous.
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > > ___
> > > 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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Peter

... and people who disagree post comments to that effect in a free, fair
and frank exchange of views.  So all is well.

Reynard

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Funny thing,
> That is what I would have said of Fae as well
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Rogol Domedonfors
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 11:07 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on
> public domain works
>
> Peter,
> Thanks for the compliment.  I just call them as I see them.
> Richard
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > Rogol,
> > Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic
> > assumption of good faith.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -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 copyright on
> > public domain works
> >
> > Fae,
> >
> > 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 position is and consider whether it might have some
> > merits?  Have you considered that if you were to approach them in a
> > less aggressive fashion, they might be happy to work with you or others
> to release their collection?
> >
> > Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding
> > of the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of
> > being successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as
> > > the "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic
> Environment.
> > > It holds detailed information and archive images for more than
> > > 300,000 places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment
> > > Scotland (HES).
> > >
> > > I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
> > > Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
> > > look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can
> > > offer to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a
> > > better understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
> > >
> > > In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
> > > knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
> > > seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be
> > > made from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
> > > domain. There are two basic problems:
> > > * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
> > > users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
> > > minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> > > * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed
> > > as copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given
> > > for any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> > > Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
> > > will be provided."
> > >
> > > I would be delighted to release some of the public domain
> > > collections from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons,
> > > but at the moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to
> > > release the disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain
> > > images, even using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no
> > > longer exists), I would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES
> > > based on the site terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
> > >
> > > Examples:
> > > 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
> > > photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> > > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Peter,
Thanks for the compliment.  I just call them as I see them.
Richard

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Rogol,
> Not everyone is blessed with your easy-going tolerance and automatic
> assumption of good faith.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -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 copyright on
> public domain works
>
> Fae,
>
> 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
> position is and consider whether it might have some merits?  Have you
> considered that if you were to approach them in a less aggressive fashion,
> they might be happy to work with you or others to release their collection?
>
> Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding of
> the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of being
> successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as the
> > "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
> > It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 300,000
> > places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment Scotland
> > (HES).
> >
> > I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
> > Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
> > look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can offer
> > to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a better
> > understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
> >
> > In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
> > knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
> > seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be made
> > from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
> > domain. There are two basic problems:
> > * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
> > users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
> > minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> > * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed as
> > copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given for
> > any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> > Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
> > will be provided."
> >
> > I would be delighted to release some of the public domain collections
> > from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, but at the
> > moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to release the
> > disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain images, even
> > using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no longer exists), I
> > would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES based on the site
> > terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
> >
> > Examples:
> > 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
> > photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> > 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 1944,
> > making all photographs public domain in 2014:
> > https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5&SIMPLE_
> > KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal&collection_items_page=40
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Canmore database and claims of copyright on public domain works

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fae,

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
position is and consider whether it might have some merits?  Have you
considered that if you were to approach them in a less aggressive fashion,
they might be happy to work with you or others to release their collection?

Alternatively, if you are absolutely confident that your understanding of
the law is correct and theirs is not, then you are at no risk of being
successfully prosecuted, so what is your problem?

"Rogol"

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> The Canmore database, https://canmore.org.uk, describes itself as the
> "online catalogue of the National Record of the Historic Environment.
> It holds detailed information and archive images for more than 300,000
> places in Scotland." Canmore is part of Historic Environment Scotland
> (HES).
>
> I'm aware that Wikimedia UK has helped to fund several projects in
> Scotland, so there is a network of contacts that could help take a
> look at the problematic claims of copyright. Perhaps someone can offer
> to take action to help Historic Environment Scotland reach a better
> understanding of copyright and avoid basic copyfraud errors?
>
> In theory this could be a marvelous reference resource for open
> knowledge about the history of Scotland, but the online catalogue
> seems more like a retail outlet geared to maximise the cash to be made
> from selling archive images, many of which are obviously public
> domain. There are two basic problems:
> * The online archive is limited to 800px width images, with website
> users directed to buy higher resolutions which are claimed to be a
> minimum of 3,000 pixels wide.
> * Regardless of age, source or photographer all images are claimed as
> copyright with the conditions including "No permission is given for
> any commercial use, distribution or reproduction in these terms.
> Please use the BUY option for these purposes and separate licences
> will be provided."
>
> I would be delighted to release some of the public domain collections
> from Canmore at high resolution to Wikimedia Commons, but at the
> moment it's all locked down. In fact were I to try to release the
> disappointingly small 800px versions of public domain images, even
> using the "required" attribution to RCAHMS (which no longer exists), I
> would be at personal risk of prosecution by HES based on the site
> terms and conditions. See examples 1 and 2.
>
> Examples:
> 1. Photograph of Hanover Street taken in 1870 by an unknown
> photographer, making it likely to have been public domain from 1898.
> https://canmore.org.uk/collection/466213
> 2. Over 950 photographs taken by Francis M Christal, who died in 1944,
> making all photographs public domain in 2014:
> https://canmore.org.uk/collection/result?GROUPCATEGORY=5&SIMPLE_
> KEYWORD=Francis%20M%20Chrystal&collection_items_page=40
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I was surprised to read the record
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Endowment_funding_(Fiscal_Year_2016-2017)_and_matching_$5_million_gift_from_Peter_Baldwin_and_Lisbet_Rausing
of the decision to place $5M into the endowment.  After the anouncement by
Lisa Gruwell on this list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-December/085712.html
there was a discussion of what might be done with the funds raised, and a
number of suggestions were made for how these funds could be used to
directly support the work of the volunteers who contribute the content to
the projects, such as
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-January/085835.html.

It is disappointing that the Board has chosen not to fund support of this
kind.  What is more than disappointing, but positively disturbing is that
the decision was made in the light of an offer from a donor to match the
sum put into the endowment.  I suggest that this was not a fair offer, and
the Board's decision was the wrong one.  Effectively this donor has said to
the Board that they will pay the Foundation not to support the volunteers,
and the Board has agreed to follow their wishes.  If the donor believes so
strongly in the necessity to build up the mission by means of an Endowment,
why did they not simply gift the money directly into the endowment without
conditions?  Equally, if the donor believes so strongly that money should
not be spent supporting the volunteer community, then I challenge them to
say so explicitly in public and to defend their position.

I call on the Board to explain to the community of volunteers precisely why
they have chosen not to offer that support to the community and to state
that they will not allow future decisions of this nature to be influenced
by the wishes of one donor, however generous.

"Rogol"
___
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] Core content policy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

John

I wasn't asking for an explanation or discussion of what contributors to
this list think "knowledge" is or ought to be (fascinating and illuminating
though that would doubtless be).  I was suggesting that either someone
point to the already-agreed and easily-available common and agreed
definition of knowledge that the movement has been using in its mission
(not to mention its fundraising), or an admission that such a thing does
not yet exist.  Do you know of such an agreed position, and if so, are you
able to point to it?

"Rogol"

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:49 PM, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Well, data becomes information becomes knowledge.
> Information imply organization of data, and knowledge imply processing of
> information.
>
> The description "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular
> fact or circumstance" is from a dictionary, and I won't tell which one. It
> is not entirely correct.
> The description "facts told, heard, or discovered" is from Oxford Advanced
> Learners Dictionary, ISBN 9780194311410
>
> If you can't communicate a fact, because it is  like "exposing an ancient
> paper source to intense UV light", then other might say it is a moot fact.
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > I'm aware that "knowledge" as a concept has a long history.  I would not
> > have expected the movement to have finally resolved the "problem of
> > knowledge", whatever that might be, nor did I say that I had.  I am
> > expressing surprise that there is not yet a common understanding that the
> > movement can rally round.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> > rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia.  It is part of
> the
> > > reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply
> not
> > > so".
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors" 
> 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 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
> > > > now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of
> > > knowledge
> > > > that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and
> > > > continues to be raised for?  Why not just point to that common
> position
> > > > that everyone has signed up to?
> > > >
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or
> > > "knowledge
> > > > > communicated or received concerning a particular fact or
> > circumstance".
> > > > (I
> > > > > would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for
> > > this.)
> > > > > If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't
> communicate
> > > the
> > > > > fact, how can there be the information?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, this does not make sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ​
> > > > > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way
> > you
> > > > > look
> > > > > > at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information
> > and
> > > > make
> > > > > > it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the
> > > sources
> > > > > is
> > > > > > dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks
> the
> > > > > > continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient
> > paper
> > > > > source
> > > > > > to intense UV light.
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I'm aware that "knowledge" as a concept has a long history.  I would not
have expected the movement to have finally resolved the "problem of
knowledge", whatever that might be, nor did I say that I had.  I am
expressing surprise that there is not yet a common understanding that the
movement can rally round.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:

> The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia.  It is part of the
> reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply not
> so".
>
>
> On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors"  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 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
> > now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of
> knowledge
> > that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and
> > continues to be raised for?  Why not just point to that common position
> > that everyone has signed up to?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or
> "knowledge
> > > communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance".
> > (I
> > > would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for
> this.)
> > > If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate
> the
> > > fact, how can there be the information?
> > >
> > > Sorry, this does not make sense.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ​
> > > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you
> > > look
> > > > at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and
> > make
> > > > it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the
> sources
> > > is
> > > > dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
> > > > continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper
> > > source
> > > > to intense UV light.
> > > >
> > > > There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to
> > > > "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets
> more
> > > > complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part
> > of a
> > > > multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances
> > by
> > > > bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self
> > > > changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to
> collect
> > > the
> > > > sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to
> address
> > > the
> > > > uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
> > > culture(language)
> > > > from which it originates
> > > >
> > > > > ​
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland <
> jpbel...@wikimedia.ca
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to
> create
> > > > > > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
> > > > policies.
> > > > > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point
> of
> > > > view.
> > > > > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where
> projects
> > > > > rewrite
> > > > > > world history to focus on their own local view.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra 
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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
now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of knowledge
that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and
continues to be raised for?  Why not just point to that common position
that everyone has signed up to?

"Rogol"

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or "knowledge
> communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance". (I
> would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for this.)
> If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate the
> fact, how can there be the information?
>
> Sorry, this does not make sense.
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > ​
> > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
> >
> >
> > ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you
> look
> > at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make
> > it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources
> is
> > dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
> > continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper
> source
> > to intense UV light.
> >
> > There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to
> > "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets more
> > complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a
> > multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances  by
> > bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self
> > changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to collect
> the
> > sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address
> the
> > uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
> culture(language)
> > from which it originates
> >
> > > ​
> >
> >
> > On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
> > >
> > > JP
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> > > > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
> > policies.
> > > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of
> > view.
> > > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
> > > rewrite
> > > > world history to focus on their own local view.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
> > > culture
> > > > is
> > > > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
> policies.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
> _content_,
> > > but
> > > > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that
> > are
> > > > > highly
> > > > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > > > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
> > > global
> > > > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic
> culture
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on
> article
> > > > > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
> > > analysis
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> > > > words,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> > > > > articles
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > > > > > approaches
> > > > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
> > demonstrate
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
> > > globally
> > > > > > > shared
> > > > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> > > > determines
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
> > > > encyclopedic
> > > > > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
> > > > encyclopedic
> > > > > > > > knowledg

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chief Product Officer search and job description

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine,

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 accountable
for the extent to which they achieve those goals.

"Rogol"

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Joady,
>
> Does the title "Chief Product Officer" mean that WMF intends to revert the
> name of the Audiences department back to the Product department?
>
> "On time and budget" is a goal that can be very difficult to achieve with
> complex engineering projects that often encounter surprises. WMF has
> experience with this with VisualEditor. I suggest that it would be good to
> set realistic expectations for candidates.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Joady Lohr  wrote:
>
> > We are please to announce the upcoming launch of the recruiting process
> for
> > the Chief Product Officer.
> >
> > As part of the process, we wanted to share the job description (below). A
> > big thank you to the Audiences & Technology teams for their
> collaboration,
> > support and guidance in creating it.
> >
> > We also wanted to out put a call, if you have any nominations or
> > recommendations, we'd love to hear from you. Just email me directly over
> > the next few days.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Joady
> >
> >
> > Job Title:
> >
> > Chief Product Officer
> >
> >
> >
> > Summary
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for a creative, collaborative,
> > forward-thinking Chief Product Officer to join our executive team. We’re
> > looking for a leader who is driven by our mission, animated by results,
> > informed by data, and passionate about superb user experiences. This may
> be
> > you, if you have have a truly global worldview, uncompromising commitment
> > to our values, and embrace transparency in your work and communications.
> >
> >
> >
> > As Chief Product Officer, you will lead a nearly hundred person
> department
> > that builds and supports products, features, and services used by more
> than
> > one billion users per month from every part of the globe. As a member of
> > the Foundation’s executive team you will be a critical voice representing
> > our contributors, readers, and new users. Our vision is for “every human
> > being to share in the sum of human knowledge”, and our product experience
> > is essential to that vision.
> >
> > As Chief Product Officer, we’d like you to do these things:
> >
> > Lead
> >
> >-
> >
> >Work with the Foundation’s executive team to think and act in service
> of
> >the future of the Wikimedia vision, projects, contributors, and
> readers
> >-
> >
> >Serve as a compelling advocate for the Wikimedia movement, Foundation,
> >and values to users, contributors, donors, and partners
> >-
> >
> >Develop and lead product strategy to support the Wikimedia projects,
> >communities, and partners
> >
> >
> > Produce
> >
> >-
> >
> >Deliver measurable user impact at global scale by working
> >collaboratively and effectively across internal departments and
> external
> >partners
> >-
> >
> >Develop, advance and deliver an effective product vision, including
> >expanding product usership, contributor health and retention, brand
> >awareness, and revenue growth
> >-
> >
> >Build products to grow and sustain our content-building communities
> >while acquiring, delighting, and engaging readers
> >-
> >
> >Foster a well-defined theory of change with qualitative and
> quantitative
> >metrics to track and communicate impact
> >
> >
> > Manage
> >
> >-
> >
> >Build a sustainable system and culture for team members’ continued
> >professional growth and advancement
> >-
> >
> >Manage, mentor, and recruit exceptional and diverse talent
> >-
> >
> >Build strong and effective teams, developing departmental succession
> >planning across a broad range of disciplines (e.g., product
> management,
> >design, engineering, data analysis)
> >-
> >
> >Manage competing priorities, complex stakeholder relationships, and
> >finite resources in order to deliver measurable user impact at scale
> >
> >
> > Collaborate
> >
> >-
> >
> >Build and strengthen relationships with the Wikimedia community to
> >advance the mission of the Foundation
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Identify and grow product partnerships that support our movement’s
> >aspirations
> >-
> >
> >Work with our communities to understand their needs and motivations
> >
> > We’d like you to have this experience and these skills:
> >
> >-
> >
> >10+ years in strategic-level product development roles
> >
> >
> >-
> >
> >Proven record of leading high-impact global software product
> initiatives
> >for millions of users with measurable success, across mu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James

If the WMF is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter as if that
chapter were a mere subsidiary, then it might inherit the responsibility
for any content creation that the chapter had made in the past, or indeed
might do in the future.  Mind you, I only say "might", because I am not a
lawyer, although I sat opposite one in the London Underground once.  I
merely suggest that someone who actually is a lawyer, preferably even
employed or retained by the Foundation, should consider the matter and give
the WMF a professional opinion.  If you happen to be qualified to advise
the Foundation on the matter, by all means do so.  If not, so that your
opinion on the matter is as authoritative as mine, which is to say, not at
all, then perhaps you may wish to desist from discussing the matter
further, as I propose to do.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:02 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation
> be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards
> of a Chapter?
>
> Is there some French law that requires charities to be more
> independent of their international affiliates than would be under such
> a requirement?
>
> The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
> because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
> engaging in any activity that might 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 
> wrote:
> > If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
> > the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
> > status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
> > of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation
> is
> > free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to
> control.
> > ___
> > 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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Rogol Domedonfors]

If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to control.
___
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] [Strategy] August 1: Strategy update - Preparing for Wikimania, the strategic direction, and New voices insights (#22)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine

If the objects of the affiliate are compatible with those of the
Foundation, then you could ask for a grant.  If they are not, why would the
Foundation even consider letting you raise funds on their sites.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I wonder if WMF would be willing to let a non-WMF affiliate put up
> fundraising (which I consider to be another form of advertising, and
> perhaps some survey respondents did too) banners to get funds for COIN and
> related backlogs. Perhaps if the fundraising was done by a separate
> organization, then these efforts could be funded while minimizing the risks
> to WMF's legal protections.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:20 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for?
> > > And what percentage of socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
> >
> > I would sure like to know this.
> >
> > I would also like to whether the Foundation could, hypothetically,
> > hire editors to address the COIN and related backlogs (AFC, etc.)
> > without endangering the safe harbor provisions; and if not, could a
> > Chapter or User Group, if they were or were not using Foundation
> > funds. Could the Foundation spin off an organization to address the
> > issue separately as in WikiEd?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:51 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> > > I find the slide
> > >  > 2017_Monthly_Metrics_Meeting.pdf&page=22>
> > > about whether or not people feel we are "free of advertising"
> interesting
> > > as we only got a 7.3 (with lower scores among younger readers).
> > >
> > > We unfortunately are not free of advertising. There is a large and
> > appears
> > > to be growing industry that sells Wikipedia articles / ads, which are
> > > mostly created through large groups of sock accounts. They also are
> > > involved with adding SEO links.
> > >
> > > We are struggling to get a handle on this at the COI notice board
> > >  > interest/Noticeboard>,
> > > which has seen over the last couple of days the listing of more than a
> > > hundred additional articles of concern, at SPI, and at WikiProject
> Spam.
> > >
> > > Would be useful to analysis just how significant this issue is, such as
> > > what proportion of articles at NPP appear paid for? And what percentage
> > of
> > > socks / sock cases relate to paid editing?
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Katherine Maher 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all  —
> > >>
> > >> Wikimania is coming, but before we get to Montreal, we are publishing
> > many
> > >> more insights, reports, guides, and research from our work during
> cycle
> > 3.
> > >> There's lots of good stuff and interesting insights (did you know
> Spain
> > is
> > >> consistently one of the countries with the highest awareness about our
> > >> projects and community?), and I encourage you to take a look. Here
> are a
> > >> few new updates:
> > >>
> > >> *New voices synthesis report.*[1] Are you looking to better understand
> > >> New Voices projects? Start with this overview report — it summarizes
> our
> > >> work across many teams: insights from research, a summary of 58 expert
> > >> interviews, expert convenings hosted by the Foundation and affiliates,
> > >> design research findings, briefings on major trends that will impact
> the
> > >> community like misinformation and emerging platforms, further reading,
> > and
> > >> (of course!) references.
> > >>
> > >> *July Wikimedia Foundation metrics meeting.*[2] During our July 27
> > >> meeting, we reviewed new research on brand insights about why people
> do
> > >> (and do not) read Wikipedia, research that focuses on high-awareness
> > >> countries as part of New Voices initiatives.
> > >>
> > >> *Strategic direction committee update.*[3] We are working to consider
> > >> what we have heard from the community and learned from research to
> > identify
> > >> what we want to achieve as a movement by 2030. We will share our first
> > >> draft of the strategic direction with all of you in advance of
> > Wikimania.
> > >> We’re looking forward to your thoughts on the talk page!
> > >>
> > >> *Wikimania movement strategy and events.*[4] Speaking of Wikimania,
> the
> > >> Foundation is preparing 6 sessions related to the strategy process in
> > the
> > >> official program. We will also offer you a physical location for
> > engaging
> > >> with the strategic direction: the Movement Strategy Space, open from
> > >> Thursday through Sunday. The Space will host different working
> sessions,
> > >> discussions, and the chance to re-energize for the coming weeks and
> > months
> > >> (we have some special things in store!). The conference organizers are
> > also
> > >> preparing a remote attendee plan with live video and content for the
> > >> conference overall, so you will be able to participate if you’re not
> > able

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Is it wise for the Foundation to be seen to controlling content in this
way?  Would that not jeopardise their legal immunity?

"Rogol"

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 5:31 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points
> (NPOV,
> > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > > community needs.
> >
> >
> > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> > different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
> > fair
> > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> >
>
> And English Wikiversity (and maybe other Wikiversities?) allows original
> research (within certain guidelines).
>
> —Sam
>
> ___
> 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 Committee (TechCom)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Victoria

Thanks for that.  As you may gather, I have not found that in the past
those interactions all went well.  But we can hope.

"Rogol"

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Victoria Coleman 
wrote:

> Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your question Rogol. So let me try and give you
> my point of view on the essence of your question. The Tech department in
> the Foundation, the TechCom and the volunteer developer community work to
> support the movement and its people, from readers to contributors and
> beyond. What this  tech community overall works on is driven by the needs
> of the movement. Some of these needs are purely technical. For example we
> want to minimize latency for both readers and contributors so we spend a
> lot of effort in understanding what causes latency and how to reduce it.
> Other needs come from the need to build new features. An example of this
> would be ORES and the scoring tool that many editors use. How do we collect
> and prioritize these needs? In some cases through our own expertise, in
> some cases by being part of the community , in others by doing research to
> understand what works and yet in others  by working closely with the
> Audiences team in the Foundation. The Audiences team has the mandate to
> deliver user facing features based on research and close interaction with
> the community. The Community wishlist being a great example of that work.
> The Community Engagement team through the Community Liaisons is another
> great way for us to collect input for the community.
>
> I would  of course also welcome your ideas and suggestions as well as
> those of other members of the community for how we could better capture the
> views and needs of our users and our contributors.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Victoria
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
> >
> > Victoria
> >
> > Thanks you for your prompt and full reply.  However, you describe how
> > volunteer developers will interact with TechCom, but my question was
> about
> > the users across the world and the content contributors in the various
> > projects, who will be using the products and services that WMF and the
> > pther developers work on.  I assume that TechCom will wish to understand
> > the views of what those users and contributors want and need -- how will
> > those be be taken into account?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Victoria Coleman <
> vcole...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you Rogol. The primary way that the volunteer developer community
> >> will interact with the TechCom is through the use of the RFC process as
> was
> >> the case  with the ArchCom beforehand. The TechCom itself of course is
> open
> >> to the volunteer developer community for participation and since we are
> >> expanding membership to cover a broader area of technologies that the
> >> ArchCom was able to cover, there will be more opportunity to get
> involved.
> >> We are looking forward to that and as Daniel and I  will be present at
> >> Wikimania we will discuss the workings and goals of the new charter with
> >> anyone who is interested. I would encourage you and anyone else who
> wants
> >> to know more to reach out to Daniel or myself  to arrange to get
> together.
> >> For those who cannot attend Wikimania, we will host a webcast in the
> next
> >> few weeks to introduce the new committee and its charter and take
> questions.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >>
> >> Victoria
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 29, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Victoria
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for that.  I am sure we all welcome the new Committee.  The
> >>> description of its role mentions that it is "the guardian of the
> >> integrity,
> >>> consistency, stability and performance of the software supporting the
> >>> Wikimedia projects", and its "authority on technical decisions
> regarding
> >>> any official software that serves Wikimedia users".  Could you say
> >>> something about how the Committee will work with the community in its
> >>> various aspects to find out what forms of support and service the users
> >> and
> >>> contributors want and need?
> >>>
> >>> "Rogol"
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Victoria Coleman <
> >> vcole...@wikimedia.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Wikimedia Technical Committee (TechCom)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Victoria

Thanks you for your prompt and full reply.  However, you describe how
volunteer developers will interact with TechCom, but my question was about
the users across the world and the content contributors in the various
projects, who will be using the products and services that WMF and the
pther developers work on.  I assume that TechCom will wish to understand
the views of what those users and contributors want and need -- how will
those be be taken into account?

"Rogol"

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Victoria Coleman 
wrote:

> Thank you Rogol. The primary way that the volunteer developer community
> will interact with the TechCom is through the use of the RFC process as was
> the case  with the ArchCom beforehand. The TechCom itself of course is open
> to the volunteer developer community for participation and since we are
> expanding membership to cover a broader area of technologies that the
> ArchCom was able to cover, there will be more opportunity to get involved.
> We are looking forward to that and as Daniel and I  will be present at
> Wikimania we will discuss the workings and goals of the new charter with
> anyone who is interested. I would encourage you and anyone else who wants
> to know more to reach out to Daniel or myself  to arrange to get together.
> For those who cannot attend Wikimania, we will host a webcast in the next
> few weeks to introduce the new committee and its charter and take questions.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Victoria
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
> >
> > Victoria
> >
> > Thanks for that.  I am sure we all welcome the new Committee.  The
> > description of its role mentions that it is "the guardian of the
> integrity,
> > consistency, stability and performance of the software supporting the
> > Wikimedia projects", and its "authority on technical decisions regarding
> > any official software that serves Wikimedia users".  Could you say
> > something about how the Committee will work with the community in its
> > various aspects to find out what forms of support and service the users
> and
> > contributors want and need?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Victoria Coleman <
> vcole...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello All!
> >>
> >> Daniel and I would like to share some good news:
> >>
> >>
> >> After  talking about it for years, and vetting the draft for months,
> >> it's finally done: the Architecture Committee has adopted a proper
> charter
> >> defining its purpose, operation, and authority.
> >>
> >> You can find the charter here:
> >> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Technical_Committee/Charter <
> >> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Technical_Committee/Charter>>
> >>
> >> The charter among other things defines from where the committee draws
> its
> >> authority over technical development at the WMF: the committee acts as
> an
> >> extension of the CTO. This gives the committee  a clear role in the
> >> foundation's decision
> >> making processes.
> >>
> >> The charter also clarifies the scope of TechCom: it is to act as an
> >> authority on
> >> technical decisions regarding any official software that serves
> Wikimedia
> >> users.
> >> The committee should be involved in matters regarding such software that
> >> are
> >> strategic, cross-cutting, or hard to undo.
> >>
> >> The committee has also given itself a new name, to better fit the scope
> as
> >> defined in the charter: we are now the Wikimedia Technical Committee
> >> (TechCom).
> >>
> >> Looking forward to working with the technical community to fulfill the
> >> charter!
> >>
> >>
> >> Victoria & Daniel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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://m

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Wikimedia Technical Committee (TechCom)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Victoria

Thanks for that.  I am sure we all welcome the new Committee.  The
description of its role mentions that it is "the guardian of the integrity,
consistency, stability and performance of the software supporting the
Wikimedia projects", and its "authority on technical decisions regarding
any official software that serves Wikimedia users".  Could you say
something about how the Committee will work with the community in its
various aspects to find out what forms of support and service the users and
contributors want and need?

"Rogol"

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Victoria Coleman 
wrote:

> Hello All!
>
> Daniel and I would like to share some good news:
>
>
> After  talking about it for years, and vetting the draft for months,
> it's finally done: the Architecture Committee has adopted a proper charter
> defining its purpose, operation, and authority.
>
> You can find the charter here:
>  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Technical_Committee/Charter>>
>
> The charter among other things defines from where the committee draws its
> authority over technical development at the WMF: the committee acts as an
> extension of the CTO. This gives the committee  a clear role in the
> foundation's decision
> making processes.
>
> The charter also clarifies the scope of TechCom: it is to act as an
> authority on
> technical decisions regarding any official software that serves Wikimedia
> users.
> The committee should be involved in matters regarding such software that
> are
> strategic, cross-cutting, or hard to undo.
>
> The committee has also given itself a new name, to better fit the scope as
> defined in the charter: we are now the Wikimedia Technical Committee
> (TechCom).
>
> Looking forward to working with the technical community to fulfill the
> charter!
>
>
> Victoria & Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fae

Since I pointed out that your posting
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=253364582&oldid=253360811
linked to in your first posting on the subject used that word, your latest
email is clearly incorrect, and I think that terminates the discussion as
far as I'm concerned.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about
> fraudulent conduct is yourself.
>
> I'll pass on repeating it again. What I originally posted is obviously
> not getting read.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 28 July 2017 at 21:49, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> > Fae,
> >
> > That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are
> well
> > aware.  I imagine it does not entirely capture your views on this complex
> > subject either.  So it is not really very helpful.
> >
> > Chris Keating's email depicts the likely course of events better than
> your
> > over-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.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
> >> > Fae
> >> >
> >> > When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to
> describe
> >> > the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5]
> on
> >> > your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
> >> > twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than
> to
> >> > understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct.  That
> is
> >> not
> >> > a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not
> waste
> >> my
> >> > rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your
> accusation in
> >> > the slightest.
> >> >
> >> > You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any
> >> > circumstances".
> >> > Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action
> to
> >> > claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like,
> they
> >> > clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might
> >> > happen to prefer.  The question of harmonising intellectual property
> >> rights
> >> > across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of
> >> physical
> >> > objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the
> legal
> >> > duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their
> >> duty
> >> > to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other
> >> elements
> >> > of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not
> going
> >> > to write an essay".  If you can't be bothered to explain your
> position, I
> >> > can't be bothered to support it.
> >> >
> >> > If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is
> wrong,
> >> > and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I
> >> want
> >> > the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then
> I
> >> am
> >> > not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who
> >> have
> >> > a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile
> and
> >> > rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
> >>
> >> Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is
> >> something that a British National Institution would want to defend.
> >> The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not
> >> needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not
> >> describe what this is about.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >>
> >> > "Rogol"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading
> >> >> of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are
> &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fae,

That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are well
aware.  I imagine it does not entirely capture your views on this complex
subject either.  So it is not really very helpful.

Chris Keating's email depicts the likely course of events better than your
over-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.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> > Fae
> >
> > When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe
> > the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on
> > your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
> > twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to
> > understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct.  That is
> not
> > a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste
> my
> > rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation in
> > the slightest.
> >
> > You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any
> > circumstances".
> > Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to
> > claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they
> > clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might
> > happen to prefer.  The question of harmonising intellectual property
> rights
> > across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of
> physical
> > objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal
> > duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their
> duty
> > to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other
> elements
> > of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not going
> > to write an essay".  If you can't be bothered to explain your position, I
> > can't be bothered to support it.
> >
> > If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong,
> > and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I
> want
> > the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I
> am
> > not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who
> have
> > a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and
> > rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
>
> Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is
> something that a British National Institution would want to defend.
> The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not
> needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not
> describe what this is about.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> > "Rogol"
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading
> >> of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are
> >> shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over
> >> copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent
> >> conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest
> >> reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
> >>
> >> As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the
> >> official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my
> >> original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies
> >> and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any
> >> circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this
> >> obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving
> >> positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is
> >> under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the
> >> administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves.
> >> They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words,
> >> or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
> >>
> >> As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to
> >> get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of
> >> tak

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fae

When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe
the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on
your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to
understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct.  That is not
a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste my
rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation in
the slightest.

You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any
circumstances".
Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to
claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they
clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might
happen to prefer.  The question of harmonising intellectual property rights
across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of physical
objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal
duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their duty
to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other elements
of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not going
to write an essay".  If you can't be bothered to explain your position, I
can't be bothered to support it.

If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong,
and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I want
the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I am
not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who have
a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and
rather less well paid than you choose to believe.

"Rogol"



On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading
> of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are
> shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over
> copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent
> conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest
> reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
>
> As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the
> official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my
> original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies
> and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any
> circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this
> obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving
> positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is
> under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the
> administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves.
> They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words,
> or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
>
> As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to
> get in touch. 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.
>
> Links
> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> Fae
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
> http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
>
> On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
> >
> > Fae,
> >
> > I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my
> time
> > on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and
> finish
> > with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just because
> you
> > say so.  If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed
> that
> > you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your
> > positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
> > > from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
> > > objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
> > > of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are
> > > shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that
> > > might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
> > > as to why the British Museum would ever want to make co

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Fae,

I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my time
on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and finish
with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just because you
say so.  If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed that
you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your
positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
> from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
> objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
> of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are
> shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that
> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
> money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
> charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
> to public use and be freely accessible".
>
> Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that
> might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm
> wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social
> media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The
> reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM
> loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct,
> so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private
> letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save
> hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the
> sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a
> few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
>
> Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away
> from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards
> sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to
> try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a
> few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might
> mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are
> still alive to see it happen.
>
> Links
> 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_
> century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
> 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_
> Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
> 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-
> collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery
> 4. British Museum "about us":
> http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/
> management/about_us.aspx
> 5. Commons village pump discussion:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#
> British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
>
> Contacts
> * https://twitter.com/britishmuseum
> * https://twitter.com/TullieHouse
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Aaron

Thank you for that

"Rogol"

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:57 PM, 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
> > ,
> > > >> <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] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Gerard,

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 5:39 PM, you wrote:

Arguably we do not spend enough, we could achieve more.
>

I would say that it is about spending money differently, not just more.
However, here are some things that one could achieve for a modest $2.5M, as
suggested in a thread on this list in January – considering the enormous
surplus value accruing to the Foundation as a result of the work of the
Community, any or all of these suggestions seem to be to be quite modest
returns to the Community for that work.

"Rogol"

1. Fully-paid bursaies to Wikimania 2017 for one person from each of the
250 largest projects;
2. Purchase one reference book or similar for the 30,000 most active
content contributors;
3. Purchase a one-year JSTOR subscription for the 10,000 most active
content contributors;
4. Local travel bursaries to Wikimedia meetups and conferences for 50,000
members of the Community;
5. An office with ten staff paid for a year to resolve the requirements for
improved tools from the Community Tech programme.

One could imagine folding some of these into the endowment at 4% as follows:
1'. Funding for 10 Wikimania bursaries per year for ever;
2'. Funding for 1,000 books per year for ever;
3'. Funding for 400 JSTOR subscriptions per year for ever;
4'. Funding for local travel for 2,000 people per year for ever.
___
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] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine

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
answerable only to the Board, and the Board members as Trustees are
answerable only to themselves.  If you are unable to obtain the assurances
you need, then your only recourse is to put your name forward for
nomination to the Board yourself.

Good luck!

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi WMF folks,
> I'm still waiting. The issue of financial transparency isn't going away,
> and the silence here is getting to be a point of concern.
> Pine
>  Original message From: Pine W 
> Date: 7/14/17  11:31 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates]
> June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)
> Hi WMF folks,
>
> I'm still waiting for a reply to this question.
>
> Pine
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty
> with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.
>
> Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by
> following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this
> will help to keep the conversation focused and civil.
>
> > 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).
>
> Thanks for providing the project budget number, which is a good place to
> start. How much is the timeline extension projected
> to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? I imagine that an
> analysis of the cost of the extension was done
> before the extension was authorized, and that a funding source was
> identified. I hope that WMF can provide that information
> and that only a few minutes of staff time will be necessary to publish it.
>
> I'm hoping that we can address this topic first, and then move on to other
> issues that have come up.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can
> approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have
> posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent,
> and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday
> to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF staff
> to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a
> holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the
> holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I
> should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to
> staff.
>
> 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] Announcement of the Scoring Platform team

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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  >
> > 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,
> >> <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] Announcement of the Scoring Platform team

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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 
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,
> 
___
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] Looking for your thoughts on the Wikimedia Foundation election cycle

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Joe,

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
Community nominates irrespective of the Board's own view of their fitness
for the post – which would be a violation of their duty as Trustees –
please avoid the misleading term "election" and replace it by "nomination",
or "selection", or "pre-election", or some other term that correctly
reflects the fact that the only body with power to appoint a Board member
is the Board itself.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Joe Sutherland 
wrote:

> Um. I of course mean "election", not "meeting". :)
>
> Joe
>
> --
> *Joe Sutherland*
> Community Advocate
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> On 14 July 2017 at 12:46, Joe Sutherland 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all!
> >
> > The Support and Safety team is looking for your thoughts on the recent
> > Wikimedia Foundation elections cycle - that is, the Board of Trustees
> > elections in April/May, and the Funds Dissemination Committee meeting in
> > May/June.
> >
> > What do you think went well, and what do you think could have gone
> better?
> >
> > I'd love your thoughts, either on this email thread or on the dedicated
> > Meta-Wiki page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > elections/2017/Post_mortem
> >
> > Feel free to email me privately if you'd like to.
> >
> > Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, good or bad. :)
> >
> > best,
> > Joe
> >
> > --
> > *Joe Sutherland*
> > Community Advocate
> > 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] [Publicpolicy] Wikimedia Sverige vs. the Visual Copyright Society in Sweden (BUS)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> I thought that case was lost over a year ago, in the Swedish Supreme Court:
>
> http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/wikimedia-sweden-artworks/
>
> What happened between then and now for this to end up in the Swedish Patent
> and Market Court?
>
> Andreas
>
___
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] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Chris

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. However, if I was in their position, looking at the
> nature of comments on Wikipedia Weekly, on Meta and in this thread, I would
> probably not be leaping to provide a full and thorough response.


In the interests of improving communications between staff and the
community of volunteers and donors, please indicate how a request might
have been framed that would have encouraged your colleagues "to provide a
full and thorough response"?

"Rogol"
___
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] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Chris

Your points
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 practices.
2: If the things that were already going to happen have already happened,
then presumably somebody made them happen and those people would find it
quick and easy to explain to the community what those things were (I take
it from your wording that you are not one of those people).  Explaining to
the donors what $436K of their money bought would rarely come amiss.
2': Andreas made the point that "trying to avoid coverage" about a problem
is not necessarily the best strategy.  Being open about a problem may be
better, and/or more consistent with community values.  But that is a
discussion for another location. The point of this thread is to encourage
participation in that debate.
3: Quotes are by their nature "selective" since otherwise one would simply
repeat the entire document, which is unlikely to be optimal.  If you
believe those quotes are not representative, have the courage to say so –
you have read the whole document, after all.  Suggesting that Andreas
selected quotes to support an arbitrary level of outrage is, to use Leila's
word, disrespectful.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:
>
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have
> > summarised
> > > my concerns on the related talk page on Meta.[3]
> > >
> >
> > ​I would love to find some time to go over the audit (67 pages) and your
> > comments/thoughts and share mine.
>
>
> As someone who has in fact read the whole 67 pages (twice now), I am happy
> to share my conclusions:
>
> 1) The communications audit is only of interest to people with a particular
> interest in Wikimedia movement communications and does not have wider
> significance.
>
> 2) Given that the audit was finished in September 2016 and was greeted by a
> marked lack of fanfare, anything that the Foundation was going to do
> differently as a result of the audit has probably already happened.
>
> (It's difficult to tell from Meta whether anything has actually changed,
> but the report made a number of very sensible recommendations like WMF
> Comms working more with chapters, engaging more with non-English language
> audiences, and trying to avoid coverage about vandalism - hopefully those
> have all been picked up!)
>
> 3) If one reads any 67-page document related to the Wikimedia movement
> determined to find points of criticism, then it's probably possible to do
> so. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that the longer the document, the
> easier it is to find selective quotes to support an arbitrary level of
> outrage about its contents.
>
> Regards,
>
> 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Leila,

I am sorry to hear that your management have not seen fit to allow you the
time to read this report since it is on a topic that is key to work that
you do.  But I think the underlying suggestion that Andreas or non-staff
readers should identify ways in which this report has changed WMF practices
is disingenuous.  Surely it is the staff involved who can comment on the
extent to which they expect this report to change their thinking and
practices around communications.  Of course it may well be, as you suggest,
that the Interim Chief of Communications see it as only proper to delay any
major response until her successor is in post.  In either case, it would
hardly be a major investment of staff time to say so.

However, there is a point that it is proper for volunteers and donors to
raise.  The company that produced this report is in receipt of some
hundreds of thousands of dollars of WMF money – which means donors' money.
If the assumptions on which they have founded their recommendations are
significantly at variance with the values and practices of the community at
large, then there is a disconnect that needs to be brought out into the
open and addressed, otherwise there is a serious risk of that money being
ineffectively spent.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have
> summarised
> > my concerns on the related talk page on Meta.[3]
> >
>
> ​I would love to find some time to go over the audit (67 pages) and your
> comments/thoughts and share mine. However, given that this will require
> substantial amount of time, I'm wondering if you or anyone else has a good
> sense of areas that Wikimedia Foundation has decided to change its best
> practices based on the audit notes. I'm assuming that receiving
> recommendations for change doesn't mean that all recommendations are going
> to go into effect, the teams usually spend a lot of care in implementing
> changes considering the mission and their field knowledge of our Movement.
> :) If we know which parts of the report Communications team has decided to
> act on, then we won't spend our time on things that we already agree on. :)
>
> I'm also wondering: Given that a Chief Communications Officer is to be
> hired whether it's more productive to delay spending more time on this kind
> of document until after this person is in office and we know more what
> their vision/direction is.
>
> (and as you may know by now: I have not followed discussions on this topic
> before, my apologies if this is already addressed as part of the previous
> conversations.)
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> ​p.s. and you know this but for others: I'm in Research at Wikimedia
> Foundation. I'm interested in this topic as communications is key for
> surfacing the work I do as part of my responsibilities. I'm not talking on
> behalf of Wikimedia Foundation or Communications team.​ :)
>
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Andreas
> >
> > [1]
> > https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/
> > permalink/1366566440057850/
> > [2]
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4a/
> > Wikimedia_Foundation_communications_audit_-_2014-2016.pdf
> > [3]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/
> Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > messaging_strategy#Comments_on_the_2014.E2.80.9316_communications_audit
> > ___
> > 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] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Robert

I speak only for myself, as I presume do you.  I make observations that
relate to the Foundation, the wider Community and their interactions, as I
presume do you.  I sometimes comment on those matters here, as do you.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Robert,
> What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia
> movement strategy process (#19)
>
> >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.
> > >
> > 

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Anna

Thank you for that and for writing it on a Sunday.  Unfortunately I missed
it originally in the two dozen messages in this thread.  You mention the
names of individuals outside the US who are helping and that is good to
see.  By "consultants" I meant the companies hired to help you, such as
Lake Research Partners, Wellspring Insight, Dot Connector Studio and Lutman
& Associates – probably I should have said "consultancies".

"Rogol"

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it
> on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate.
>
> There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase:
>
>- organized groups
>- on-wiki
>- experts
>- new voices
>
> I’d like to introduce this list to some of the members of the team.
>
>- Organized groups is run by *Nicole Ebber*, who many of us know
>previously from her ongoing international work for Wikimedia
> Deutschland.
>She is a wonderfully thoughtful contributor to the movement and a lover
> of
>craft beer. She joins us from Berlin where she is based.
>
> New Voices has been a collaboration with different stakeholders in
> different markets.
>
>- *Adele Vrana* leads the New Voices team and runs focus groups in
>Brazil, where she is originally from. She is US-based now.  Adele has
> grown
>from an individual contributor at the foundation to a Director through
> her
>innate competence, hard work, and deep passion for the mission.
>
>
>- *Uzo Iweala* is running focus groups in Nigeria. He is born, raised,
>and residing in Nigeria. Uzo is an award-winning author and a medical
>doctor. He also has a unique view into Nigeria and a nuanced mind. We’ll
>need that. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world.
>
>
>- *Ravishankar Ayyakkannu* is running focus groups in India. Ravi is
>born, raised, and residing in India. He has worked with the Global
>Partnerships team for some time now. I've read the reports from his
> group.
>Ravi is so enthusiastically engaged in his communities.
>
>
>- I have not checked these next ones, as I prioritized timeliness, but I
>believe *Jack Rabah*, a Jordanian based in Jordan is running groups in
>MENA. If you have not met Jack, then your life is not as good as it
> could
>be. He has played a pivotal role in our partnerships throughout the
> Middle
>East.
>
>
>- And I know that *Jorge Vargas*, a Colombian lawyer who made the leap
>from legal to global partnerships and never looked back, has been
> involved
>in all of this as well.  He has served the foundation well over a
> number of
>years, but the names of the countries escape me at the moment.
> Perdoname,
>Jorge.
>
> These people continue to organize communities of stakeholders, convene
> them, ask them about their communities and knowledge, and then listen.
>
> One of the reasons we've extended the timeline on movement 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 languages throughout this
>process. That team is managed by *Jan **Eissfeldt*, who is based between
>Taiwan (is that right, Jan?) and Spain.
>
> Just to clarify the record.
> /a
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Rogol Domedonfors  >
> wrote:
>
> > 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  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hej,
> > >
> > > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion
> > :-)
> > > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> > > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various
> reasons,
> > > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> > large
> > > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia.
> If
> > > WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would be
> > > great.
> > >
> > > -Teemu
> > >
> > > > Gerard Meijssen  kirjoitti 24.6.2017
> kello
> > > 13.00:
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> Wikip

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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
> >> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> >
> >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> learning a
> >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
> to
> >> say it.
> >
> > OK, that makes sense.
> >
> >>
> >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> in
> >> the strategy process?
> >>
> >
> >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we do

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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 
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  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 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] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Are those channels proposed as part of the paper you brought to the BGC on
the 13th April, then?  Or are you ready to discuss them now?  Or will the
possibility of establishing them be postponed until some time after the
Advisory Board is reconstituted?

"Rogol"

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> I think we should have those channels, once the body is constituted.
>
> Best
>
> Dj
>
> On Jun 26, 2017 19:59, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
>
>> Dariusz
>>
>> Thanks for that update.  You don't mention any channels for communication
>> between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor
>> opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting
>> names.  I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered
>> important here?
>>
>> "Rogol"
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC
>>> priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB
>>> members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The
>>> concept
>>> they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how
>>> the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work
>>> on
>>> this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without
>>> staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used
>>> as
>>> a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees,
>>> and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff
>>> and
>>> the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
>>>
>>> We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope
>>> is
>>> understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
>>>
>>> Dariusz & Nat
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G
>>> overnance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board
>>> [2]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_G
>>> overnance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
>>> domedonf...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Craig
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for your thoughtful response.  There are two gneral issues
>>> around
>>> > the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested
>>> in.
>>> >
>>> > Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board
>>> has
>>> > been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the
>>> Community,
>>> > and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the
>>> > process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new
>>> members or
>>> > new processes).  In particular, we in the Community do not know who
>>> the new
>>> > Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory
>>> Board is,
>>> > or whether and how to engage with those members.
>>> >
>>> > Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
>>> engagement
>>> > between the Advisory Board and the Community.  As a member of the new
>>> > Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish
>>> > appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your
>>> > fellow members to engage with the Community.
>>> >
>>> > You mentioned "tradtions".  I am sorry to say that my personal view is
>>> that
>>> > the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider
>>> Foundation on
>>> > the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the
>>> other
>>> > has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory.  I hope that this is
>>> one
>>> > tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
>>> >
>>> > "Rogol"
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark <
>>> craig.newm...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
>>> > issues,
>>> > > but have hesitated posting in resp

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Dariusz

Thanks for that update.  You don't mention any channels for communication
between the reconstituted Board and the Community at large, nor
opportunities for the Community at large to be involved in suggesting
names.  I assume then that engagement with the Community is not considered
important here?

"Rogol"

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Hello! The Advisory Board (AB) and its role was indeed among the BGC
> priorities for this year [1]. And I have been working with the former AB
> members on a concept for how the AB’s work should be organized. The concept
> they came up though needs to be clarified and improved, especially on how
> the AB internal coordination will be organized [2]. The group will work on
> this with minimal overhead from the Board of Trustees and without
> staff/budget support at first. The BGC believes that the AB can be used as
> a practical path for prospective members of the Board Board of Trustees,
> and to formalize relationships between high-profile experts, and staff and
> the Board members. We shall answer with more details soon.
>
> We have not made any announcements, as we're in the process, which I ope is
> understandable - there is no formal constitution of the body yet.
>
> Dariusz & Nat
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_2016-07-08#Advisory_Board
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Craig
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughtful response.  There are two gneral issues around
> > the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested in.
> >
> > Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board
> has
> > been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the Community,
> > and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the
> > process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new members
> or
> > new processes).  In particular, we in the Community do not know who the
> new
> > Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory Board
> is,
> > or whether and how to engage with those members.
> >
> > Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for
> engagement
> > between the Advisory Board and the Community.  As a member of the new
> > Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish
> > appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your
> > fellow members to engage with the Community.
> >
> > You mentioned "tradtions".  I am sorry to say that my personal view is
> that
> > the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider Foundation
> on
> > the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the other
> > has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory.  I hope that this is one
> > tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related
> > issues,
> > > but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I
> > learn
> > > them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding
> > reliable
> > > sources.
> > >
> > > Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
> centered
> > at
> > > the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
> > >
> > > That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk
> about
> > > this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
> > >
> > > Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit journalism,
> per
> > > the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be
> > > transparent while also Doing No Harm.  (The latter is surprisingly
> > > difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide significant
> > > funding to the NII as well as WMF.
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this
> > subject.
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > > Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This Board was 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Craig

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  There are two gneral issues around
the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested in.

Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board has
been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the Community,
and indeed the Community was given no opportunity to engage with the
process of reconstitution (for example, by way of suggesting new members or
new processes).  In particular, we in the Community do not know who the new
Advisory Board members are, or what the new remit of the Advisory Board is,
or whether and how to engage with those members.

Secondly, as a consequence there are no established channels for engagement
between the Advisory Board and the Community.  As a member of the new
Avdvisory Board, you may wish to encourage your colleagues to establish
appropriate opportunities and rules of engagement for yourself and your
fellow members to engage with the Community.

You mentioned "tradtions".  I am sorry to say that my personal view is that
the relationship between the Board of Trustees and the wider Foundation on
the one hand and the Community of contributors and consumers on the other
has "traditionally" been less than satisfctory.  I hope that this is one
tradition that your advice will be helpful in overturning.

"Rogol"

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Craig Newmark 
wrote:

> Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related issues,
> but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I learn
> them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding reliable
> sources.
>
> Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative centered at
> the City University of NY, graduate journalism department.
>
> That's to say, I hesitate until I learn the respectful way to talk about
> this, and until the NII has a lot more to say.
>
> Additional constraint per the ethics of funding nonprofit journalism, per
> the American Press Institute: when I say something, I need to be
> transparent while also Doing No Harm.  (The latter is surprisingly
> difficult.) To that effect, I gotta disclose that I provide significant
> funding to the NII as well as WMF.
>
> I'd appreciate your advice, and that of anyone interested in this subject.
> Thanks!
>
>
> Craig Newmark, founder craigslist
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously out
> of
> > date (it was written when the board was still in existence).  Just about
> a
> > year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to
> > revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for
> > April published a couple of days ago at
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
> > show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the
> > subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board".  No Board
> > resoultion on the subject has yet been published.
> >
> > Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a page
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board
> > recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the current
> > movement strategy process.  So it would seem that within a fortnight of
> the
> > BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in existence
> > again.
> >
> > What is the status of the Avisory Board?  Has it been reconstiuted, and
> if
> > so, when, and who are its new members?  If it has not been reconstituted,
> > what is the status of Florence's record?  If and when the Advisory Board
> is
> > reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be
> > welcome, and if so how will it be gathered?  Once the Board is in
> operation
> > again, is it expected that it will interact with  the Community, and if
> so,
> > what will the mechanism be for that interaction.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and http

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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 
wrote:

> Hej,
>
> Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion :-)
> is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons,
> but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that large
> majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If
> WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would be
> great.
>
> -Teemu
>
> > Gerard Meijssen  kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello
> 13.00:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> bias
> > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> educational
> > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
> > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> >
> > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> projects
> > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
> > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> and
> > there is no research into its value.
> >
> > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
> > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
> > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
> > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
> > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> >
> > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> so
> > far but  as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> message
> > and not the messenger who is killed .
> >
> > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > traffic.
> > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > Wikipedia..
> >
> >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W :
>  Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> >>> who
>  are not involved with affiliates?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> >>> available in the strategy process.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> None
> >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> Round
> >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
> >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on
> 3
> >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> have
> >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> May
> >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
> >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
> >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Yaroslav
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikim

[Wikimedia-l] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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
at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is seriously out of
date (it was written when the board was still in existence).  Just about a
year ago, Dariusz assured me that "it is one of the BGC's priorities to
revise and re-ignite the Advisory Board" and indeed the BGC minutes for
April published a couple of days ago at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_13-04-2017
show that the BGC took a paper (not made public) from Dariusz on the
subject and agreed to "submit a formal proposal to the Board".  No Board
resoultion on the subject has yet been published.

Rather confusingly, shortly after the BGC meeting, Florence wrote a page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/WMF_Advisory_board
recording the Advisory Board's opinions on matters arising in the current
movement strategy process.  So it would seem that within a fortnight of the
BGC meeting, an entity called the Advisory Board was already in existence
again.

What is the status of the Avisory Board?  Has it been reconstiuted, and if
so, when, and who are its new members?  If it has not been reconstituted,
what is the status of Florence's record?  If and when the Advisory Board is
reconstituted, will input from the Community for potential members be
welcome, and if so how will it be gathered?  Once the Board is in operation
again, is it expected that it will interact with  the Community, and if so,
what will the mechanism be for that interaction.

"Rogol"
___
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] Join the WikidataCon, 28-29 October in Berlin

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Gerard

It's a Wikimedia event, because it is "organized for and by the Wikidata
community".  It is a technical event, because it you are welcome if you
"build scripts, gadgets or external tools" among other criteria.  So it is
a Wikimedia technical event, which is the qualifying critrion for the Code
of Conduct: "It applies both within physical spaces, such as Wikimedia
technical events and Wikimedia technical presentations in other events
[...]"

As to the difference it makes: the Code of Conduct describes expected ways
of behaviour and lays down procedures for how to deal with breaches, which
the organisers and others are required to adhere to.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Why would it be and how does that make a difference?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 21 June 2017 at 22:38, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
>
> > 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 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I'm forwarding this email from
> > > ​
> > > Léa Lacroix to the list about the WikidataCon.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Shani.
> > >
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: Léa Lacroix 
> > > Date: 20 June 2017 at 14:34
> > > Subject: Join the WikidataCon, 28-29 October in Berlin
> > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello everybody,
> > >
> > > Here's a general update about the WikidataCon, that will take place in
> > > Berlin on October 28th and 29th :)
> > >
> > > General information
> > > The WikidataCon <https://www.wikidata.org/
> wiki/Wikidata:WikidataCon_2017
> > >
> > > is a conference organized for and by the Wikidata community, and
> > supported
> > > by Wikimedia Deutschland.
> > > If you edit Wikidata, make queries with SPARQL, build scripts, gadgets
> or
> > > external tools, reuse data from Wikidata with your software or your
> > > service, if you belong to an organization who wants to use or donate
> > data,
> > > if you're working on open data, datajournalism, datavizualisation, open
> > > knowledge, civictech... *you're welcome to the WikidataCon*!
> > >
> > > It will take place on October 28th-29th (+ social event on Friday
> 27th),
> > in
> > > the Tagesspiegel venue, in Berlin. Due to our international community,
> > the
> > > even will take place in English only. However, language/local meetups
> can
> > > be added to the program.
> > >
> > > We are expecting 150 persons from all around the world, to celebrate
> > > Wikidata's 5th birthday and *share knowledge and experience whithin the
> > > community*.
> > >
> > >
> > > Program
> > > With two days of talks, workshops, demos, meetups, and social events,
> the
> > > diverse and awesome people that belong to the Wikidata community will
> be
> > > able to share their experiences, their favorite tools, learn from the
> > > others, discover new ways to create, enrich, reuse data from the free
> > > knowledge base.
> > >
> > > The program is currently being build via a *call for projects
> > > <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikidataCon_2017/Program>,
> > running
> > > until July 31st.* Feel free to support your favorite topics or propose
> a
> > > project. A social event on the Friday evening and a birthday
> celebration
> > > will also take place to bring the community together.
> > >
> > >
> > > Attend
> > > *Registration is now open
> > > <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikidataCon_
> 2017/Attend/Register
> > >,
> > > until October 1st. *Registration is mandatory for everyone, including
> > > speakers, WMF and WMDE employees, volunteers...
> > >
> > > Important thing you need to know: the ticket is free of charge, and
> > > includes the access to the conference, meals, drinks and goodies, but
> > *does
> > > not include travel and accommodation*. The attendees have to book these
> > by
> > > themselves.
> > > If you plan to come, don't wait... Berlin is a touristic area :)
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Join the WikidataCon, 28-29 October in Berlin

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I'm forwarding this email from
> ​
> Léa Lacroix to the list about the WikidataCon.
>
> Best,
> Shani.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Léa Lacroix 
> Date: 20 June 2017 at 14:34
> Subject: Join the WikidataCon, 28-29 October in Berlin
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> Here's a general update about the WikidataCon, that will take place in
> Berlin on October 28th and 29th :)
>
> General information
> The WikidataCon 
> is a conference organized for and by the Wikidata community, and supported
> by Wikimedia Deutschland.
> If you edit Wikidata, make queries with SPARQL, build scripts, gadgets or
> external tools, reuse data from Wikidata with your software or your
> service, if you belong to an organization who wants to use or donate data,
> if you're working on open data, datajournalism, datavizualisation, open
> knowledge, civictech... *you're welcome to the WikidataCon*!
>
> It will take place on October 28th-29th (+ social event on Friday 27th), in
> the Tagesspiegel venue, in Berlin. Due to our international community, the
> even will take place in English only. However, language/local meetups can
> be added to the program.
>
> We are expecting 150 persons from all around the world, to celebrate
> Wikidata's 5th birthday and *share knowledge and experience whithin the
> community*.
>
>
> Program
> With two days of talks, workshops, demos, meetups, and social events, the
> diverse and awesome people that belong to the Wikidata community will be
> able to share their experiences, their favorite tools, learn from the
> others, discover new ways to create, enrich, reuse data from the free
> knowledge base.
>
> The program is currently being build via a *call for projects
> , running
> until July 31st.* Feel free to support your favorite topics or propose a
> project. A social event on the Friday evening and a birthday celebration
> will also take place to bring the community together.
>
>
> Attend
> *Registration is now open
> ,
> until October 1st. *Registration is mandatory for everyone, including
> speakers, WMF and WMDE employees, volunteers...
>
> Important thing you need to know: the ticket is free of charge, and
> includes the access to the conference, meals, drinks and goodies, but *does
> not include travel and accommodation*. The attendees have to book these by
> themselves.
> If you plan to come, don't wait... Berlin is a touristic area :)
>
>
> Scholarships
> Some scholarships will be provided to help attendees to fund their travel
> and accommodation for the conference. *The application is running until
> July 16th
> . *
>
> Due to the few number of scholarships we can provide, we encourage people
> to ask for support from their local chapter or user group.
>
>
> How can you help?
> - share this information with people, mailing-lists, wikis, who could be
> interested
> - if you are involved in a local chapter: ask your board if they can
> provide some support for the volunteers of you country who would like to
> join.
> - if you want to *volunteer during the event*, you're more than welcome!
> You can find more information here
> .
> - if you see any missing information or mistake, or you have any question,
> feel free to contact me.
>
>
> You can follow our updates on the wiki page
> , the facebook
> event  or the Twitter
> account .
> Thanks a lot for your attention, I hope I'll meet some of you during the
> WikidataCon!
>
> --
> Léa Lacroix
> Project Manager Community Communication for Wikidata
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
> 10963 Berlin
> www.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
>
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> ___
> 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] Let's set up a Tor onion service for Wikipedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Tim,

I'm taking your response as a rather lengthy way of saying that there is no
convenient central location for discussions of the sort that ought to be
taking place around this and other projects.  Is that correct?

"Rogol"

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Tim Starling 
wrote:

> 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, and desirability of,
> > projects like this should be held.  After all, we all want projects to go
> > ahead on the basis of Community input, don't we?
> We've had community input in this thread, but I haven't actually seen
> any objection to this proposal raised that stands up to analysis.
> Maybe meta would provide a platform for more organised discussion.
>
> Almost everyone talked about abuse potential, ignoring the fact that
> we already allow editing via Tor. Nothing actually changes in terms of
> abuse potential. The same people can edit, they can just use a
> different URL.
>
> The only other argument I saw was that by doing this, we are
> supporting Tor, and Tor is evil. But the hidden service only handles
> traffic which is directed to the service. It does not support the
> network in general. Meanwhile, since 2014 we are operating a relay
> which routinely forwards traffic for script kiddies, terrorists and
> child pornographers, and nobody complains about that?
>
> I think we should shut down the relay, which in my opinion is not
> mission-aligned, and set up the hidden service, which clearly is
> mission-aligned.
>
> A hidden service provides a small security improvement compared to
> plain HTTPS, and is marginally more censorship-resistant than a VPN.
> Its privacy protection is not perfect, but it is probably better than
> any other existing solution (except of course [1] ;-). It is a small
> technical project, which provides a small benefit to
> security-conscious users.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
> [1]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-01/
> Technology_report>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Let's set up a Tor onion service for Wikipedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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 basis of Community input, don't we?

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Tim Starling 
wrote:

> On 13/06/17 20:28, Gergő Tisza wrote:
> > Now that we have ascertained (again) that wikimedia-l is a ​poor channel
> > for focused discussions about tech proposals, can we move this to
> > Phabricator?
>
> I filed https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T168218
>
> On 14/06/17 12:12, Risker wrote:
> > I see your point, Gergo, but in reality Phabricator is an even worse
> > channel to discuss projects that are, essentially, social issues.
>
> I'd rather you didn't discuss social issues on Phabricator. I filed
> the task for the technical part of the project.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] June 2017 agenda of the Board of Trustees

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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
Trustees with at least some connection with the Community, some members of
whom have set out in public for the Community their positions on certain
questions of interest and indeed importance to the Community.  Transferring
that money to an endowment controlled by a committee of advisors with no
connection with the community, and who have so far made no public
presentation of how they intend to invest or spend the money, seems a
retrograde step, and one that the Board would do well to scrutinise
carefully.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> This is great; thank you, Stephen.  It is good to see additional transfers
> to the endowment on the agenda.
>
> Regards, SJ
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Stephen LaPorte 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The agenda for the next Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees meeting on
> > June 16, 2017 is now available on Meta Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.o
> > rg/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_agenda_2017-06
> >
> > Best,
> > Stephen
> >
> > --
> > Stephen LaPorte
> > Senior Legal Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > *NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and
> > ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
> > community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
> capacity.
> > For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> > .*
> >
> > ___
> > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ___
> > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> <(617)%20529-4266>
> ___
> 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] James Heilman joins the Board Governance Committee as a volunteer and advisory member

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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
Community, or select someone else from that list, or soeone else entirely.
Given that the Board chose to remove James prevously, for reasons that have
never been made clear to the Community, it is within the bounds of
possibility that they might decline to appoint him again.  I do not think
that would be wise, or very popular wth the Community, but it is for the
Board, and the Board alone, to decide.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:18 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Nataliia Tymkiv wrote:
> >The BGC believes that in case James is approved by the Board as a Board
> >member [3] it would also be a good onboarding opportunity for him.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >[3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_III_-_MEMBERSHIP
>
> In case? Is there doubt regarding his upcoming appointment?
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> elections/2017/Results
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] June 2017 agenda of the Board of Trustees

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine,

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 far it
seems that their view has been negative on both counts, but that has never
been an explicit decision, and perhaps times have changed.  I don't think
we can ask Stephen as an employee to make such changes to Board practice
without their consent.  It is probably better for all concerned, however
disappointing it may be, for the Board to be explicit and frank about their
appetite for this engagement rather than raising expectations in the
Community that they are unwilling or unable to meet.

However, a statement from the Board members would be valuable here.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> Can board agendas, as well as slides and docs which are not security or
> privacy sensitive, be published 2 weeks in advance of meetings, please?
> This will allow community members to provide comments and ask questions
> ahead of board meetings that the board can take into consideration when the
> meeting occurs.
>
> Thanks,
> Pine
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Stephen LaPorte 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The agenda for the next Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees meeting on
> > June 16, 2017 is now available on Meta Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.
> > org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_agenda_2017-06
> >
> > Best,
> > Stephen
> >
> > --
> > Stephen LaPorte
> > Senior Legal Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > *NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and
> > ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
> > community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
> capacity.
> > For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> > .*
> >
> > ___
> > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ___
> > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-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] James Heilman joins the Board Governance Committee as a volunteer and advisory member

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James

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 that
Board-Community relations need any attention from the Governance Committee?

"Rogol"

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> Thank you so much, James. I'm so glad you are here.
> /a
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Nataliia and James.
> >
> > This appointment continues a trend of decisions and steps from the BGC
> > since Nataliia took the committee chair role that I think are good.
> >
> > 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,
> 
>
___
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] WFM 91.7 FM becomes our broadcasting partner in Nigeria

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:26 PM, shola ishola 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear wikipedians,
> >
> > We are delighted to announce that we have reached agreement with the
> above
> > named prestigious broadcasting station to partner with us in reaching
> > further audience in Nigeria.
> >
> > The agreement will assist us in reaching wider audience and also
> > actualizing some of our core projects in alignment with the pinnacle of
> > their establishment, which is to promote women in Nigeria.
> >
> > I will keep you inform as things unfold.
> > Best RegardsOlushola
> > Welcome to WFM 91.7 - NIGERIA'S FIRST RADIO STATION FOR WOMEN AND THEIR
> > FAMILIES
> >
> > |
> > |   |
> > Welcome to WFM 91.7 - NIGERIA'S FIRST RADIO STATION FOR WOMEN AND THEIR
> > FAMILIES
> >  Keeping listeners company throughout the day with quality, relevant,
> > informative and entertaining programmes tha...  |  |
> >
>
> This very interesting announcement was kind of cut. Turns out WFM 91.7 has
> an informative article in English Wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WFM_91.7
>
> Thank you Shola and other contributors of Nigeria for this fresh
> initiative! Please report about your progress.
>
> --
> Quim Gil
> Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Changes to Product and Technology departments at the Foundation

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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
their needs and aspirations and whether the new structures under
consideration were more or less likely to deliver them – some people might
see that as a missing element in the process.  Perhaps you could say a few
words about how the new structures will improve cooperation and
collaboration in order to"better serve the movement".  You do see a need
for improved consultation, cooperation and collaboration with the
community, don't you?

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Jan Ainali  wrote:

> 2017-06-07 23:12 GMT+02:00 Toby Negrin :
>
> >
> > The team working on maps, the search experience, and the project entry
> > portals (such as Wikipedia.org) will join the Readers team. This
> > realignment will allow us to build more integrated experiences and
> > knowledge-sharing for the end user.
> >
> Does maps going to readers mean that there will be less focus on editors
> tools for adding maps to articles and more focus on the readers possibility
> to interact with the maps? If so, what is actually in the pipeline for
> maps?
>
> /Jan
> ___
> 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] Chief Communications Officer search & job description

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine

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.

"Rogol"

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Risker,
>
> > Your point #1, with respect to improving internal communication, is
> > primarily handled by other departments within the WMF (Learning, Human
> > Resources), with Communications as a resource rather than the primary
> > messager.
>
> If WMF wants to have a different department lead efforts on internal
> communication (my impression is that currently no one is actually leading
> efforts in a holistic way) that would be OK with me. My impression is that
> as WMF is already strong on external communication, and I think that WMF
> should hire for what it needs rather than what it already has. If WMF would
> like to have someone outside of the Communications Department take the lead
> role -- and actually does assign somebody with relevant experience to work
> on this as one of their primary responsibilities -- then perhaps hiring an
> external communications expert into the chief communications officer role
> would still be OK.
>
> > Your point #2 is pretty much irrelevant; some of the best
> > communications leaders work for political campaigns, and they're usually
> > "hired guns" rather than true believers.
> There are a few exceptions, but
> > again, it's irrelevant, and not ethical to screen directly for political
> > affiliation - and possibly illegal to do so.
>
> Hmm. I don't know what percentage of political campaign communications
> leaders are "hired guns", but I'm not sure that this is a risk that I would
> want to take. That said, I hadn't considered your point that screening out
> candidates with work histories in politics might be considered an illegal
> practice; thanks for bringing that up. I'll defer to WMF HR and WMF Legal
> on that. I wonder whether screening out all paid jobs for political parties
> or campaigns (regardless of which affiliation or campaign was involved)
> would trigger the same kind of legal scrutiny as screening out one party or
> another (which I'm fairly certain would be a violation of U.S. employment
> laws). Perhaps this could get into such complicated legal territory and
> provide enough opportunities for lawsuits that it would be best to do as
> you suggest rather than risk lengthy and expensive litigation. I disagree
> that this issue is "irrelevant", but thanks for pointing out that this kind
> of screening may have its own kind of risks which I hadn't considered.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2015-2016 now on-wiki

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Andreas,

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.

"Rogol"

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Tony Le  wrote:
>
> > A notable exception is information related to the
> > compensation of our officers, key employees, highest paid staff and
> > independent contractors, which is instead based on the 2015 calendar
> year.
> >
>
>
> Thank you. I have two questions:
>
>
> 1. Does the above statement mean that any severance pay or other special
> compensation Lila Tretikov might have received at the end of her tenure in
> 2016 will only show in the 2016 Form 990, due in about a year's time?
>
>
> 2. Speaking of severance pay, I note that Erik Möller's compensation seems
> to have increased from almost exactly $200,000 in the 2014 calendar year[1]
> to a little over $302,000 in the 2015 calendar year[2], despite the fact
> that, as far as I recall, he left the Foundation on April 30th 2015[3] and
> thus only worked 4 of the year's 12 months.
>
> If Erik was paid at the same rate in 2015 as he was in 2014, he would have
> stood to receive salary payments of around $67,000.
>
> This is almost a quarter of a million dollars less than his actual
> compensation according to the form released now.
>
> Is this $235,000 discrepancy wholly or partly due to a severance payment
> Erik received at the end of his employment, and if so, what was the amount
> and the rationale?
>
>
> Andreas
>
>
> [1] Page 52 in
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/27/
> Form_990_FY_2014-2015_-_Public.pdf
> [2]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%
> 3AWikimedia_Foundation_2015_Form_990.pdf&page=8
> [3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-
> April/077516.html
> ___
> 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] Mozilla, funded by advertisers, starts opposing privacy regulations

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James

To take your points in reverse order: I was quoting from the big box on the
front page at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home

As to the first point, I think it is rather for those asserting that some
particular point falls within the Foundation's mission to make their case
that it would be a justifiable use of the donations that were given for the
furtherance of that mission.  It is not clear that improving the "readers
ability to access information without threat of eavesdropping by commercial
interests" is a primary component of a mission "to empower and engage
people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
license <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:free_content> or in the public
domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally" if that is the
formulation you prefer.  They may be cognate, but they are not the same.

Since it is so well established, in your opinion, that "privacy is
essential to [...] the creation of educational content by Foundation
volunteers", perhaps you would be so kind as to point to the place where
that irrefutable argument is made public?  Particularly since many
volunteers clearly do not feel inhibited about contributing under their own
names.  Privacy may indeed be essential to "unfettered" access, but "free"
and "unfettered" are not quite synonymous.

"Rogol"

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 7:58 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> First, it's very well established that privacy is essential to not
> just the creation of educational content by Foundation volunteers, but
> to the ability of readers to have unfettered access to that content. I
> am sure you are aware that the Foundation has been pursuing a lawsuit
> for years against the U.S. government to protect readers privacy:
> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/
> 23._aclu_appeal_brief_2.17.2016.pdf
>
> The European Commission is seeking the power to fine ISPs for breaches
> to their users' privacy, which would certainly strengthen the
> Foundation's projects' readers ability to access information without
> threat of eavesdropping by commercial interests, such as having their
> searches for medical conditions made available for sale to insurance
> and marketing 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 Domedonfors
>  wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > 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
> > these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge," please?  Because
> > if you can't, then the answer to your question has to be "No, it isn't".
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:02 PM, James Salsman 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Here is an interesting quote of a Mozilla Foundation lawyer from
> >> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/11/mozilla_wants_eu_
> >> to_slow_down_its_eprivacy_directive_process/
> >>
> >> "draft Regulation imposes very specific restrictions on the technology
> >> industry that may challenge the business models of some ISPs. In some
> >> areas, obligations are proscriptive, undermining the principle of
> >> technological neutrality that this legislation needs to withstand the
> >> test of time in a rapidly changing environment"
> >>
> >> Is it appropriate for the Wikimedia Foundation to respond to this sort
> >> of thing? Mozilla is almost entirely funded by ad-supported
> >> businesses at present.
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Mozilla, funded by advertisers, starts opposing privacy regulations

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James,

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
these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge," please?  Because
if you can't, then the answer to your question has to be "No, it isn't".

"Rogol"

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:02 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Here is an interesting quote of a Mozilla Foundation lawyer from
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/11/mozilla_wants_eu_
> to_slow_down_its_eprivacy_directive_process/
>
> "draft Regulation imposes very specific restrictions on the technology
> industry that may challenge the business models of some ISPs. In some
> areas, obligations are proscriptive, undermining the principle of
> technological neutrality that this legislation needs to withstand the
> test of time in a rapidly changing environment"
>
> Is it appropriate for the Wikimedia Foundation to respond to this sort
> of thing? Mozilla is almost entirely funded by ad-supported
> businesses at present.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Results of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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:

> matanya moses wrote:
> >Congratulations to María Sefidari (User:Raystorm), Dariusz Jemielniak
> >(User:pundit), and James Heilman (User:Doc James) for receiving the most
> >community support. Subject to a standard background check, they will be
> >appointed by the Board at their August meeting at Wikimania.
>
> For those wondering, two of the people who supported James' removal from
> the Board of Trustees in December 2015 are still serving: Alice and Jimmy.
>
> And the two people who opposed the resolution (Dariusz and James) are now
> among the three people being reappointed.
>
> * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_Removal
> * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees
> * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Former_Board_of_Trustees_members
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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 permanent employees -- programmers, fact-checkers,
old-style editors, translators, innovators, researchers
* 200 ongoing Ph.D-level research projects in data science, knowledge
management, knowledge delivery, artificial intelligence, machine translation
* Fully-paid bursaries to Wikimania every year for ten people from each of
the 250 largest projects;
* JSTOR subscription for ever for the 30,000 most active content
contributors;
* Local travel bursaries to Wikimedia meetups and conferences for everyone
who ever contributes to the project;

HTH
"Rogol"

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:51 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, FRED BAUDER 
> wrote:
>
> > I think we could hire professional fact checkers and target articles that
> > have gotten off track. I don't think a great deal of money would be
> > necessary to set an example, and illustrate some of our notorious
> problems.
>
>
> This is what the AROWF system from last year's Google Summer of code was
> supposed to show how to support:
>
> https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/
>
> This
> year the CMUSphinx project is building an interactive voice-response
> computer-aided instruction system which teaches people how to use the AROWF
> system (and in the process tries to teach how to resolve NPOV disputes, out
> of date statements, and a few other backlog categories it tracks) while at
> the same time remediating spoken English pronunciation. I am currently
> consulting at a company in Beijing which has 23 million customers in
> China's K-6 public schools, They have offered to help collect some of the
> data required to build this system, and the GSoC student assigned to it has
> been doing pretty well.
> ___
> 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] Widespread perfomance issues

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Faidon

Do you believe that your recovery plan was adequate or will you be
reviewing it in the light of this widespread outage?

"Rogol"

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Faidon Liambotis 
wrote:

> Hi Cristian,
>
> We've had some network connectivity issues with one of our ISPs in our
> European datacenter that were probably the source of your problems
> (FastWeb in Italy were among the affected ISPs). This was a localized
> issue -- only in the European datacenter and one out of six major
> network carriers and dozens of network connectivity partners.
>
> The issue has been worked around as of 09:26 UTC and the situation is
> being monitored.
>
> This issue is being tracked at:
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T165288
>
> Do let us know if this is not the case for you of if you're experiencing
> any trouble, here, off-list or directly on that Phabricator task.
>
> Thanks,
> Faidon
> --
> Faidon Liambotis
> Principal Operations Engineer
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:02:39AM +0200, Cristian Consonni wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > At Wikimedia Italia have been contacted in the last few minutes because
> > Wikipedia seems unreachable and very slow from Italy.
> >
> > The status pages for servers and services signals several perfomance
> issues:
> > https://status.wikimedia.org/
> >
> > Does somebody know what's going on?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Cristian
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Fwd: [PRESS] Turkish authorities block Wikipedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Richard

Then you want to say "We the undersigned do not [etc]".  Of course the
implication is that everyone else does ...

"Rogol"

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:

> Primarily this is those who sign the statement  on meta.
>
> On 29 Apr 2017 20:41, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
>
> > James
> >
> > 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".
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:33 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > @ Richard Thank you. I have adjusted that sentence to "We do not
> support
> > > terrorism."
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> > > rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "As a movement" is a phrase which I have trouble with.  WhiIe left it
> > is
> > > > very easy to make apple pie statements with little fear of
> > > contradiction, I
> > > > think it misees the point.  We provide information, neutral
> > information.
> > > > Perhaps we hope as individuals this discourages rather than
> encourages
> > > > certain forms of behaviour. But if we provided the information with
> the
> > > > goal of, for example, opposing terrorism we would cease to be a
> > neutral,
> > > > reliable sourgent,  thus defeating any such goal.
> > > >
> > > > Conversely it is far more convincing to say that we don't support
> > > > terrorism, that the statements are on their face absurd, that we
> > clearly
> > > > document the rise and fall of Isis, together with their actions both
> in
> > > the
> > > > Middle East and the wider world, and tother encourage anyone who
> doubts
> > > > this to read our articles on the subject.
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Apr 2017 19:52, "James Heilman"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Richard I am not sure I am clear on what you mean. We are not
> > impartial
> > > > to
> > > > > everything. We oppose censorship and we oppose suppression of
> freedom
> > > of
> > > > > information. I think it is also perfectly fine to state that we as
> a
> > > > > movement oppose terrorism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Made a few more adjustments to this statement on meta
> > > > >
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Response_to_2017_ban_in_Turkey
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> > > > > rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is absolutely important to be clear that Wikipedia is
> impartial,
> > > or
> > > > at
> > > > > > least  substantially so.  This impartiality may be a threat to
> > some,
> > > > but
> > > > > it
> > > > > > could be counter-productive to make statements which are not
> > > carefully
> > > > > > thought through.  Those who support repressive regimes can easily
> > be
> > > > > pushed
> > > > > > into an absolutist mindset.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 29 Apr 2017 18:42, "Ivan Martínez"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 to Ting's idea about a statement
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also we can support from our corner sending tweets and e-mails
> to
> > > our
> > > > > > local
> > > > > > > embassies. Our friends from Turkey or someone who speaks
> turkish
> > > can
> > > > > > > support us with a hasthag? I posted #WikipediaSansürlendi but
> > maybe
> > > > is
> > > > > > > incorrect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-04-29 12:16 GMT-05:00 Ting Chen :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think the Foundation and the chapters *must* make a
> statement
> > > > t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [PRESS] Turkish authorities block Wikipedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James

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".

"Rogol"

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:33 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> @ Richard Thank you. I have adjusted that sentence to "We do not support
> terrorism."
>
> J
>
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "As a movement" is a phrase which I have trouble with.  WhiIe left it is
> > very easy to make apple pie statements with little fear of
> contradiction, I
> > think it misees the point.  We provide information, neutral information.
> > Perhaps we hope as individuals this discourages rather than encourages
> > certain forms of behaviour. But if we provided the information with the
> > goal of, for example, opposing terrorism we would cease to be a neutral,
> > reliable sourgent,  thus defeating any such goal.
> >
> > Conversely it is far more convincing to say that we don't support
> > terrorism, that the statements are on their face absurd, that we clearly
> > document the rise and fall of Isis, together with their actions both in
> the
> > Middle East and the wider world, and tother encourage anyone who doubts
> > this to read our articles on the subject.
> >
> > On 29 Apr 2017 19:52, "James Heilman"  wrote:
> >
> > > Richard I am not sure I am clear on what you mean. We are not impartial
> > to
> > > everything. We oppose censorship and we oppose suppression of freedom
> of
> > > information. I think it is also perfectly fine to state that we as a
> > > movement oppose terrorism.
> > >
> > > Made a few more adjustments to this statement on meta
> > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Response_to_2017_ban_in_Turkey
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> > > rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is absolutely important to be clear that Wikipedia is impartial,
> or
> > at
> > > > least  substantially so.  This impartiality may be a threat to some,
> > but
> > > it
> > > > could be counter-productive to make statements which are not
> carefully
> > > > thought through.  Those who support repressive regimes can easily be
> > > pushed
> > > > into an absolutist mindset.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29 Apr 2017 18:42, "Ivan Martínez"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 to Ting's idea about a statement
> > > > >
> > > > > Also we can support from our corner sending tweets and e-mails to
> our
> > > > local
> > > > > embassies. Our friends from Turkey or someone who speaks turkish
> can
> > > > > support us with a hasthag? I posted #WikipediaSansürlendi but maybe
> > is
> > > > > incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-04-29 12:16 GMT-05:00 Ting Chen :
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think the Foundation and the chapters *must* make a statement
> > that
> > > > > > decisively contradicts the reason of the block: That Wikipedia
> > > supports
> > > > > > terrorism. There could be further texts in the statement which
> > > stresses
> > > > > our
> > > > > > principle of neutrality and our goal to spread knowledge, but the
> > > first
> > > > > and
> > > > > > most important statement is to contradict the accusation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah some times I miss Jay, he would immediately recognize how
> > > important
> > > > it
> > > > > > is to make such a statement. When national newspapers and
> > broadcasts
> > > > are
> > > > > > referring (I just heard the one in Deutschland Funk
> > > > > > http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/dlf24-startseite.1441.de.html )
> this
> > > > > event,
> > > > > > there should be not only the accusation but always also a
> reaction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Greetings
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ting
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am 29.04.2017 um 10:43 schrieb Itzik - Wikimedia Israel:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hey,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> FYI -  sad news from Turkish.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> > > > > >> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> > > > > >> +972-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> > > > > >> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely
> share
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -- Forwarded message --
> > > > > >> From: Itzik - Wikimedia Israel 
> > > > > >> Date: Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:42 AM
> > > > > >> Subject: [PRESS] Turkish authorities block Wikipedia
> > > > > >> To: Communications Committee 
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39754909
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Reuters just published that a 15 minutes ago, so it will be soon
> > all
> > > > > over
> > > > > >> the news.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ---
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> *Turkey has blocked all access inside the country to the online
> > > > > >> encyclopaed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [PRESS] Turkish authorities block Wikipedia

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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?

"Rogol"

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Mardetanha 
wrote:

> more info
> https://turkeyblocks.org/2017/04/29/wikipedia-blocked-turkey/
>
> Mardetanha
>
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
> it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
>
> > Basak commented on Facebook: "In the news, it says that, Wikipedia
> supports
> > global terrorism. The Turkish officials has been corresponding with
> > wikipedia (?)  but there is no answer. The site (most probably they mean
> > English one)  includes content that supports ISIS ."
> >
> > http://mobil.hurriyet.com.tr/son-dakika-haberi-wikipediaya-
> > erisim-engellendi-40441904
> >
> >
> > - Sent from mobile
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2017 11:55, "Mardetanha"  wrote:
> >
> > > hopefully it would be technical mistake and will be lifted very soon.
> > >
> > > Mardetanha
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
> > > it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey,
> > > >
> > > > FYI -  sad news from Turkish.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> > > > Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> > > > +972-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> > > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the
> > > > sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > From: Itzik - Wikimedia Israel 
> > > > Date: Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:42 AM
> > > > Subject: [PRESS] Turkish authorities block Wikipedia
> > > > To: Communications Committee 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39754909
> > > >
> > > > Reuters just published that a 15 minutes ago, so it will be soon all
> > over
> > > > the news.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > *Turkey has blocked all access inside the country to the online
> > > > encyclopaedia Wikipedia, one of the world's most popular websites.*
> > > >
> > > > It was not initially clear why the ban had been imposed.
> > > > The Turkey Blocks group said the site was inaccessible from 08:00
> > (05:00
> > > > GMT) by order of the Turkish authorities.
> > > > People in the capital Istanbul were unable to access any Wikipedia
> > pages
> > > > without using a Virtual Private Network (VPN).
> > > > "After technical analysis and legal consideration based on the Law
> Nr.
> > > > 5651, an administrative measure has been taken for this website,"
> > > Turkey's
> > > > Information and Communication Technologies Authority was quoted as
> > > saying.
> > > > No reason was given.
> > > > Turkey Blocks and Turkish media, including the Hurriyet Daily News,
> > said
> > > > the provisional order would need to be backed by a full court ruling
> in
> > > the
> > > > next few days.
> > > >
> > > > Social media was in uproar as news of the ban emerged, with some
> users
> > > > speculating that it might be a bid to suppress criticism on President
> > > Recep
> > > > Tayyip Erdogan's Wikipedia page.
> > > > Mr Erdogan narrowly won a controversial 16 April referendum on
> > increasing
> > > > his powers, but the issue has deeply divided the country.
> > > > Turkey has temporarily blocked popular social media sites including
> > > > Facebook and Twitter in the past, especially in the wake of mass
> > protests
> > > > or terror attacks.
> > > > The government has previously denied censoring the internet, blaming
> > > > outages on spikes in usage after major events.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> > > > Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> > > > +972-54-5878078 <+972%2054-587-8078> | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> > > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the
> > > > sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
> > > > ___
> > > > 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 t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "News Integrity Initiative" at CUNY

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:31 PM, wiki.pine  wrote:

> FYI: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/04/04/new-nonprofit-
> consortium-will-focus-countering-fake-news-building-trust-media/
> Involved parties include some names that will be familiar to Wikimedians
> and WMFers: "AppNexus, Betaworks, Craig Newmark Philanthropic Fund,
> Democracy Fund, Ford Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,
> Mozilla, and the Tow Foundation."
> 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] Wikitribune!

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Jimmy

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,
and with the news-gathering aspects of Wikipedia, which have been the
subject of much WMF publicity in recent months.  Consequently, it is in
direct competition with the Foundation for donor money and volunteer time.
It is simply untenable for you to be a trustee of the Foundation while you
are the owner and director of a competing commercial operation.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Hi Jimmy,
>
> Along with the public announcement to the press about Wikitribune, was
> the story that you had immediately resigned from The Guardian's board
> because the new company "will compete for staff, stories and
> donations".[1] Will you be resigning from the WMF board of trustees
> because the Wikitribune commercial venture is a conflict of loyalties?
>
> This seems like an issue that the revitalized Wikimedia Foundation
> Board Governance Committee should make an independent statement about,
> considering the unique nature of your permanent unelected seat as a
> WMF trustee?[2]
>
> For the record, it is worth noting that in February 2016,[3] your
> conflict of loyalties between being the successful owner of the Wikia
> commercial venture, and holding a permanent seat on the board of the
> Wikimedia Foundation was raised as a discussion topic on this list.
> Wikia has never been publicly declared by the WMF board as a possible
> conflict of interest, despite a history of staff migrating directly
> from WMF to Wikia, and the obvious reputational benefits to Wikia from
> having their owner sitting on the WMF board. In fact apart from
> denying the possibility that this was an issue with your statement "I
> have always declared, formally and in writing, my role at Wikia. I
> have additionally worked to make sure that all board members know
> about it, and I have on multiple occasions recused myself from votes
> where there could be a perceived or actual conflict of interest", you
> refused properly to engage further with discussing this potential
> conflict of loyalties in 2016, nor did you supply any evidence of a
> formal declaration apart from your email, nor has it ever been
> declared in the public minutes of WMF board meetings as an interest if
> you have recused from votes or strategic discussion at your meetings
> as a trustee; though SJ confirmed that he thought you had declared
> this as an interest in past board meetings, presumably this was
> mistakenly and unfortunately left out of the minutes each time it
> happened.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> Links:
> 1. "Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales exits Guardian board over
> conflict of interest with Wikitribune news site"
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/25/wikipedia-
> co-founder-jimmy-wales-exits-guardian-board-conflict/
> 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_Governance_Committee
> 3. "Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus
> WMF" https://lists.gt.net/wiki/foundation/685587
>
> On 25 April 2017 at 22:59, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
> >
> > Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia activities,
> > to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly with
> > all of you information about this new initiative early on.
> >
> > The new project  will use a wiki-style setup and experiment with
> > bringing together professional journalists and community contributors to
> > produce fact-checked, global news stories.  At launch, we'll be using a
> > hacked version of wordpress and we'll be evaluating whether that's the
> > right tool moving forward.  Wordpress has a lot to
> > commend it (free software, mature platform, used by lots of newsrooms,
> > active developer ecosystem) but also has some philosophy that's quite
> > "top down" in a way.
> > (Not many people would think in a wiki way when setting up a newsroom!)
> >
> > This new initiative, Wikitribune, will be a learning experience - my
> > vision is one that I've had a hard time explaining... except to
> > Wikimedians who tend to immediately
> > get it.
> >
> > While I am launching this project independent from Wikipedia and the
> > Wikimedia Foundation, it is my plan that this new project will work
> > alongside Wikimedia in the free knowledge movement. For example, I hope
> > that the numerous Wikinews/Wikinoticias/Wikinotizie/etc. communities can
> > collaborate with the  Wikitribune community in way that allows both to
> > learn and benefit from each other. Additionally, Wikitribune will
> > utilize the same Creative Commons license (CC-BY) as other free content
> > projects in
> > the news space - so they can take the stories written by our
> > professional journalists and communities and make use of them.
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updates regarding the Wikimedia Foundation Election Committee

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Jonathan,

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.

"Rogol"

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Jonathan Cardy  wrote:

> Hi Rogol,
>
> If you want to make an exception to pseudonymity and require real name
> disclosure for volunteers in such a post then a post on a talkpage or on
> this mailing list isn't enough to get a change. You or someone else would
> need to start a request for comment, presumably on meta, and you'd need
> enough to agree with you to get consensus.
>
> It would be a big change from the principle of only requiring real names
> for paid staff, and for volunteers such as trustees who are in roles where
> it is legally required.
>
> Regards
>
> WSC
>
>
___
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] Updates regarding the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Adrian

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
> here.
>

This is both aggressive and fallacious.  At least one other person cared
enough about this issue to post a polite, thoughtful and reasoned comment
(which I appreciate), and that person was the chair of the Board Governance
Committee.  So "only you care" is clearly false.  In general, people raise
issues here for discussion.  If no-one else cares, there will be no
discussion.  If other people do, then there will be discussion.  That's how
this list works.  What is unhelpful is trying to close down discussions
that you are not interested in, or disagree with, by arrogant presumpuous
and unfounded assertions and hostile personalised comments.

"Rogol"
___
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] Updates regarding the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Nataliia,

Thanks for your prompt response.  You have made your decision, and if you
have solicited applications for the Committee on the basis that the members
may remain pseudonymous, then I would not expect you to resile from that.
However for the next round perhaps you may wish to reconsider your policy
in the light of two points.

Firstly, I am not suggesting that members of the Committee be required to
link their real names and Wikimedia handles.  I am suggesting that they be
required to act under their real names.  This allows a transparent exercise
of their powers to, for example, bar candidates from standing for
nomination to the Board, and make it clear to the community in general and
the potential candidates in particular, where they might have a conflict of
interest.  If a potential member of the Election Committee canot take the
risk of associating their name with the Foundation for fear of reprisals,
then that is regrettable, but the same would be true if they wished to
stand for the Board.  There must be a balance between transparency and
getting the best candidates and in this case I suggest that you have struck
the balance in the wrong place.

Secondly, it has been claimed by Adrian that there is no need for this, as
he has been involved in government elections and has never been required to
disclose his name to the electors.  I do not know which government he is
referring to, or how important a role he had in the election process, but
in the stable mature democracy where I live, the members of the electoral
commission are publicly named, the returning officers with responsibility
for conducting the elections are named (and are usually elected officials),
the count is conducted in a public forum, often televised, to which the
candidates have right of access, and the returning officers announce the
results in public, explicitly giving their names as part of the
announcement.I think that you can afford to be as transparent as that.

"Rogol"

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Hello Rogol, hello all,
>
> Frankly speaking, I have not personally seen your question on the talk page
> of the Committee. And my announcement followed the example of the first
> announcement from 2016 [1], mentioning the usernames, not names of real
> people. So I actually did not know this is even an issue. As Ajraddatz (a
> current and former member of the committee) said in response to your talk
> page message this is also the norm for most of our community committees
> [2].
>
> The real names are disclosed to Wikimedia Foundation, as these people must
> sign confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information [3]. I do not
> think that the disclosure of real names publicly should be a requirement,
> though it should be an option. Please consider that: some volunteers may
> come from countries where it is a really bad idea to reveal the connection
> between your real name and your username.
>
> As for a short description of the members: Wikimedia projects give a rare
> possibility to actually see what people do objectively, anybody can see for
> themselves what flags these volunteers have and what contributions they
> bring.
>
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-
> July/084787.html
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_
> committee#Names_of_committee_members
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_
> agreement_for_nonpublic_
> information
>
> 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 during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Nataliiya,
> >
> > 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
> > suggested at
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > elections_committee
> > back in July 2016 that, considering that this Committee is functioning in
> > the real world, putting forward real people for real positions on a real
> > body which is responsible for spending real money, transparency would
> > benefit from their doing so under their real names.  If a question of
> > conflict of interest arises, for example, it would be all but impossible
> to
> > resolve if the real identity of the individual in question were not
> > available for scrutiny by the community.
> >
> > Please publish the real names and a short description of each of the
> > members of this Committee.
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updates regarding the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Nataliiya,

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
suggested at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee
back in July 2016 that, considering that this Committee is functioning in
the real world, putting forward real people for real positions on a real
body which is responsible for spending real money, transparency would
benefit from their doing so under their real names.  If a question of
conflict of interest arises, for example, it would be all but impossible to
resolve if the real identity of the individual in question were not
available for scrutiny by the community.

Please publish the real names and a short description of each of the
members of this Committee.

"Rogol"


On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee has been joined by two new
> members, Masssly and Matanya. They were appointed by the Board Governance
> Committee at the recommendation of the current Elections Committee members
> following an open call for additional members earlier this year [1].
>
> They have each been appointed for two-year terms, in accordance with the
> new setup for the standing Elections Committee. The now 8-member volunteer
> committee is tasked by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to
> facilitate the elections for the Board of Trustees and Funds Dissemination
> Committee [2].
>
> Additionally, the committee has selected KTC to serve as its chair for the
> upcoming year. As we prepare for an upcoming election, we have also changed
> the Board Liaison from Dariusz to myself, and asked Tim Moritz Hector from
> the Board Governance Committee to serve as an additional advisor to the
> committee.
>
> The upcoming process for both the Board and Funds Dissemination Committee
> elections will begin soon and run through June. There will be more
> information coming from the committee on the timeline and nomination
> process in the coming days.
>
> Please join me in welcoming, congratulating, and thanking Massly, Matanya,
> KTC and Tim!
>
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> February/086239.html
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> elections_committee
>
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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] "News Integrity Initiative" at CUNY

[Rogol Domedonfors]

On a related note, the Foundation Blog
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/04/07/misinfocon-fake-news/ proudly
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 details  In the
interests, of transparency, please could someone post a pointer to a fuller
description of the expertise that the Foundation has in this area (as
opposed to the community of volunteers), and a pointer to the submissions,
papers or other contributions that those experts made at the meeting?

"Rogol"

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:31 PM, wiki.pine  wrote:

> FYI: https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/04/04/new-nonprofit-
> consortium-will-focus-countering-fake-news-building-trust-media/
> Involved parties include some names that will be familiar to Wikimedians
> and WMFers: "AppNexus, Betaworks, Craig Newmark Philanthropic Fund,
> Democracy Fund, Ford Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,
> Mozilla, and the Tow Foundation."
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2017 versus movement strategy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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 facilitator should have
been doing.

"Rogol"
___
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] Using non-free elements vs our values (Apple Maps vs Wikipedia iOS app)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Dan,

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 and expected impact. That is very basic product management.
>
> Sadly, as is typical with this mailing list, we've now delved into a world
> of hypotheticals, idealisms, and misrepresentations. It would not be a
> productive use of time (and, indeed, donor money) for me to participate
> further in this thread.


That is unfortunate.  I had been hoping to hear an answer to the very
concrete question of why this issue is being raised with the community only
after so much work has been done, rather than before.  I would have thought
that very basic product management would have involved engaging with the
user community at the planning stage, and determining the customer needs of
which you write.  Indeed, I raised that point here ten days ago.  But it
seems that it will have to go unanswered.

"Rogol"
___
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] Status of the Code of Conduct for technical spaces

[Rogol Domedonfors]

"Jethro"

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 argue that they didn't know about it. If people
> want to know what's going on in our projects, it's their responsibility to
> follow places where announcements are posted and read them.
>
> - Chris
>

Really?  As a Community Organiser within the Community Engagement part of
the Foundation, do you not believe that the Foundation has some kind of
responsibility too?  Perhaps the Foundation, with its tens of millions of
dollars and hundereds of staff, and its ownership and control of the means
of communcation, might consider whether it can organise its engagement with
a disparate community on a more sophisticated basis than telling the
volunteers that it's their responsbility to know how to engage effectively
with the Foundation?  Let me ask to to reread your comments from the point
of view of a volunteer whose work builds the projects and ask yourself
whether the attitude embodied in your comment is not just ever so slightly
sub-optimal?  Are you completely satsifed that there is nothing at all that
the Foundation could or should do to improve the engagement it has with the
community?

"Rogol"
___
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 Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Christophe

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).


The adverts you are already running say "the time commitment for standard
service is roughly 75 hours per year".  Presumaby you mean that you will
reduce it from that figure to some lower figure over the next year?

There are some optional activities that are already failing to get
sufficient effort to make them worthwhile: I'm thinking in particular of
dialogue at the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard on Meta,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard
Perhaps you should bite the bullet here and close it down?  Already
previous and current Board members have commented that it was not
sustainable.  Of course I would encourage you to find some alternative
mechanism, one that you can and will sustain, for serious strategic
engagement between Board and Community.

"Rogol"
___
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 Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine,

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.

"Rogol"

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> Two points:
>
> 1. Intrinsic motivation, at this point, appears to be inadequate for
> increasing the population of the Wikimedia volunteer community. I am
> skeptical that we should rely on the same mechanism which isn't working in
> the volunteer community to fill slots on the WMF Board, which also seems to
> be struggling to fill its ranks.
>
> 2. I think that there's some grey between fully intrinsic and fully
> extrinsic motivation. For example, there are a number WMF employees to
> which WMF pays $100,000+ compensation packages. Yet we don't complain that
> their motivations are extrinsic and incompatible with the Wikimedia
> mission. WMF pays them that level of compensation to encourage them to stay
> with WMF instead of working for another organization (probably a for-profit
> one) which would likely pay them similar levels of compensation. It seems
> to me that if WMF is struggling to attract the quantity and quality of
> Board members that it needs, then compensation is a reasonable option to
> consider.
>
> Responding to Pete: although it's unusual for nonprofit board members to be
> paid, as far as I can see the practice isn't forbidden. I imagine that WMF
> Legal could provide guidance about what is and isn't allowed. Whether
> whether it's allowed and whether it should actually happen are, of course,
> two different questions. A resource that I find instructive is
> https://www.asaecenter.org/resources/articles/an_plus/
> 2015/december/should-board-members-of-nonprofit-
> organizations-be-compensated,
> which provides a list of pros and cons for providing compensation to Board
> members. One of the points that they make is along similar lines as Lane's:
> that providing compensation could increase the diversity of candidates. A
> point that I think is also worth making is that if Board members are
> compensated then expectations should be proportionately greater for their
> performance and attendance to Board matters; I don't want anything like a
> repeat of the situation that happened with Lila in which the WMF Board
> seems to have been asleep at the wheel. Given that current Board members
> seem to be struggling with their workloads, I think that exploring the pros
> and cons of compensating WMF Board members is worth serious consideration.
>
> I like the idea of the Board having its own staff separate from the ED.
> This would be similar to how legislative bodies are supported by their own
> staff which is separate from the executive branch. If this kind of support
> would be adequate to address the problems of Board recruitment (which I
> doubt) then I'd say to go for it. It might be worthwhile exploring this
> option in tandem with exploring the option of compensating Board members.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation supports legal challenge to new travel-related executive order

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Michelle

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
> travel restrictions, we will take action to protect the future of the
> projects, our mission, and our team's ability to serve both. This is not
> about political ideology, it is about preservation.
>

There are many things happening in the world which may threaten the
capacity of the Foundation to support its projects and communities.  Could
you point us to a brief explanation of the criteria which you use to decide
which of those things you choose to spend the donors' money on, please?

"Rogol"
___
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] dmoz.org

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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.

"Rogol"

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:56 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> IMO this is something we should absorb into the WMF family of sites. Should
> not be too hard to format as a wiki. Not sure how big their community is.
> Anyone have any idea?
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:54 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > Gah really :-( DMOZ was super useful for dealing with linkspam on
> > Wikipedia. Would often just link to them for the external links and allow
> > them to take care of the issues.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 3:33 AM, carl hansen 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> >> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > It is not going to be absorbed in Wikidata. We did not even do that
> for
> >> > Freebase to my regret.
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >   GerardM
> >> >
> >> > On 12 March 2017 at 09:03, carl hansen 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I see dmoz.org is going offline in few days after a couple decades.
> >> It
> >> > is
> >> > > a
> >> > > community-written project. Will it be absorbed into wikidata? Sort
> of
> >> a
> >> > > snapshot-in-time of the web. Get it while you can, at
> >> > > http://rdf.dmoz.org/
> >> > > ___
> >> > ​
> >> >
> >> ​I see you predict the future. Anyway, I assume the people on this list
> >> are often the kind of people who would want to squirel away their own
> >> private copy, while they can. I know I have.​
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> ___
> 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] dmoz.org

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I wonder if there's a lesson for other knowledge projects here ...

"Rogol"

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:03 AM, carl hansen 
wrote:

> I see dmoz.org is going offline in few days after a couple decades. It is
> a
> community-written project. Will it be absorbed into wikidata? Sort of a
> snapshot-in-time of the web. Get it while you can, at
> http://rdf.dmoz.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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using non-free elements vs our values (Apple Maps vs Wikipedia iOS app)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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?

"Rogol"

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> What I do not understand is why?  We have had maps and nearby functionality
> for a very long time 2014 based on Wikidata [1]. It has the benefit of
> being of use in any of our languages much more than what Apple has to
> offer. This was developed at the Hackathon in Vienna.
>
> OSM maps have as a benefit that they serve countries like Haiti much better
> [2]. It is why Doctors Without Borders use their maps and not others [2].
>
> A third reason is that by concentrating on the Apple API and kits we are
> not developing for the majority of smart phones.
>
> A fourth reason is that it will enhance the cooperation with the OSM
> community.
>
> A final reason is that we are already Wikidatafying Commons; this will have
> a geo location part as well and consequently I do not see any advantages in
> anything but a Wikidata approach to maps because through queries we can
> target Wikipedia articles in a language. A final argument, it will drive
> more people to add labels in Wikidata in the language where our coverage is
> now not so good. Including English in China.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> PS I do have an iPhone.
>
> [1]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/05/wmhack-
> maps-and-wikidata-ii.html
> [2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2011/03/need-for-
> up-to-date-maps.html
>
> On 11 March 2017 at 03:59, Jonatan Svensson Glad 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> >
> > I'm not one who usually writes on these lists, but since it seems like a
> > good way to get others opinions (and ince I've already formed my own), I
> > thought it was a good way to see what others had to say and think.
> >
> >
> > The mobile team for the iOS app (who are all awesome!)  has recently
> > released (in beta) a version of the app which incorporates Apple Maps a
> one
> > of it's main feature, to find articles nearby.
> >
> >
> > "The Wikipedia iOS app has released a beta version (5.4.0 1081) which
> uses
> > Apple maps as its map data source. This is not an easy decision and has
> > already sparked some discussion of whether this is acceptable given our
> > project's values."
> >
> >
> > These maps are not free (non-libre) and is in my strong opinion against
> > our values. We only create and publish things which are freely licensed
> > (with fair use imagery being the only exception, after a board resolution
> > regarding EDP's).
> >
> >
> > Some reasons why this was done can be read here:
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Maps_service
> >
> >
> > I was asked if we could use non-free elements as long as we said it was
> > non-free and you may not be allowed to re-ue it, and I responded with "If
> > we can't find enough editors for Wikipedia, would it ever be alright if
> we
> > copied text from Britannica, as long as we said it was from Britannica,
> and
> > that reusers can not use it" i.e. just because we can't make something,
> > doesn't mean we should use something else (non-free thing) to reach our
> > 'wants', if it causes us to  loose what is... 'us'.
> >
> >
> > I'm seeking imput and opinions from you all whether this i allowed or not
> > our according to values, which states:
> >
> >
> > "An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging
> > the development of free-content educational resources that may be
> created,
> > used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this
> > mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to
> > allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation,
> use,
> > and reuse.
> >
> > At the creation level, we want to provide the editing community with
> > freely-licensed tools for participation and collaboration. Our community
> > should also have the freedom to fork thanks to freely available dumps.
> >
> > The community will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be
> > distributed freely throughout the world, viewable or playable by free
> > software tools."
> > ___
> > 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
> Unsubscrib

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Rogol Domedonfors]

The UNWTO report you link to refers to 1186M "torist arrivals".  That is
not the same as 1186M diffeent people.  Did your correspondant explicitly
address that difference, or are you assuming that every tourist makes just
one trip abroad in a year, and if so, why, since it is patently not correct?

"Rogol"

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Zachary McCune 
wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> Wanted to follow up on my message from last Thursday, March 2nd.[1] As
> detailed, we are making changes to the Annual Report site that should be
> reflected today.[2]
>
> Per suggestions we are exploring randomization of the facts displayed in
> the index page carousel. The ordering on the Consider the Facts page will
> be updated to begin, as discussed, with "Wikipedia is updated almost 350
> times a minute". [3]
>
> I also want to share that in adding citations to the "One in six people
> visited a foreign country in 2016" fact, I followed SJ's advices and
> emailed the UNWTO to explicitly confirm their 1186 million international
> tourist statistic.[4] This morning I received a response from Ruth Gomez
> Sobrino, Media Officer stating "Yes, this is true….and it will be 1,800 in
> 2030." So we are keeping this fact as is, and adding a citation note to add
> proper context.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zack
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> March/086699.html
>
> [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151798
>
> [3] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
>
> [4] http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:47 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you believe truth and accuracy are to be found only
> > > at one ppint on the spectrum of political belief?
> >
> > There is a very strong correlation which has, since November, become
> > much stronger. Compare for example:
> >
> > http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ (16% "True" or
> > "Mostly true") with
> >
> > http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/ (48% "True" or
> > "Mostly true.")
> >
> > > Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are
> > > identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?
> >
> > No, but if people around the world are misled because we fail in our
> > mission to collect, develop, and disseminate educational content
> > effectively, then they are likely to have much different goals than if
> > they were able to access accurate information.
> >
> > ___
> > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Zachary McCune
> Global Audiences
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> zmcc...@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,
> <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] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James

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
political belief?  Do you believe that facts about (how the world is) are
identical with beliefs about (how the world ought to be)?

"Rogol"
___
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] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Gerard

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM, you wrote:

>
> For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to
> support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or is
> their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us stick in
> the mud as it stifles initiative?
>

A fallacious dichotomy, as no doubt you were well aware.  We need to
establish working and workable procedures that allow Community and
Foundation to engage together in planning at the level of long-term
strategy and medium-term technical roadmap so that the WMF are able to
deliver quality products that support the mission effectively.  Do you
think we have those already?  Or do you think we can do without them?

"Rogol"
___
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] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Katherine

Thank you for your prompt response.  I am surprised that at no stage would
anyone have seen any reason to question whether a political strategist was
the best person to be consulting over running a strategy survey.

"Rogol"

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> They are a vendor we have used in the past to conduct focus groups and run
> surveys for the annual fundraiser in the five largest English speaking
> countries. We were satisfied with the quality of their work in the past, so
> we contacted them again to discuss whether they had appropriate expertise
> for this instance.
>
> I do not have particular insight as to how we came to work with them in the
> first place a few years ago. As with many vendors we work with, I expect it
> was a combination of research, referral, and/or past successful working
> relationship.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 14:11 Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> Katherine
>
> 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 that win
> persuadable voters" and Celinda Lake as "one of the Democratic Party's
> leading political strategists".  On what grounds was this company selected
> to work on "proposed market research and recommendations on firms or
> contractors (including Lake) who could conduct desk and/or generative
> research", which seems very far from their self-proclaimed field of
> expertise?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> 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>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@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,
> <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] March 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#9)

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Katherine

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 that win
persuadable voters" and Celinda Lake as "one of the Democratic Party's
leading political strategists".  On what grounds was this company selected
to work on "proposed market research and recommendations on firms or
contractors (including Lake) who could conduct desk and/or generative
research", which seems very far from their self-proclaimed field of
expertise?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Yann

Did you ask for, or receive, any help from the WMF?  If so, was it
effective?  If not, do you think you should have done?

"Rogol"

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Yann Forget  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a personal experience which is worth considering.
> One of my picture uploaded on Commons under CC-BY-SA was used without
> attribution by a political party on their website and 2 of their leaflets
> (printed to more than 10,000 copies each).
> I contacted them, and they immediately acknowledged that the license was
> not respected. Their excuse was "We didn't know", which is quite difficult
> to accept.
> But then they stopped answering to my mails.
> So I contacted a lawyer, who told me that I should ask "at least 5,000
> euros".
> Then the politician said to my lawyer than "I have agreed to a compensation
> of a few euros", which is completely false.
> Consequence: My lawyer could not negotiate more than a few hundreds euros.
> Morality: It would have been much better for me to contact a lawyer
> directly rather than trying to negotiate an amicable agreement. :(
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
>
> 2017-03-05 15:30 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :
>
> > 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.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous
> individual
> > > approaches?  Or should it do nothing?  What's best?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia
> > > without
> > > > proper attribution.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level
> > discussions
> > > > > and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > > > > uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples
> of
> > > > > what we're actually talking about here?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - d.
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > James Heilman
> > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > >
> > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > > > ___
> > > > 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.wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine,

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
> goal of trying to align WMF more with the community. Sometimes carrots work
> better than sticks. I have a long list of changes that I would like WMF to
> make, but cultural change is a long term process, and sometimes patience
> works better than demands.
>

Unfortunately cultural change is unlikely to happen against a background of
perpetual unwarranted self-congratulation and complacency.  A clear
articulation of areas needing improvement and suggestions for ways of
improving may not always make for comfortable reading, but I make no
apology for presenting that position.  I would have been happy to have been
able to be more detailed in my suggestions, but it seems to me that the
Foundation is, and has been for some time, unable or unwilling to
acknowledge, let alone respond to or engage with, the attempts by numerous
community members to initiate a serious engagement.  Perhaps your
experience in this area has been better, and if so, I would be pleased to
hear from you what your successes have been and how you have achieved them.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist business

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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
coordinate and advise individual contributors making numerous individual
approaches?  Or should it do nothing?  What's best?

"Rogol"

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 2:39 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> Rupert here is a list of 213,000 books that are based on Wikipedia without
> proper attribution.
>
> https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22CTI+Reviews%22
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:47 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> > and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> > what we're actually talking about here?
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> ___
> 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] Is the Code of Conduct in force?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Well, one of us is in the wrong place.  I'm posting to the list described
as "Discussion list for *the Wikimedia community* and the larger network of
organizations [...] supporting its work." – my emphasis.  It seems that
"This mailing list can, for example, be used for: [...]

The initial planning phase of potential new Wikimedia projects and
initiatives
Organizational issues of the Wikimedia Foundation, chapter organizations,
others
Discussing the setup of local Wikimedia chapters
Developing and evaluating grant-making programs
Planning elections, polls and votes
Discussion of projects that don't already have a mailing list
Finding ways to raise funds
Other Wikimedia-related issues

My post relates to items 1,2,5 and 8 on that list.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Joseph Seddon  wrote:

> This list is *a* community but it certainly does not constitute The
> Community™ nor are we the community affected by this code of conduct.
>
> I suggest raising this in venues appropriate to the particular community in
> question, in this case the technical community. Before bringing this topic
> here it would have been far more appropriate to raise your concerns on a
> more aligned mailing list such as wikitech-l. All of whom would be affected
> by the code of conduct and who have been notified regularly about it.
>
> I also suggest you keep in mind that the technical community does have a
> higher percentage of staff members from many organisations in comparison to
> the number of volunteers. Simply being staff members does not preclude them
> from being a part of that community and does not preclude their ability to
> participate in their own self-governance.
>
> It would be hypercritical of us if we as the wikimedia-l list were to
> parachute into the governance of a community relatively few of us are a
> part of.
>
> Seddon
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:30 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > This assumes 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 17:16, Rogol Domedonfors 
> 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  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Rogol,
> > >>
> > >> Please don't assume that Matt thinks that the TCoC is now in effect.
> Try
> > >> asking him, preferably 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?
> > >>
> > >> Pine
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > 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
> > >> > there is still signficiant disagreement on this list, it can hardly
> > have
> > >> > any practical effect until it is published.  But first --
> > >> >
> > >> > Does the Community accept that this Code of Conduct is now in force?
> > >> >
> > >> > "Rogol"
> > >> > ___
> > >> > 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: Wikim