Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics
Le Thu, 02 Apr 2015 01:26:07 +0200, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com a écrit: Dear Pierre-Selim, I look forward to discussing this new metric at the Wikimedia Conference. I might even take photographs of the deliberations and upload them to Commons in order to improve my personal pixel metric. Have you figured out a way to translate pixels into multiple languages? Just walk accross streets or countries and show the pixels to different native speakers: you have translated the pixels. Be aware not to lost some pixels during the translation. ~ Seb35 I hope you will document the new pixel metric, and the methods for measuring it, in the Learning Patterns Library. Regards, Pine On Apr 1, 2015 12:59 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote: Dear movement fellows, Impact is crucial for our movement, and although metrics will always be imperfect, we must strive to reinvent ourselves and always come up with new innovative ways of measuring what we bring to the Wikimedia projects, to free knowledge, and to human society. Measuring impact regarding collections of media holds its own challenges and although we have been focusing on this for a while now, much work still lies ahead. We were inspired by the “bytes added” metric, one of the pinnacles of written content expansion measurement, which goes beyond mere edit count. The same reasoning holds true for media:a puny upload count cannot come close to the real awesomeness. This is why, as we appreciate that size matters, Wikimedia France quality commitee is proud to introduce its brand new set of metrics: the pixel count and the quality pixel count − since quality is of firstmost importance. You may query the Pixel count metric for your FDC reports as part of our wm-metrics webapp [1] Furthermore, an implementation of these new metrics will also ship with our new new (teasing!) product [2] As of April 1st 2015 Wikimedia France has supported the upload on Wikimedia Commons of: - 1 229 694 933 639 pixels [3] - among those pixels, 22 407 932 851 are quality pixels (18,223512%) [4] This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute pixels, encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels. Confident in the relevance of these new indicators, we would be delighted and honored to see the Pixel count integrated in the Global Metrics. As always we welcome feedback, hugs and pull requests. Sincerely, For the quality committee of Wikimedia France Caroline, Jean-Fred, Pierre-Selim and Petit Tigre [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wm-metrics/fdc [2] https://github.com/Commonists/MediaCollectionDB/commit/4c2ab42f83e894c9dd317038ad025abdeb946f6e [3] http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/2882 [4] http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/2886 -- Pierre-Selim ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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 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] Fwd: Accounting software for thematic orgs
Forwarding to the to-be-revived treasurers mailing list. ~ Seb35 --- Message réexpédié--- De: Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com A: Wikimedia Mailing List Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Sujet: [Wikimedia-l] Accounting software for thematic orgs Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 06:54:41 +0200 Hi all, There are online small business accounting software packages. Do any thematic orgs have experience with them? Any recommendations? I am thinking about proposing Quickbooks Online for the Cascadia user group, but as this Forbes article says, there are competitors: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/01/06/why-your-company-may-dump-quickbooks-this-year/ Thanks, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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] Deployment targets and preferences (was: Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you)
Hi, I propose some constructive ideas to improve the deployment of new features: * granular deployments: create user profiles where the users can choose if they want an overall appearance: * never ever change my interface: some experienced authors do not like when one change every month their workflow if they are happy with it, * experienced editor: some experienced editors want new features or see what the newbies see, * newbie: the newbies/editors-to-be could expect an editing environment possibly different than the reader environment, * reader: the readers have their own expectations for easy reading, * etc. The features could be deployed only for some groups, giving more flexibility to deploy reader features for readers, etc. Obviously there are preferences, but the newbies have no experience about it, and the experienced editors have to be discover new preferences on a case-by-case basis, making it difficult to everybody to track the preferences. * implement global preferences (and the possibility to change locally or globally, like in Mailman) [bug 14950][] * when a new feature is introduced, propose to users (not in never ever change my interface) if they want the new feature, locally or globally, possibly using the Notifications bar, or with some message in the prefs page and highlighting it on the prefs page * work on a better organisation of the preferences, e.g. add an exhaustive preference panel similarly to Firefox’s about:config to permit the developers to add more preferences and hence offering more customisation possibilities for advanced users, by nullifying the argument the preferences page is too complicated for new users * as it was proposed, add a review process for the gadgets+JS pages to avoid performance, security, usability issues, possibly with the help of the tech staff, and possibly with the general MediaWiki code review (gerrit/Phabricator) with some gateway between it and the MediaWiki websites [bug 69445][] [bug 20153][] In other words, improve the deployment targets and give easy choices to users to opt-in/opt-out/etc the new features depending on their willingness to change their environment. And although I’m neither a loudly people neither the community, I vote to remove the superprotect right and any other enforcement of this type in the future. It’s like an edit war where one party has the power to silence the other, and like all edit wars there are at least two wrong versions. [bug 69445]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69445 [bug 14950]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14950 [bug 20153]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20153 ~ Seb35 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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] Chapters and GLAM tooling
Similarly to what you are describing, Micru, BeWelcome has a process to identify issues and resolve them in a community discussion. It’s a sort of communal product specification/design. The process looks like: [1] 1/ firstly, community members can submit issues or product ideas, 2/ secondly, there is a discussion with proposed resolutions, 3/ thirdly, a vote between the various proposed resolutions, 4/ lastly, the development phase itself. Although we have some sort of such process (Idea lab, RFC, mailing lists, bug tracker, MediaWiki.org), it’s not as easy to find where are the ideas of products, where are the development of these ideas, and where and how you can give your voice to influence the path of the development. Personally I like a lot the BeWelcome process (and it’s a non-technical member who presented me that), and I find you could reuse it in Wikimedia, probably in a customized form, and with short and intuitive product ideas and resolutions (avoid too long pages at first sight). [1] https://www.bewelcome.org/suggestions/about ~ Seb35 Le mardi 26 juin 2014 15:12:03 (CEST), David Cuenca a écrit : Erik (and others), is there any coordination page where groups could place, take, or discuss requests for development or requests for maintenance? I saw often that sometimes the hard-to-achieve consensus is found, but there is no way to evaluate the idea further. What now happens is: - several development proposals materialize through different channels (community, user groups, idea lab, RFCs, etc) - there is a general consensus about project A - limbo or an IEG, but as Ilario says, that doesn't guarantee its future viability or integration with current or planned workflows, or availability of resources for maintenance It would be more rational to have a further step in the pipeline where development ideas could be commented, shot down, or approved for further commitment by the ones who actually can understand how they fit in the broader product management/life-cycle context (engineering? PMs? chapters?). There are often community ideas that on first sight look great, but when you think about the potential problems, implications, costs, or stepping on the toes of other developments, that it is more rational not to start them or delay them until certain conditions are met. But no voice is heard, and that causes frustration and a sense of disconnection in the community, when just a single statement this shouldn't be done because X, would make everyone more aware of the limits. And the opposite too, when some idea gather community support and is green-lighted for further commitment, that would make chapters or other organizations more confident about what is wanted and how. Micru On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi folks, At the Zurich Hackathon, I met with a couple of folks from WM-CH who were interested in talking about ways that chapters can get involved in engineering/product development, similar to WM-DE's work on Wikidata. My recommendation to them was to consider working on GLAM-related tooling. This includes helping improve some of the reporting tools currently running in Labs (primarily developed by the illustrious and wonderful Magnus Manske in his spare time), but also meeting other requirements identified by the GLAM community [1] and potentially helping with the development of more complex MediaWiki-integrated tools like the GLAMWiki-Toolset. There's work that only WMF is well positioned to do (like feeding all media view data into Hadoop and providing generalized reports and APIs), but a lot of work in the aforementioned categories could be done by any chapter and could easily be scaled up from 1 to 2 to 3 FTEs and beyond as warranted. That's because a lot of the tools are separate from MediaWiki, so code review and integration requirements are lower, and it's easier for technically proficient folks to help. In short, I think this could provide a nice on-ramp for a chapter or chapters to support the work of volunteers in the cultural sector with appropriate technology. This availability of appropriate technology is clearly increasingly a distinguishing factor for Wikimedia relative to more commercial offerings in its appeal to the cultural sector. At the same time, WMF itself doesn't currently prioritize work with the cultural sector very highly, which I think is appropriate given all the other problems we have to solve. So if this kind of work has to compete for attention with much more basic improvements to say the uploading pipeline or the editing tools, it's going to lose. Therefore I think having a cultural tooling team or teams in the larger movement would be appropriate. I've not heard back from WM-CH yet on this, but I also don't think it's an exclusive suggestion, so wanted to put the idea in people's heads in case other organizations in the movement want to help with it. I do want WMF
Re: [Wikimedia-l] How Wikimedia could help languages to survive
Hei, As a supporter of language diversity, I’m a bit sad of this thread because some people find we should not engage in language revitalisation because: 1/ it’s not explicitely in our scope (and I don’t fully aggree: sum of all knowledge also includes minority cultures expressed in their languages, as shown by Hubert Laska with the Kneip), 2/ it’s too difficult/expansive to save most languages. Although there are obviously great difficulties, I find it shouldn’t stop us to support or partnership with local languages institutions, particularly if there are interested people or volunteers: we are not obliged to select the 3000 more spoken languages and set up parterships to save these 3000 languages, but we can support institutions or volunteers _interested_ in saving some small language on a case-by-case basis (Rapa Nui, Chickasaw, Skolt Sami, Kibushi, whatever) if minimum requirements are met (writing system and ISO 639 code for a website, financial ressources for a project), i.e. crowdsourcing the language preservation between Wikimedia, volunteers, speakers, and institutions. When multilinguism in the cyberspace is discussed by linguists, Wikipedia is almost every time shown as *the* better successful example. As discussed in this thread, perhaps some projects (Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikidata) are easier to set up in these languages and this could be a first step, but these will only preserve these as non-living objects of interest, at the contrary of a Wikibook/Wikipedia/Wikinews/Wikiversity where speakers could practice the language, invent neologisms and terminology, create corpora for linguists, and show the language to other interested people in the world (I’m sure there are). As an example in France, Wikimédia France has quite good relationships with the DGLFLF (Delegation for the French language and languages of France), and this institution census 75 languages in France, whose 2/3 are overseas [1]. The DGLFLF contributed ressources on some small languages and multilinguism on Wikibooks [2] and Commons [3]. [1] (fr) http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/lgfrance/lgfrance_presentation.htm [2] (fr) https://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/États_généraux_du_multilinguisme_dans_les_outre-mer [3] (fr)(mul) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:États_généraux_du_multilinguisme_dans_les_outre-mer ~ Seb35 20.04.2014 05:46:47 (CEST), Milos Rancic kirjoitti: There are ~6000 languages in the world and around 3000 of them have more than 10,000 speakers. That approximation has some issues, but they are compensated by the ambiguity of the opposition. Ethnologue is not the best place to find precise data about the languages and it could count as languages just close varieties of one language, but it also doesn't count some other languages. Not all of the languages with 10,000 or more speakers have positive attitude toward their languages, but there are languages with smaller number of speakers with very positive attitude toward their own language. So, that number is what we could count as the realistic final number of the language editions of Wikimedia projects. At the moment, we have less than 300 language editions. * * * There is the question: Why should we do that? The answer is clear to me: Because we can. Yes, there are maybe more specific organizations which could do that, but it's not about expertise, but about ability. Fortunately, we don't need to search for historical examples for comparisons; the Internet is good enough. I still remember infographic of the time while all of us thought that Flickr is the place for images. It turned out that the biggest repository of images is actually Facebook, which had hundred times more of them than the Twitpic at the second place, which, in turn, had hundred times more of images than Flickr. In other words, the purpose of something and general perception of its purpose is not enough for doing good job. As well as comparisons between mismanaged internet projects and mismanaged traditional scientific and educational organizations are numerous. At this point of time Wikimedia all necessary capacities -- and even a will to take that job. So, we should start doing that, finally :) * * * There is also the question: How can we do that? In short, because of Wikipedia. I announced Microgrants project of Wikimedia Serbia yesterday. To be honest, we have very low expectations. When I said to Filip that I want to have 10 active community members after the project, he said that I am overambitious. Yes, I am. But ten hours later I've got the first response and I was very positively surprised by a lot of things. The most relevant for this story is that a person from a city in Serbia proper is very enthusiastic about Wikipedia and contributing to it (and organizing contributors in the area). I didn't hear that for years! (Maybe I was just too pessimistic because of my obsession with statistics.) Keeping in mind her position (she said that she
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area
Le lundi 10 mars 2014 21:03:20 (CET), Yuri y...@rawbw.com a écrit : On 03/10/2014 11:30, Seb35 wrote: Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn’t (shouldn’t) depend in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed differently from a culture to another but that’s a cultural question not related to censorship. Moreover it would be a censorship practice close to the Ministry of Truth in 1984 where the newspapers are re-printed afterwards to modify the past History. This is exactly the point: when local governments attempt to twist the truth, they are currently able to do this for all readers, regardless of the location. This feature would allow to explicitly twist the truth in specific areas where this twisting is legally required, while preserving the real version for everyone else. In a way, it will also keep the registry of altered information, while now there is no such way and alterations are just swallowed. I’m not convinced by this method (quite difficult technically as said on the bug) because of the abuse ti could lead: if a government doesn’t like a version of an article (example given by Austin Hair), it would be too easy to find a random volunteer in the country to hide the unwanted parts. As a real example in the DCRI affair last year, if such a feature would have existed I guess the affair would have received a smaller attention from the international movement and the censorship would have worked better. I understand your intention with this system, but I find it’s not a good response to the problem; I find a better response is to encourage and help the free speech associations, like what was done during SOPA/PIPA. ~ Seb35 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] [feature suggestion] Be able to include/exclude certain page fragments based on the geographic area
Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn’t (shouldn’t) depend in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed differently from a culture to another but that’s a cultural question not related to censorship. Moreover it would be a censorship practice close to the Ministry of Truth in 1984 where the newspapers are re-printed afterwards to modify the past History. ~ Seb35 Le mercredi 5 mars 2014 05:37:25 (CET), Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com a écrit : Exactly this. If the government of any given country wants to redirect certain articles, or all of Wikipedia, to a page saying This content blocked by the Ministry of Knowledge, people will know they're being censored. If instead they reach a sanitized version of the article reflecting the government's preferred spin, we're putting that government's spin in our voice. That's not at all acceptable. Let them censor, let them make it obvious, and let them deal with the fallout. But we should absolutely not help them in any way whatsoever. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: I think that if you stop to think about it another way, you'll find that this would do the opposite of what you intend, to wit: allowing various courts to impose editorial control. Imagine Circletine, once a popular childhood beverage but now the issue of some controversy regarding its tendency to cause tooth loss. Although banned from sale in Europe and the United States, an aggressive marketing campaign has made it the best-selling soft drink in the nation of Elbonia. Equally aggressive lobbying in the Elbonian parliament has resulted it in being a crime to disparage Circletine in any way, or even to mention the controversy in print. And so we have our article: '''Circletine''' is a bannedin country=elboniacontroversial/bannedin milk flavoring product made from malt extract, curds, and whey, bannedin country=elboniaonce/bannedin extremely popular worldwide bannedin country=elboniaAlthough it enjoyed several decades of success as an inexpensive beverage marketed mostly for children, concerns over an increased risk of tooth loss led to its withdrawal from sale in most western countries./bannedin (I think you can see where this is going.) Censorship is awful, but partial censorship is worse than simply saying I'm not allowed to talk about it. Ask your government why. Austin On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Yuri y...@rawbw.com wrote: I submitted the proposal to be able to eliminate certain parts of the articles in certain countries, where the local governments find those parts illegal: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62231 But it got rejected, and I am not sure I am clear why. The problem is that there are countries that lack the freedom of speech (most of the countries), and some of them get very aggressive about banning materials that most reasonable people wouldn't find objectionable. The very recent example, provided in the bug report above, is banning of any references of Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf in Russia. While this case may seem not as important, but I don't see why users outside Russia should be affected by such decision, when they may not even support any decisions or values of the said government. Yet, everybody's version of wikipedia page is affected, and materials are hidden. My suggestion, if implemented, would allow to hide certain parts of the articles in the country (or area) of jurisdiction of the corresponding court, while allowing users not living there to still see the original version. If such governments get their way in banning materials globally, this will effectively make wikipedia biased, and reflecting various POVs of various courts, which has never been intended by wikipedia. Yuri ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 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 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] [WMBD] Bengali Wikipedia program with Grameen Phone (A Telenor group company)
Great program! Happy to see Wikipedia Zero in Grameen Phone! For the video you ask, you can browse https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_videos_in_English with many video tutorials and some Wikipedia introductory videos like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edit_Button.ogv and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Feeling.ogv, both of them have bengali subtitles also. ~ Seb35 Le samedi 15 février 2014 12:42:23 (CET), Nurunnaby Chowdhury n...@nhasive.com a écrit : Dear All, I am happy to inform you Wikimedia Bangladesh (WMBD) has arranged a two day (February 16 17, 2014) Wikipedia program with Grameen Phone (A Telenor concern). Grameen Phone is the largest telecommunication company based in Bangladesh. Besides, in Bangladesh Grameen Phone Banglalink (A Orascom Telecom and VimpelCom Ltd concern) now provide zero.wikipedia.org m.wikipedia.org, which is completely free of cost. In this two-day program we will arrange different types of Workshops. WMBD president Munir Hasan will conduct two seminars on wikipedia. Me our another Sysop of Bengali Wikipedia Nasir Khan will jointly run 2/3 workshops. Our target audience 70+ I-Genious student. This all I-Genious students selected by a year-long program arranged by Grameen Phone The Daily Prothom Alo all over the country [1]. On the first day 35 on the second day 35 students will join this program. During the program we will deliver hands on presentations, How to edit, how to contribute, How to donate photo to commons. Moreover, we will enrich some articles those seem incomplete.. After the successful completion of the program all i-Genious students will receive certificates from WMBD Grameen Phone. In this program we are interested to show a video about wikipedia. It would be great if anyone can give me a link where i may find the video. [1] http://www.telenor.com/media/articles/2012/game-on-mobile-browsing-gets-competitive-in-i-gen -- *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* | User: nhasive Sysop of *Bengali Wikipedia* Bangladesh Ambassador of *Open Knowledge Foundation Network* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Statement for the police about the fundraising?
It’s incredible that some governments think they own the language(s) mainly spoken in their country: fi.wikipedia.org is in Finnish but not related to Finland (non-Finnish people could visit fi.wikipedia.org, and Finnish people could visit other language Wikipedias). And it’s sad if they attack volunteers for a technical work, that would sound like the DGSE affair. ~ Seb35 Le Fri, 07 Feb 2014 23:00:40 +0100, Alex Monk kren...@gmail.com a écrit: Has anyone translated the email into English? Would be interesting to see what it says... Alex Monk On 7 February 2014 21:33, Leinonen Teemu teemu.leino...@aalto.fi wrote: Hi, I just got a message that the Finnish Police have asked the fi.wikipedia, by sending an email to the wikifi-ad...@list.wikimedia.org, to give a written statement about their possible violation of the laws that regulate fundraising in Finland. There is a little news about this already online in English. Here: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/02/07/finnish_police_probe_wikipedia_donation_requests I chat about this with a lawyer friend and he was afraid that the police msy go after the volunteers that have participated in the fundraising, e.g. by translating the fundraising messages. Is there any equivalent cases from other countries? In Finland one needs a pre-given permission to do fundraising. - Teemu -- Teemu Leinonen http://teemuleinonen.fi +358 50 351 6796 Media Lab http://mlab.uiah.fi Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture -- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 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] Basic income Wikimedians
Hello, I would like to speak on this list about the basic income. For a TL;DR about the concept, the idea of an (unconditionnal) basic income is to give each citizen of a country a sum of money in order to fullfill their basic needs: lodging, eat, be healthy. To give an idea of the amount, one hears often 800-1000 € in France and I heard 2500 CHF in Switzerland. If people want to earn more, their work income will be in addition of this basic income. You can read more on the Wikipedia articles ([1] and other languages). Be aware, this idea is as strange as Wikipedia when one discovers it. As a Wikipmedian, I dream of such a basic income: it would empower the people to edit the Wikimedia projects by giving them libre time (libre as free speech). I don’t think Wikimedia itself should support this to avoid being involved in politics, but probably many Wikipmedians could be interested in this idea. For the European citizens, there is currently an official call (an ECI [2]) to support this idea at the European level, see [3] ; this call ends in one week (yes, the 200,000 signatures is a bit far of the million signatures needed). In Switzerland, a popular legislative initiative collected more than the 100,000 needed signatures in September 2013, and this will lead to a nationwide referendum about the basic income there. Any thoughts about that? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Citizens'_Initiative [3] http://sign.basicincome2013.eu/ ~ Seb35 [^_^] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Basic income Wikimedians
If a basic income is implemented somewhere in the world, people will have more time for themselves in mean (probably more partial-time work), so they will have more time to edit the Wikimedia projects, among other possible activities. ~S Le Thu, 09 Jan 2014 13:55:39 +0100, Fæ fae...@gmail.com a écrit: Thanks. I don't see how this relates to Wikimedia projects, by definition it is not. On 9 January 2014 12:40, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote: Le 09/01/2014 13:36, Fæ a écrit : The WMF has recently clarified that they frown upon paid editing. Presumably offering basic wage for people to edit Wikipedia is still paid editing? The answer is no, because the basic income is *unconditional*. This is an income, not at wage. Definition from Wikipedia: A basic income (also called basic income guarantee, unconditional basic income, universal basic income, universal demogrant,[1] or citizen’s income) is a proposed system[2] of social security in which citizens or residents of a country regularly receive a sum of money unconditionally, either from a government or some other institution able to ensure an equitable distribution of common wealth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income Emmanuel -- Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline more * Web: http://www.kiwix.org * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline * more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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] First Wikimedia-related contributor Kickstarter?
Le Sat, 02 Nov 2013 02:56:30 +0100, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com a écrit: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: A post is live on Gizmodo today about a Commons contributor (Evan-Amos) who takes high quality photos of video game systems and hardware.[1] Towards the end it mentions that Evan started a Kickstarter to fund his efforts to buy and photograph more systems as part of an online museum.[2] Anyone know if this is the first Wikimedia-related Kickstarter campaign, or has it happened before? What do people think about someone raising ~$13k to contribute photos to Commons? How does that fit in the debate about paid editing? To me it has a very different feel than, say, Wiki-PR. But... [1] http://gizmodo.com/how-i-became-gamings-most-popular-and-anonymous-photog-1456749754 [2] http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1699256938/the-vanamo-online-game-museum This guy is a free culture badass. :-) I wish more Commons contributors could promote and support their work like this. This project makes me think about other high quality photo collections, such as the many featured pictures of vintage computers or rocks and minerals. The list goes on and on. Like others have hinted at, both chapters and the WMF can potentially give out grants to support photography projects like this. I wonder if Evan knew that or considered it? I'd love to hear feedback from him about why he felt Kickstarter was fruitful, and how it compares to our large grants infrastructure in the Wikimedia movement. A small point about possible explanation for using Kickstarter is to reach other communities/public than the traditional Wikimedia communities and framework. In this sense it is also an outreach channel. I find this type of funding is original in our movement, and moreover the project appears to be conducted with a good quality, so why not? ~ Seb35 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia and the politics of encryption
I don’t see precisely how mandatory HTTPS could help spread the knowledge; accordingly if users feel themselves spied and it prevent them to contribute, yes, HTTPS helps; but if others feel cluttered by HTTPS (time load, unfriendly firewalls, various problems), it could also lower the number of editors. On another side HTTPS is quite useless if users click-through any warning (You are spied.: Ok/close me that ad → privacy education); anyway encryption and code breaking is always a cat-and-mouse play, and we sould have to carefully monitor state of the art if we really want to protect the users; but imho it’s not our vision. For HTTPS, I would like to see the users opt-in to the security they want: e.g. if they write about intelligence, they probably know the dangers about being spied and want minimize it as part of other means; if they write about butterflies, perhaps they don’t matter about being spied. For specific-rights editors security could be enforced, but possibly with other means than encryption; e.g. if an oversight has to hide an article, it is primarly needed to be sure the user has oversight rights (authorisation), and it is not really useful to hide what article it is (it was public). Accordingly for checkusers, we want the IPs stay private (encrypted during the transport). This point is: HTTPS is not the solution to all problems. For HTTPS I see some security levels chosed by the users: no HTTPS at all (Chinese users), equal HTTP/HTTPS (butterflies editor), prefered HTTPS (privacy-conscious editor, but travelling to China regularly), always HTTPS or nothing (intelligence editor). And this could be also implemented for readers during their session. This option is politically neutral, it just let the user choose. Sébastien Le Tue, 03 Sep 2013 21:38:36 +0200, Terry Chay tc...@wikimedia.org a écrit: This part of the discussion has strayed a bit far from the politics of encryption. ;-) Not that it doesn't have value, but if I can bring it back on-topic for a moment… The gist of the HTTPS issues is that it's simply not an engineering discussion, it's a political one. The abuses recently revealed in the United States is either orthogonal to the issue of the politics of encryption (in that HTTPS encryption in China, Iran, and the future is in discussion), or is the direct salient (in that it is a prime motivator for accelerating HTTPS rollout which has triggered this issue). I, for one, would like to see the discussion of what to do. I'm of the believe that there is no simple engineering decision without introducing practical, political, legal, and moral complications. I suspect that even the more clever or complex ones also introduce these issues. It's important to outline what our choices are and the consequences of those choices, and derive consensus on what the right choice is going forward, as it is clear what we have now[1] is a temporary band-aid.[2] I'm less sanguine about Erik's suggestion that creating a deadline to HTTP-canonical will actually get us to an adequate resolution. The reason is simply—whatever I think of Google personally—I feel Google has a highly-capable, highly-motivated, engineering-driven staff, and they were unable to come up with a workable solution. Unlike Google, we have a clear sense about what motivates us[3], so we need to figure out how best to get there/interpret it. [1]: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/28/https-default-logged-in-users-wikimedia-sites/ [2]: Maybe start an RfC or other wiki page on Meta with a summary of the discussion so far? [3]: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision Take care, terry On Sep 3, 2013, at 11:50 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: The thing is, it's kind of a crapshoot anyways. You might see something that you think might be classified and report it; but, unless you actually have the corresponding clearance yourself, you have no way of knowing for certain whether the material is in fact classified in the first place. Conversely, anyone who does have that information is unlikely to confirm it one way or the other, for obvious reasons. To make things even more convoluted, reporting certain kinds of material to the WMF could itself potentially be considered illegal in some circumstances, since not everyone at the WMF is considered a US person for ITAR purposes. Kirill On Sep 3, 2013, at 2:34 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: To be fair, none of the people receiving requests through legal@ or emergency@ have security clearances either. Kirill True, but there are not so many of them. I'm not sure if a request about a major matter has ever been made through any channel. In a way, that is kind of a dumb move. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] HTTPS for logged in users on Wednesday August 21st
Hi, tl;dr I do not really enjoy the way the mandatory-for-editors HTTPS was introduced, mainly for time frame and communications (still) reasons, although I’m globally really enthousiastic about a better security and particularly the activation of HTTPS. Generally speaking I do _hope_ in the future WMF will give more time and more discussion space to handle major changes. end tl;dr History: (I concede I may lack some readings, but I think I have the big picture) After the PRISM scandal in June (2.5 months ago) everybody condemned that program and the Internet security became a major concern for Internet users. HTTPS is in important means to improve the security (although concerns about the protocol and the way it is implemented appear) and since it was a matter of time before it could be globally activated the blog post published on August 1st announced HTTPS will be activated for logged-in users 20 days after, with solutions about the blocked China HTTPS to be found [1], after a discussion on wikitech-l [2]. Some Chinese editors made petitions [3] (starting on 08/08) and Iranian users raised a similar problem [4] (on 14/08). In parallel these last two weeks there were discussions on wikitech-l about some way to opt-out by user and/or geographically. And in parallel the last two weeks there were discussions on wikitech-l whether some opt-out mechanism should be implemented with two opposed points of view: 1/ this security about the protection of the password must be for everyone else it is unuseful (which is true in a perfect world), no matter if China and other HTTPS-unlucky people cannot login (and hence must edit under IP or not edit); 2/ although security is very important, not to allow HTTP logins in China (and other HTTPS-unlucky people) will destroy etablished parts of the community and should be avoided, so implementation of work-arounds is needed. And this last discussion had not to be on wikitech-l because it is political, and was only a few raised elsewhere (where HTTPS is technical and should be discussed on wikitech-l.) Finally some work-arounds were implemented; first it was a list of wikis where HTTP login will be allowed (this decision became public on Monday [5]) and yesterday (sic) it was announced a geolocalised solution [6]. Secondly there will be a preference for the users, although until yesterday it was not clear for everybody how exactly it was implemented. In parallel the central notice was set up two days ago with an English-only page, pywikipediabot was announced to be ready some hours ago. And in some hours there should be the deployment target. [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/01/future-https-wikimedia-projects/ [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-July/070981.html [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Petition_of_HTTPS_default [4] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52846 [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/HTTPS?diff=5731209oldid=5728786 [6] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-August/071348.html Conclusion: I know the fact we now know we are spied is disturbing, but… Why the hell HTTPS is so truly *urgent* we cannot spent more than three weeks (at all) to think about the problem, investigate related problems (including political and communitical here), think about solutions and user interfaces/interactions, implement solutions, widely avertize the problem and solutions, and peacefully deploy the patches? I would have loved some RFC and some discussion elsewhere than on wikitech-l with structured problems and solutions, and more time allowed for discussing all that with the community -- because I guess it was widely discussed internally in technical and operations teams, but the community discovered these plans and had to report potential problems in a time frame of 3 weeks. More generally speaking, I would love the WMF share more their internal plans long before rollout -- even if I concede writing and discussion is more time-consuming than oral speak and introduce latencies -- and probably in some digest and expanded forms (I know there are already both, it’s probably to be improved and perhaps more targeted to avoid everyone’s burnout). And perhaps slow the rhythm of the technical changes to have a more stable environment (I understand this is personal and there are other PoV). Thanks, ~ Seb35 Le Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:37:35 +0200, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info a écrit: First of all, I'm sorry If my tone was not appropriate (keep in mind I'm not a native speaker). 2013/8/21 Terry Chay tc...@wikimedia.org On Aug 21, 2013, at 1:39 AM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote: Just a question: Why imposing HTTPS ? Really, it will be damaging The reason why is outlined in Ryan's blog post as well as his previous post and the Wikipedia entry on https linked from that post. The short answer is the current state is known to present a number of privacy and security
Re: [Wikimedia-l] law enforcement buying vulnerabilities on black market leaving them unreported for surveillance
I aggree with JP Béland: the computer security obviously affects the Wikimedia users, but imho we shouldn’t do more than we can and let the responsability of their own security to the users -- although we should contribute for a decent security. For the specific topic you brought about 0-days, I’m not personnaly surprised, this type of market was revealed some time ago, see for instance http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/23/shopping-for-zero-days-an-price-list-for-hackers-secret-software-exploits/. ~ Seb35 Le Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:30:09 +0200, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com a écrit: I'm not sure what is your point here. How exactly readers of Wikimedia projects are at risk here because of that story? Are you trying to say it is the Foundation responsibility to protect the readers from the vulnerabilities of their operating systems? JP Béland 2013/8/19 James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com While the trickling release of Edward Snowden's revelations from bad to worse in weekly incremental steps has been enormously effective in swaying public opinion, it has made formulating a meaningful response very difficult. A few weeks ago we learned that the FBI has been purchasing personal computer operating system vulnerabilities from gray and black-hat hackers on the black market, often for several tens of thousands of dollars each, and leaving them unreported and thereby unpatched for use in future surveillance operations: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/08/01/how-the-fbi-hacks-criminal-suspects/ Unfortunately, this means that the vulnerabilities remain available to the criminal computer crime underground, affecting everyone including Foundation project readers and contributors alike. Very recently a well respected group of researchers characterized this state of affairs as preferable to the complexity of additional surveillance network and systems infrastructure: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2312107 This is a false dichotomy which directly places Foundation project readers and editors at risk, but does so along with virtually everyone else who uses personal computer or smartphone equipment. However, I think it is an important aspect to address because none of the other recent eavesdropping revelations put people at risk to organized computer crime, blackmail, and extortion in the same way. Is there any reason to exclude action on a particular issue just because it effects everyone else along with our users? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 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] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)
Thanks a lot for this explanation. On the other side, wikis not only need content producers (here WMF) but also curators (wikignomes) who are sorting the pages, deleting and moving pages, typocorrecting, templating things, helping new users in formatting texts, etc. (I read some of the Florence’s blogposts :) -- and not being admin restricts a lot the possible actions. And on the example you give about disagreement between two editors (e.g. staffer and volunteer), in theory there is no reason the staffer’s solution is better or worse than the volunteer’s solution, but perhaps a mean solution can be better than any of the two initial solutions; and in this case, the spent time is not a waste of time. Sébastien Le Sat, 11 May 2013 18:48:38 +0200, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org a écrit: Gayle is travelling today and not online, so I'll take a crack at responding to this. The editors are responsible for the projects: the Wikimedia Foundation knows that, acknowledges it, and is deeply appreciative (as are all readers) for the work that volunteers do in the projects. The Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for the Wikimedia Foundation wiki (and the blog). We are grateful to get community help there, and a small number of community members do really good work with us on both the WMF wiki and the blog. But ultimately that wiki, and the blog, are our responsibility, and we are accountable for making sure that e.g. the staff page, the Board bios, the resolution texts, etc., are maintained and in good shape. Most material on the WMF is not created via collaborative production processes -- it's corporate in nature, meaning that it is developed by the Wikimedia Foundation, for an audience of Wikimedia Foundation stakeholders, which includes community members and prospective community members, donors, readers of the projects, media, and others. My understanding is that administrator rights have been removed from a small number of volunteers, but that those people still have basic editing rights. My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation staff who work on the Foundation wiki have been grateful (and are grateful) for the help they've gotten from community members in maintaining the Foundation wiki, and that we hope they'll continue to help us. They've been great, and we're grateful. But, my understanding is also that occasionally volunteers have overridden decisions made by staff on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. I don't think that's ever been a huge problem: I don't think we've ever had a situation in which extensive discussion hasn't reached an okay conclusion. But, the extensive discussions --which, I understand, have typically been one-on-one, by which I mean, not a large number of community members or a community consensus against something the Foundation has wanted to do, but rather one volunteer disagreeing with something staff have been asked to do as part of their job --- occasionally, those discussions have been extremely time-consuming. That's not good. The staff working on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki have jobs they've got to get done, in support of the entire movement. If they spend days or weeks needing to persuade a single community member of the merits of something they want to do on the Foundation wiki, or if they need to modify their plans extensively to accommodate the opinions of a single community member, that reduces the amount of time available for them to do the rest of their work. Which, I repeat, is in the service of the movement overall. So I would say this: This decision is not about the community versus the WMF. This decision is about the WMF staff, and making it possible for them to do their work on the WMF wiki with some reasonable degree of efficiency and effectiveness. This decision clarifies roles-and-responsibilities. On the projects, the volunteers are the editorial leads, and the WMF plays a supporting role by creating functionality, maintaining the servers, paying the bandwidth bills, and so forth. On the WMF wiki, the WMF is the editorial lead, and volunteers can (and do) play a supporting role helping staff organize pages, maintain pages, and so forth. That's a reasonable division, and I think having clarity around it is a good thing. Slightly more broadly: when the Wikimedia movement was very young, everybody did everything and there wasn't much division of roles-and-responsibilities. I remember when the Wikimedia Foundation budgets were prepared by volunteers, when the trademarks were managed by volunteers, and so forth. That was appropriate for the time, and even though it was messy, it was kind of great. Then we all went through a period in which roles-and-responsibilities were utterly unclear -- it wasn't at all obvious who should do what, and many roles-and-responsibilities were hotly disputed. Personally, I feel like we're moving into a period now in which things are getting clearer. We don't
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Help needed to complete and expand the Wikimedia glossary
I support this effort to create a common glossary/vocabulary. And I add, since I tried to translate some of these words/expressions into French some time ago, and since it’s quite hard to obtain great and intuitive translations for many of these expressions, it would be great if new expressions could be thought with an internationalisation spirit as far as possible. As an example, in the Wikimedia Highlights of September, it’s hard to translate Curation Toolbar since curation don’t have a direct equivalent in French for this exact meaning (of tacking care of articles, curation is usually translated by conservation but quite different of this meaning). This is just an example but it illustrates a common difficulty for translators, probably for many languages. Thanks, Seb35 Le Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:55:04 +0100, Guillaume Paumier gpaum...@wikimedia.org a écrit: Hi, The use of jargon, acronyms and other abbreviations throughout the Wikimedia movement is a major source of communication issues, and barriers to comprehension and involvement. The recent thread on this list about What is Product? is an example of this, as are initialisms that have long been known to be a barrier for Wikipedia newcomers. A way to bridge people and communities with different vocabularies is to write and maintain a glossary that explains jargon in plain English terms. We've been lacking a good and up-to-date glossary for Wikimedia stuff (Foundation, chapter, movement, technology, etc.). Therefore, I've started to clean up and expand the outdated Glossary on meta, but it's a lot of work, and I don't have all the answers myself either. I'll continue to work on it, but I'd love to get some help on this and to make it a collaborative effort. If you have a few minutes to spare, please consider helping your (current and future) fellow Wikimedians by writing a few definitions if there are terms that you can explain in plain English. Additions of new terms are much welcome as well: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Glossary Some caveats: * As part of my work, I'm mostly interested in a glossary from a technical perspective, so the list currently has a technical bias. I'm hoping that by sending this message to a wider audience, people from the whole movement will contribute to the glossary and balance it out. * Also, I've started to clean up the glossary, but it still contains dated terms and definitions from a few years ago (like the FundCom), so boldly edit/remove obsolete content. Thank you, ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
