Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moving the technical infrastructure out of the US

2020-09-30 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:22 PM Nathan  wrote:

> Well, to Steven's point that you might need a jurisdiction where corporate
> officers and employees aren't subject to extradition... I believe Germany
> does in fact have an extradition treaty with the United States.
>

The chapters do seem like the obvious potentially viable easy
solution here, if WMF set up that contingency plan.

For instance, if WMDE did take over in an emergency, then the critical
difference is that Germany doesn't extradite its own citizens to the US. So
there'd just have to be a complete handoff of primary hosting to outside
the US and some kind of agreement for WMDE (or pick your chapter) to take
over operational control. There's probably a lot that real lawyers, of
which I am not one, would know better here.


> So far the criteria I'm hearing from the comments here:
>
> 1) Politically stable
> 2) Liberal political environment
> 3) Strong protections against government interference in relevant
> operations
> 4) Section 230-like protection against liability for user content
> 5) No natural disasters like fires, floods, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc.
> 6) Strong technological sophistication - preferably a robust technology
> industry that can supply local talent for WMF needs
> 7) Protections in the law for data privacy
> 8) Availability of renewable energy sources and other resources that allow
> for operation of the WMF with a low climate impact
> 9) Tax exemption or beneficial tax structure for receiving international
> fundings by donation
> 10) Clear and reliable regulatory framework for a charitable organization
> 11) Safe - low crime, low-risk of violence for WMF stakeholders and
> community
> 12) Free from risk of extradition to the U.S. or other jurisdictions where
> criminal or civil law might be used against WMF officers or employees
>
> I would guess the list of countries that meet all of these criteria might
> be short. Norway might hit most of these except the last.
>

The only item that seems more or less impossible is preventing 5 in light
of the impacts of climate change. There is no locale on the planet that
won't suffer from severe weather and natural disasters, just some (like the
poorer countries and anywhere in the tropics) that will see worse impacts.
So the only nuance is aiming for more like "Prepared for the event of
severe weather and natural disasters" not "none".

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:44 PM Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> > … hence the existence of Wikimedia chapters? I suspect at least WMDE
> could
> > take this on if it becomes necessary, although other chapters aren’t as
> > technologically developed as I’d have liked to have seen.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > > On 30 Sep 2020, at 19:35, Steven Walling 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > SJ hinted at a related problem which is that we'd also need a backup
> > > organizational structure to run things operationally and legally. If
> the
> > US
> > > becomes so politically unstable that hosting Wikimedia data is under
> > threat
> > > there, just moving the data would not be enough. You'd also have to
> > include
> > > a contingency plan that foresaw the need to legally operate the
> > Foundation
> > > (or an equivalent organization anyway) under a different jurisdiction
> > > with corporate officers not subject to US law or extradition. If the
> > > servers are hosted in the EU but the legally controlling body and its
> > > employees are within the US, you could still see them legally forced to
> > > comply with an order, just like companies are forced to do so in
> > > other countries with censorious regimes today.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:59 AM Samuel Klein 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> We should have technical partners in multiple other jurisdictions that
> > >> could help in a crisis, and load bearing infrastructure in at least
> one
> > of
> > >> them, and a plan for how and when to switch. (The walkthrough of what
> > would
> > >> be needed for a smooth transfer send most important, and useful for
> > general
> > >> reliability planning)
> > >>
> > >> We should also fully support and realize Wikimedia-on-ipfs, similar to
> > what
> > >> the internet archive had been doing. (Santhosh has some excellent
> ideas
> > >> there)
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >> On Wed., Sep. 30, 2020, 5:35 a.m. Dan Garry (Deskana), <
> > djgw...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:49,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moving the technical infrastructure out of the US

2020-09-30 Thread Steven Walling
SJ hinted at a related problem which is that we'd also need a backup
organizational structure to run things operationally and legally. If the US
becomes so politically unstable that hosting Wikimedia data is under threat
there, just moving the data would not be enough. You'd also have to include
a contingency plan that foresaw the need to legally operate the Foundation
(or an equivalent organization anyway) under a different jurisdiction
with corporate officers not subject to US law or extradition. If the
servers are hosted in the EU but the legally controlling body and its
employees are within the US, you could still see them legally forced to
comply with an order, just like companies are forced to do so in
other countries with censorious regimes today.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:59 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> We should have technical partners in multiple other jurisdictions that
> could help in a crisis, and load bearing infrastructure in at least one of
> them, and a plan for how and when to switch. (The walkthrough of what would
> be needed for a smooth transfer send most important, and useful for general
> reliability planning)
>
> We should also fully support and realize Wikimedia-on-ipfs, similar to what
> the internet archive had been doing. (Santhosh has some excellent ideas
> there)
>
> 
>
> On Wed., Sep. 30, 2020, 5:35 a.m. Dan Garry (Deskana), 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:49, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> >
> > > I hope that some preliminary contingency plans exist or are being
> > > developed, and I'm sure that the movement-wide debate will widen if
> > > the US continues its downward slide into authoritarianism.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with Erik. Even under the Obama administration, there were
> threats
> > to the existence of the movement, such as SOPA [1] which lead to a
> blackout
> > [2]. One can extrapolate from current events that these threats could
> well
> > get larger and more frequent, rather than smaller and less frequent,
> should
> > someone in the US Government decide to focus their attention on attacking
> > Wikipedia and free knowledge. It would be prudent to create a contingency
> > plan which includes an exploration of other options for a location of
> > operation for the Wikimedia Foundation and/or its servers, with their
> > advantages and disadvantages. I personally wouldn't necessarily advocate
> > for making the plan public; that would be ideal, but I'd be comforted
> > merely to know it exists.
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 23:36, Joseph Seddon 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I believe options are going to be explored for sustainability but right
> > now
> > > legally speaking the US is the best jurisdiction for hosting us now and
> > the
> > > foreseeable future.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with this too. For now, the United States remains the best place
> > for the organisation to operate out of, and a move should not be actively
> > considered.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
> > [2]:
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA#Wikimedia_community
> > ___
> > 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] Summary of the Brand Project presentation

2020-04-22 Thread Steven Walling
I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with Fæ as well.

Having been on the inside at some companies that underwent controversial
rebrands, I can see how this might be a very early stage thing to help
guide and shape thinking about how to approach a rebrand by unifying around
a high level concept. I can see how in the name of transparency the team
might be sharing very early stage work like that with the community, but if
that's truly what it is (early exploratory thinking, not finished work) it
would probably help to explain that this is not anywhere close to finalized
work. People who don't do brand design tend to have little patience or
interest in hand-wavy concepts without a concrete expression, Wikipedians
maybe least of all.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:30 AM Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> As it appears my earlier email was not approved by the moderators:
>
> I'm in agreement with Fæ on this.
>
> The text and videos given on the subject of the new "interconnection" focus
> is all extremely vague. I don't see how this is a change from previous
> branding, or how the idea of "interconnection" will change anything.
> Specifically in regard to the video, I was surprised by the vagueness.
> Obviously, everything is connected. We are all humans with a majority of
> similar characteristics and a high potential for similar experiences.
> Putting together a few videos of people from different cultures
> collaborating and some videos of nature doesn't make a branding strategy.
>
> I am very happy that, in the presentation, a timeline was addressed and
> that there will be ample time for feedback on the proposed naming
> conventions. I am looking forward to that; this project has been quite
> vague for a while, and I hope there's some great ideas we can, as a
> community, discuss.
>
> Best regards,
> Chris Gates
> (User:Vermont)
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:44 PM Anders Wennersten <
> m...@anderswennersten.se>
> wrote:
>
> > I have a background in a telecom supplier, and we were proud to talk of
> > us "connecting people" and with 5G (where things also gets connected)
> > "interconenctivity" would be a great brand concept for that company.
> >
> > But for Wikimedia I have never felt this as a relevant brandconcept. To
> > "share and spread knowledge"is the core word as far as I see it and have
> > been all the time.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> > Den 2020-04-18 kl. 18:44, skrev Peter Southwood:
> > > I agree. It did not seem to say anything much.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Fæ
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 3:06 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Summary of the Brand Project presentation
> > >
> > > Have now watched "interconnection". It did not seem to say anything
> > > tangible apart from stuff like you find 'interconnection in nature' in
> > > the 2 minutes. It was produced to a good standard.
> > >
> > > Sorry, it was not encouraging. The question remains of how much this
> > > is costing the movement in WMF funding and valuable Wikimedia
> > > community time without any clear outcomes being defined that the
> > > Wikimedia community wants or could use to benefit the core value of
> > > adding to the sum of human knowledge. Why the "rebranding" project
> > > continues at this time remains an enigma.
> > >
> > > We have gone ahead and added the video to Commons. If superseded it
> > > will remain useful as a snapshot as of 16 April.
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Our_unified_concept_interconnection.webm
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 09:57, Samir Elsharbaty
> > >  wrote:
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yesterday, the 2030 Brand Movement Project presented the unified
> concept
> > >> that will guide the upcoming branding proposals. Thanks to the 224
> > >> attendees who watched the presentation live! Participants brought a
> > great
> > >> stream of comments and questions (averaging 8 per minute!) that helped
> > >> clarify important points.
> > >>
> > >> The unified concept, “interconnection”, was arrived at after many
> > community
> > >> workshops, exercises, and conversations. “Interconnection” distills
> the
> > 23
> > >> distinct concepts generated in workshops into a single word that links
> > >> together the insights and definitions from the participants, and at
> the
> > >> same time adds more meaning to the answer to the question who are we?
> > This
> > >> concept will not be a public or visible part of branding, but rather a
> > >> guiding idea.
> > >>
> > >> Take a look at the video explaining interconnection as a unified
> concept
> > >> [1].
> > >>
> > >> You can watch the full presentation video, together with the lively
> > >> discussion that accompanied it [2]. Most of the questions were
> answered
> > >> during the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Partial blocks update

2019-09-19 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:09 PM Sydney Poore  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team is wrapping up
> improvements
> to Special:Block that added the ability to set a Partial block
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Per_user_page,_namespace,_category,_and_upload_blocking
> >
> .
>
> While no functionality has changed for sitewide blocks, Special:Block now
> allows for the ability to block a named user account or ip address from:
>
>1.
>
>Editing one or more specific page(s)
>2.
>
>Editing all pages within one or more namespace(s)
>3.
>
>Emailing other users
>
>
> Administrators on all Wikimedia projects are invited to test this new way
> of doing blocks on testwiki. Admins can reply off list to this email to
> request access to test.
>
> Administrators on wikis where partial blocks are deployed are invited to
> share with other Wikimedia administrators examples of the way that partial
> blocks are being used.
>

This is so great. Kudos to the team for adding tools to prevent abuse and
harassment that allow for more targeted policy enforcement.

How do we see which wikis have partial blocks deployed already / are
planning to have it deployed? And is there any way administrators can
request deployment?


>
>-
>
>Share on meta
>
>-
>
>Share in google form
><
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PTGNGhYvMgXMdR5gfle67ojzK23EabV3Ch0FRmaNejs/edit
> >
>
> Other feedback can be left on Meta
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/Partial_blocks/Feedback
> >
> or
> by email .
>
> For the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
> Sydney
> --
> Sydney Poore (she/her)
> Strategist, socio-technical
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Trust and Safety team;
> Anti-harassment tools team
> ___
> 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] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

2019-01-08 Thread Steven Walling
Great question to think about for our long term sustainability. I think we
already have a universal "plan B" however? It's providing all content under
free licenses and regularly distributing complete dumps of our content.

Many larger and more well-funded technology organizations (Google,
Facebook, etc.) regularly do disaster recovery scenarios that account for
not just governmental disruption or civil unrest but events such as a major
earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. The movement doesn't really have
the resources to do this effectively in the same manner.

It seems like decentralizing our ability to recover from a disruption is
the most effective defense we have, *especially *in the scenario involving
government intervention because the Foundation's infrastructural and legal
presence in the United States is actually one of the more brittle pieces
within our movement.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:18 AM Fæ  wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians, please sit back for a moment and ponder the
> following,
>
> For those of us not resident in the US, it has been genuinely alarming
> to see highly respected US government archives vanish overnight,
> reference websites go down, and US legislation appear to drift to
> whatever commercial interests have the loudest current political
> voices. Sadly "populism" is happening now, and dominates American
> politics, driving changes of all sorts in response to politically
> inflated and vague rhetoric about "security" and "fakenews". It is not
> inconceivable that a popularist current or future US Government could
> decide to introduce emergency controls over websites like Wikipedia,
> virtually overnight.[1][2][3][4]
>
> The question of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should have a hot
> switch option, so that if a "disaster" strikes in America, we could
> continue running Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from other countries
> has been raised on this list several times over many years. The WMF
> and its employees are heavily invested in staying in Silicon Valley,
> and that will stay true unless external risks become extreme.
>
> However, there has never been a rationale to avoid investing in a Plan
> B. A robust plan, where the WMF can switch operations over to a
> hosting country with a sufficiently welcoming with stable national
> government and legislation, that our projects could continue to meet
> our open knowledge goals virtually uninterrupted and without risk of
> political control. A Plan B would ensure that if the US Government
> started to discuss controlling Wikipedia, then at least that published
> plan would be a realistic response. If they tried doing it, we could
> simply power off our servers in the USA, rather than compromise our
> content.
>
> If anyone knows of committed investment in a practical WMF Plan B, it
> would be reassuring to share it more widely at this time. If not, more
> of us should be asking about it, politely, persistently but perhaps
> less patiently than indefinitely. :-)
>
> Links:
> 1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739180
> 2. http://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/research/updates/populism
> 3.
> https://www.cnet.com/news/obama-signs-order-outlining-emergency-internet-control
> "... this order was designed to empower certain governmental agencies
> with control over telecommunications and the Web during natural
> disasters and security emergencies."
> 4.
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418
> "The president could seize control of U.S. internet traffic, impeding
> access to certain websites and ensuring that internet searches return
> pro-Trump content as the top results."
> 5. Bizarro, as used in the title of this email:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
>
> 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] Apple Pay donations

2016-11-15 Thread Steven Walling
Thanks Lisa!
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:57 AM Lisa Gruwell <lgruw...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Steven-
>
> Yes, we are excited about Apple Pay's new ability to accept donations. It
> is on our product roadmap, but we are not certain yet when we will be
> rolling it out.
>
> And thanks, Amir, for selecting us for Amazon Smile!
>
> Best,
>
> Lisa Gruwell
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Antoine Musso <hashar+...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > On 15/11/16 02:12, Steven Walling wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>  Given that payments on mobile are such a huge headache and
> >> declining desktop traffic to Wikimedia properties, it might be an
> >> interesting pilot to explore nonetheless.
> >>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Going out of topic sorry. Regarding mobile and desktop traffic declining,
> > according to https://reportcard.wmflabs.org/
> >
> > * Overall page views is about the same since 2013.
> > * Mobile traffic quickly raised until reaching a plateau in 2015.
> >
> > Surely one can say that traffic shifted to mobile, but for the last two
> > years the desktop/mobile ratio seems fairly stable.
> >
> >
> > The Fundraising team might have some data regarding donations made
> through
> > desktop vs mobile and their evolution though.  Maybe mobile has a better
> > engagement rate, then the mobile app is only a drop of our traffic.
> >
> > --
> > Antoine "hashar" Musso
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Apple Pay donations

2016-11-14 Thread Steven Walling
Hey all,

Today Apple announced a bunch of 501(c)3 partners which now can use Apple
Pay to make instant donations. Announcement at:
http://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/11/a-touch-of-giving-with-apple-pay.html

Does WMF fundraising have plans to integrate with Apple Pay, especially on
mobile devices? I understand that right now it's limited to the US and the
team has been focusing a ton on international payment providers (which is
great). Given that payments on mobile are such a huge headache and
declining desktop traffic to Wikimedia properties, it might be an
interesting pilot to explore nonetheless.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] With my thanks to everyone ...

2016-07-13 Thread Steven Walling
Congrats on the new role Geoff, and thank you so much for your leadership
over the last half-decade. You have been a huge asset to the movement, and
will be sorely missed.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM Olatunde Isaac 
wrote:

> Thanks for your impeccable service,  Geoff. Wishing you all the best in
> your future endeavors.
>
> Isaac
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pine W 
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Wed,
> 13 Jul 2016 14:32:29
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] With my thanks to everyone ...
>
> Thank you for your service, Geoff. I hope that we will still see you
> around. Good luck with the new gig. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Geoff Brigham 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Over the past five years, I’ve been honored to serve as the General
> Counsel
> > and Secretary of the Wikimedia Foundation. This job has been amazing, and
> > I’m grateful to everyone who has made it so rewarding. It's now time for
> my
> > next step, so, in the coming days, I will be leaving the Foundation to
> > pursue a new career opportunity.
> >
> > I depart with such love for the mission, the Foundation, the Wikimedia
> > communities, and my colleagues at work. I thank my past and present
> bosses
> > as well as the Board for their support and guidance. I stand in awe of
> the
> > volunteer writers, editors, and photographers who contribute every day to
> > the Wikimedia projects. And I will hold special to my heart my past and
> > current teams, including legal and community advocacy. :) You have
> taught,
> > given, and enriched me so much.
> >
> > After my departure, Michelle Paulson will serve as interim head of Legal,
> > and, subject to Board approval, Stephen LaPorte will serve as interim
> > Secretary to the Board. I can happily report that they have the
> experience
> > and expertise to ensure a smooth and professional transition.
> >
> > The future of the Foundation under Katherine's leadership is exciting.
> > Having had the pleasure of working for her, I know Katherine will take
> the
> > Foundation to its next level in promoting and defending the outstanding
> > mission and values of the Wikimedia movement. Although I'm delighted
> about
> > my next opportunity, I will miss this new chapter in the Foundation's
> > story.
> >
> > My last day at the Foundation will be July 18th. After that, I will take
> a
> > month off to recharge my batteries, and then I start my new gig at
> YouTube
> > in the Bay Area. There, I will serve as Director of YouTube Trust &
> Safety,
> > managing global teams for policy, legal, and anti-abuse operations. As
> with
> > Wikimedia, I look forward to learning from those teams and tackling
> > together a new set of exciting, novel challenges.
> >
> > For those who want to stay in touch, please do! My personal email is:
> > geoffrey.r.brig...@gmail.com.
> >
> > With respect, admiration, and gratitude,
> >
> > Geoff
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Campaigns extension / ServerSideAccountCreation log - does anyone still use it?

2016-05-31 Thread Steven Walling
Hey Brad,

That sounds fine to me.

We previously used the loginCTA campaign to measure the value of that
secondary button on the login page (
ee-dashboard.wmflabs.org/graphs/enwiki_campaigns) but it doesn't need to
happen on an ongoing basis.

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:31 AM Brad Jorsch (Anomie) 
wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> bjor...@wikimedia.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Question 1: Would anyone care if we kill the "loginCTA" campaign, which
> > tracks when people use the link at the bottom of Special:UserLogin to get
> > to the account creation page?
> >
> > Question 2: Would anyone care if we remove the extension entirely from
> > Wikimedia wikis? Wikiapiary seems to show only one user outside of
> > Wikimedia.
> >
>
> Following up on this: Since the answer to Question 2 was yes, we've done
> the necessary update to Campaigns so it will continue working with
> AuthManager.[1] Since no one answered Question 1, the loginCTA campaign has
> been removed. It will stop showing up in 1.28.0-wmf.4, which rolls out this
> week.
>
>  [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/291280/
>
>
> --
> Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
> Senior Software Engineer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [WikimediaMobile] "Among mobile sites, Wikipedia reigns in terms of popularity"

2016-05-11 Thread Steven Walling
It's really great to see Wikipedia highlighted as a source for news and
current events. It's rare that people fully recognize the degree to which
the "encyclopedia" is actually very good at trending news information. That
said, the report paints a rosy picture that, strategically speaking, may
not be cause for celebration.

Remember that, when looking at pageviews, we're a little over 40% mobile.
Most other major Internet properties are now primarily mobile, and that's
where most media consumption is even in once desktop-centric markets like
the US.(1)

Has Dario or anyone done an update on the traffic analysis from 2014,(2)
where we concluded that declining desktop traffic in mature markets like
the US was not being offset by mobile web? What's the current state of the
world when it comes to Wikipedia mobile traffic, overall and broken down by
app vs. mobile web?

It seems obvious that part of the reason Wikipedia is so popular on mobile
web is because we're an odd duck -- Wikimedia is one of the only top media
orgs not doing any kind of app upsell at all on mobile web. The vast
majority of major Internet properties heavily push app installs and usage
to varying degrees of aggressiveness. This directly sacrifices mobile web
traffic for a longterm gain in reader retention.

The linked report shows that Wikipedia app users are much more engaged --
avg time spent per person in the Wikipedia app is more than double that of
mobile web, according to their data -- but the number of app users is
ridiculously tiny, relatively speaking.(3) In commercial apps, prioritizing
long term retention of app users is good for a business. They can then be
converted to subscribers, purchase in-app upgrades, or click on ads. In the
Wikimedia context, greater mobile retention and time spent could be used to
teach people to contribute, and to facilitate less aggressive forms of
mobile fundraising than we've previously had to do. Not to mention
providing readers with faster direct access to knowledge, and doing a
better job of teaching mobile-first US in emerging markets what Wikipedia
is.

Neglecting to show people the value of the apps will help grow mobile web
traffic in the short term, but in the long run may leave us entirely
dependent on search (i.e. Google) or simply not growing readers, despite
millions of people still coming online via mobile. In the report data you
can see that most of the US news sites mentioned are dependent on Facebook,
even if they have an app. Unlike them, Wikipedia has an opportunity to get
away from being dependent on another source for readers, and be one of the
primary apps that every person on the planet uses, alongside Facebook,
messaging tools, and similar. Right now, we're squandering that
opportunity, and it's going to get harder to change as time goes on.

1.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/21/majority-of-digital-media-consumption-now-takes-place-in-mobile-apps/
2.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014_Readership_Update,_WMF_Metrics_Meeting,_December.pdf
3.
https://medium.com/mobile-first-news-how-people-use-smartphones-to/news-goes-mobile-how-people-use-smartphones-to-access-information-53ccb850d80a#.ofpb8txup

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:50 PM Michael Peel  wrote:

> Isn't it time to start moving to responsive mediawiki templates (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive_web_design), rather than having
> a separate mobile interface/URL?
>
> For a practical example, see the BBC News website (
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news), which is the same website on all devices, it
> just rescales the content/navigation/layout to suit the device. (Try
> resizing your web browser on your computer to the size of a mobile web
> browser to see what I mean.)
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 11 May 2016, at 20:36, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > It is wonderful to see how we have evolved.. Does anyone remember the
> good
> > old days when it was an application totally and utterly outside of
> > MediaWiki?
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 11 May 2016 at 20:33, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >> Forwarding since this may be of general interest regarding Wikipedia
> >> readership.
> >>
> >> Thanks Tilman!
> >>
> >> Pine
> >>
> >> -- Forwarded message --
> >> From: Tilman Bayer 
> >> Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:23 AM
> >> Subject: [WikimediaMobile] "Among mobile sites, Wikipedia reigns in
> terms
> >> of popularity"
> >> To: mobile-l 
> >> Cc: Wikimedia developers , Analytics
> Team
> >> -
> >> Internal 
> >>
> >>
> >> New study (US only) by the Knight Foundation:
> >> https://medium.com/mobile-first-news-how-people-use-smartphones-to ,
> >> summarized here:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/people-love-wikipedia/482268/
> >>
> >> "People spent more time on Wikipedia’s 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thank you, Jan-Bart and Stu

2016-01-06 Thread Steven Walling
Thanks for starting this thread Lodewijk.

Jan-Bart and Stu: Wikimedia has been lucky to have your participation over
these years.

Stu, thank you in particular for helping steer the financial governance of
the Wikimedia movement. Your expertise and professionalism have been deeply
important to making sure Wikimedia is a good steward of the money entrusted
to us by donors.

Jan-Bart, my friend, you are a force to be reckoned with. It is difficult
to sum up the total impact of your leadership in the movement. I find
myself falling back on memories not just of your formal role on the board,
but of your warmth and generosity of spirit. I hope leaving the board (this
time) doesn't mean your Wikimania streak will be broken. ;-)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:11 PM Lodewijk 
wrote:

> While we have long discussions on this list about board composition, we
> seem to almost ignore the fact that two long time veterans are leaving the
> Wikimedia Foundation board, as scheduled. Jan-Bart de Vreede and Stu West
> have been around longer than many regular editors nowadays, and I think
> there are not many people who can recall the days that the board didn't
> have them on it. I have never had the pleasure to serve on the board with
> them, but a little thank-you from our community side, would seem in place.
>
> Stu joined the board already in 2008 (filling Michael Davis' seat), and has
> been a solid power on the board's audit responsibilities (I believe he
> chaired the audit committee for quite a while) and was a force behind the
> accountability of movement affiliates. While we often strongly disagreed on
> affiliate issues, I appreciate the fact that he always remained
> constructive and wanted to think about solutions rather than problems. He
> served both as treasurer and vice chair.
>
> Jan-Bart was on the board even longer, since early 2007, and I recall
> already working with him through Kennisnet (a Dutch foundation for
> education and IT) before that. Jan-Bart is one of those rare people who
> went to ALL wikimania conferences, and can be easily recognised there with
> his big smile. I can't remember a theme Jan-Bart didn't work on in the past
> years (Affiliates, HR, searching a new Executive Director) and he served
> the board in many positions, including as chair.
>
> I'm sure that the WMF communications staff and/or board has a nice thankyou
> coming up - with a more accurate description of the awesome work they did,
> that I now made up from the top of my head. But in the mean time, I'd like
> to do it myself: Thank you Jan-Bart and Stu for all the time, energy and
> effort that you poured into our movement. I know that not all of us
> appreciate this as much as we perhaps should, and sometimes you may even
> have perceived us as hostile. I do sincerely hope that you had fun with us
> though, and I'm confident that you made a big dent in our impossible
> mission of sharing the sum of all knowledge with everyone.
>
> I hope to meet you again soon, at least in Italy at Wikimania, and I hope
> to see you around in our movement in many different ways.
>
> Best,
>
> Lodewijk
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2016-01-04 Thread Steven Walling
Pine,

Given that the way James and the Board should relate to staff was one issue
that lead to his removal, the situation in the wider WMF as an organization
is highly relevant here.

Under normal, smoothly-functioning circumstances (and most of my 4 year
tenure at WMF) there was little reason for non-executive staff to interact
with the Board in a professional capacity. If that isn't the case and staff
are trying to communicate with the Board directly a lot, it is smoke
pointing to a burning fire somewhere.

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:57 PM Pine W  wrote:

> I agree that the turnover issue is a matter that needs some consideration.
> But I think that issue is more relevant to the ED rather than the Board. I
> would appreciate it if we could keep that issue separate from the murky
> circumstances of James' departure and the conflicting testimony that has
> been given in public, the *possible* official misconduct with regards to
> improper withholding of financial information from James, the community's
> desire for significantly more transparency and openness from the Board, and
> the credibility of the Board's leadership.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Revision scoring as a service launched

2015-12-01 Thread Steven Walling
This is really cool! Congrats to everyone who worked on this.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 PM Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> (cross-posting from wikitech-l)
>
> Today we published an announcement on the Wikimedia blog marking the
> official launch of revision scoring as a service <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service>
> and I wanted to say a few words about this project:
>
> Blog post:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> <
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/
> >
> Docs on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ORES>
>
> First off: what’s revision scoring <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Rationale>?
> On the surface, it’s a set of open APIs allowing you to automatically
> “score” any edit and measure their probability of being damaging or
> good-faith contributions. The real goal behind this project, though, is to
> fix the damage indirectly caused by vandal-fighting bots and tools on
> good-faith contributors and to bring back a collaborative dimension to how
> we do quality control on Wikipedia. I invite you to read the whole blog
> post <
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/>
> if you want to know more about the motivations and expected outcome of this
> project.
>
> I am thrilled this project is coming to fruition and I’d like to
> congratulate Aaron Halfaker <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Ahalfaker> and all the project
> contributors <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Team>
> on hitting this big milestone: revision scoring started as Aaron’s side
> project well over a year ago and it has been co-designed (as in – literally
> – conceived, implemented, tested, improved and finally adopted) by a
> distributed team of volunteer developers, editors, and researchers. We
> worked with volunteers in 14 different Wikipedia language editions and as
> of today revision scores are integrated <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service#Tools_that_use_ORES>
> in the workflow of several quality control interfaces, WikiProjects and 3rd
> party tools. The project would not have seen the light without the
> technical support provided by the TechOps team (Yuvi in particular) and
> seminal funding provided by the WMF IEG program and Wikimedia Germany.
>
> So, here you go: the next time someone tells you that LLAMAS GROW ON TREES
>  you can
> confidently tell them they should stop damaging <
> http://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/damaging/642215410/> Wikipedia.
>
> Dario
>
>
> Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> wikimediafoundation.org  • nitens.org <
> http://nitens.org/> • @readermeter 
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] internet-in-a-boxs to the refugee camps?

2015-09-09 Thread Steven Walling
Offline access is a nice idea, but the logistics of delivery seem daunting.
Thankfully, a large number of refugees and migrants have smartphones.[1]

Probably the biggest ways we could help refugees are really to:

A) make Wikipedia super performant on mobile, particularly for low-end
Android devices

B) make Wikipedia free via mobile programs like Zero or SMS gateways, so
people who can't pay for data can access it

C) get more relevant, updated content in Arabic. Articles on relevant
subjects are much shorter than in English, etc.[2]

1.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/world/europe/a-21st-century-migrants-checklist-water-shelter-smartphone.html
2.
https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D8%B2%D9%85%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86_%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89_%D8%A3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:00 PM Neil P. Quinn  wrote:

> This reminds me of several conversations I had with Barbara Schack of
> Libraries Without Borders [1] at the Lyon hackathon (I've copied her on
> this email).
>
> They've developed the Ideas Box [2], a portable media center intended for
> locations like refugee camps. It's similar to the Internet-in-a-Box,
> although it takes the concept further by including client devices, toys,
> and furniture as well as an offline content server (it's really quite
> cool). As you'd imagine, the Ideas Box includes read access to downloaded
> Wikipedia content; however, Barbara told me she wanted Ideas Box users to
> have the opportunity to contribute as well as simply read, and asked us
> what it would take to make that possible.
>
> We talked about it a good deal and had a brainstorming workshop on the
> subject; I recorded many of the ideas in Phabricator [3]. The technical
> challenges are significant, so I don't think anybody has pursued the
> project since then. However, if anyone out there wants to work on bridging
> this aspect of the digital divide, I'm sure Barbara would be excited to
> work with you!
>
> [1]: http://www.librarieswithoutborders.org/
> [2]: http://www.ideas-box.org/en/
> [3]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T100154
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Comet styles  wrote
>
> > contrary to the name, it doesn't actually have 'internet access'
> > ..they can read, but not contribute..
> >
> > On 9/8/15, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> > > Good idea. I watched a report on TV where they said some refugees have
> > been
> > > waiting for years for processing. It would be nice for them to be able
> to
> > > use and maybe contribute to Wikipedia while they are waiting. Maybe we
> > > should set up edit-a-thons and wikiclasses about life in Europe and the
> > > politics of the crisis, for the refugees and the Europeans both!
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Leinonen Teemu <
> teemu.leino...@aalto.fi>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello people,
> > >>
> > >> Just an idea. Number of Syrian refugees is over 4,000,000 people,
> mostly
> > >> residing in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.[1] Refugee camps are set
> > in
> > >> all in these countries.[2]
> > >>
> > >> Internet-in-a-Box[3] is a a WiFI-device with "Wikipedia in 37
> > languages, a
> > >> library of 40,000 e-books, most of the world's open source software
> and
> > >> source code, hundreds of hours of instructional videos, and world-wide
> > >> mapping down to street level.”
> > >>
> > >> Could we as a movement get the internet-in-a-box to the refugee camps?
> > >>
> > >> - Teemu
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War
> > >> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_refugee_camps
> > >> [3] http://internet-in-a-box.org
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Teemu Leinonen
> > >> http://teemuleinonen.fi
> > >> ___
> > >> 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
> ,
> > >> 
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cometstyles
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF office location and remodel

2015-04-08 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:58 PM Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Questions:

 What happens to the remodel expenses that WMF is paying for at its current
 location? If WMF vacates the premesis, will it be compensated for the
 remodel by the building owner?

 I hope that WMF is contemplating fully exiting the San Francisco market
 area in order to economize, get better value for our donors' funds, have
 less competition for talent, and lower costs of living for staff. Is this
 being considered?


Keep in mind that the WMF already mitigates the cost and competition of the
San Francisco Bay Area market by recruiting remote employees.

According to the recent report (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:State_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation.pdf)
a large number are based either in other U.S. states or internationally.
Out of 202 employees, 77% are US-based in 19 states and 23% are based
abroad in 19 countries.

Combine the remote employees in the U.S. and abroad, I wouldn't be
surprised if close to half of staff are based remotely. On engineering
teams especially, it's not uncommon for a majority of employees to be
remote.
___
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] Announcement: WMF to file suit against the NSA

2015-03-13 Thread Steven Walling
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:00 AM Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steven Walling has written an interesting answer on Quora about one aspect
 of the New York Times op-ed, i.e. the threat NSA surveillance supposedly
 poses to Wikipedians living under oppressive regimes:

 https://www.quora.com/Would-stopping-NSA-surveillance-
 really-make-Wikipedia-editors-living-under-repressive-
 governments-safer/answer/Steven-Walling


Chiming in since this is my answer... Keep in mind questions on Quora are
pretty tightly scoped, i.e. this isn't necessarily an indictment of the
rationale for suing NSA overall. It's an answer to a specific aspect of the
arguments. If we want to argue about whether NSA dragnet surveillance is
overall a threat to Wikipedia as an educational project, there's a whole
other set of arguments that I think potentially support this action,
including the fact that a complete lack of privacy has a chilling effect on
editing regardless of what country you reside in, and that we promise
readers that their reading activity isn't tracked.**

The big tradeoff for me as a Wikipedian is whether this suit takes time,
attention, and funds away from tackling core challenges like the decline in
readership, editor recruitment/retention, and modernizing our software
platform. I think the fact that this is being led by ACLU, and that the
main cost to WMF seems to be in some time/attention of legal, comms, etc.
makes me feel a bit more comfortable. I do worry about dragging away Lila's
attention from these deep intractable problems with the ecosystem, but I'm
not really comfortable standing up to say this whole endeavor is a waste of
time or a bad use of the brand. We also don't really know how this is
dominating her or any other staffer's time, because we're not their bosses.
(Thankfully for them.)

** If anyone here wants to add their 2 cents, please do. There's also a
question at
https://www.quora.com/Wikimedia-Lawsuit-Against-the-NSA-2015/How-do-Wikipedia-editors-feel-about-the-lawsuit-against-NSA
which is relevant.



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Steven Walling
I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general
issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.

I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy against
photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.

The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo of
an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only
interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of when
some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of
uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects.
No message about downloads for free reuse.

The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of Commons. A
huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork, jingles,
etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but any
photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if
you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by
definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very
conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from
our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows
CC/public domain licensing would allow.

We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give photos
to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons
admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to
Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an
extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr)
would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to bother
uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill
out a form for fair use rationales.

In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it
was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares
more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who
need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared
among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important
projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community.
___
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] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Steven Walling
This kind of response is case in point on why people find Commons toxic.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Steven,

 Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
 derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.

 There's nothing more to say.

 Russavia


 On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling
 steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
  I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general
  issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
 
  I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy
 against
  photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
  It was of some Japanese candy that someone brought back.
 
  The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo
 of
  an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only
  interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification of
 when
  some fussy neckbeard wants to delete them. No thanks for thousands of
  uploads. No notification of how many views they produce for our projects.
  No message about downloads for free reuse.
 
  The second issue is what this policy implicates for the scope of
 Commons. A
  huge part of modern life includes things that have logos, artwork,
 jingles,
  etc. This policy seems to imply to me that not just food packaging, but
 any
  photo of a physical or digital product cannot be freely licensed even if
  you own it. This covers a huge swath of knowledge to share which by
  definition can't be on Commons anymore because we decided to take a very
  conservative position on licensing. We are taking away useful photos from
  our readers, which basically every other media repository that allows
  CC/public domain licensing would allow.
 
  We currently push users to upload to Commons when they want to give
 photos
  to Wikipedia, and I have long done the same. I also used to be a Commons
  admin. But this makes me think twice about ever uploading anything to
  Commons, since even what seems like photos I own get subjected to an
  extremely hardline copyright regime that no other site (say like Flickr)
  would ever reasonably enforce on contributors. I'm also not going to
 bother
  uploading to Wikipedia a simple photo of food products if I have to fill
  out a form for fair use rationales.
 
  In the long run, I think this kind of thing is yet more evidence that it
  was a huge mistake to create a sub-community within Wikimedia that cares
  more about strict free licensing than it does about utility to people who
  need knowledge. Commons should really just have stayed a database shared
  among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important
  projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community.
  ___
  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
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

2014-12-11 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the
 time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and
 helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy Hogdson or
 Greig Laidlaw...

 Just to read that I'm a fascist and an anal retentive because someone
 proposed a fucking picture of KitKat for deletion ? It was not even
 deleted, the discussion is still going on. And even if it was, the right
 place to go would have been COM:UDR, with a strong rationale, where people
 would have discuss it in a civilised manner. Not in this echo chamber...

 So yes, one could say that the thread was accusatory from the start, and
 quickly went to vicious. One could also say that this is a fucking
 disgrace.

 Pleclown


To be crystal clear: I didn't link to the DR or mention the nominator
because I don't actually care much about the individual instance.
Commons is going to do what it's going to do, and whomever nominated it or
comments in support of deletion is just doing what the policies of Commons
is telling them to do.

The problem is a general one with the goals of Commons, what the community
focuses (and doesn't focus on), as I said. I think it should be clear that
the purpose of discussing it on Wikimedia-l as opposed to Commons is talk
about whether Commons is doing a good job of serving as the media
repository for other projects. Not about whether the nominator was correct
in this individual case or something like that.



 On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:

  Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]].
  (Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least get
  on board with that one?)
 
  The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly
  went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of AGF.
 
  Austin
 
 
  On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:30 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com
  wrote:
   On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
  
   P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my
   ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers
   might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all
   too soon passes into memory, sigh.
  
  
   Fæ, this is not acceptable for the list (or for that matter on wiki).
   Stephen's neckbeard comment certainly wasn't helpful either but it's no
   excuse.
  
   James
   ___
   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
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] thank vs. like

2014-10-26 Thread Steven Walling
On Sun Oct 26 2014 at 12:45:55 PM Amir E. Aharoni 
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:

 In the Hebrew Wikipedia there's a discussion about the Thanks feature,
 which raises the following confusion among other things: Why does the
 person who is sending the thank-you gets a message saying $1 was notified
 that you liked his/her edit., and the person who receives the thank-you
 notification sees a message that uses the verb thank?


So this message, called thanks-thanked-notice in the code, appears to
have been added awhile back without sufficient design review or
input.[1][2] It's not part of the original design requirements for Thanks.

It's unclear from the bug or commit that added it exactly why we need this
message, or where it appears. Do you get this via your notifications tray?

I'd support simply removing this notification. The UI already makes clear
in-line when a thanks was sent. Unless people really requested a read
status notification and find it valuable, we should just defer to keeping
notifications volume low.

1.
https://git.wikimedia.org/commitdiff/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FThanks/ab8b7847c36bf0b053a397ec5689c6a9b9615bd5
2. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63509
___
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] Endless drama around solutions to non-problems as misdirection

2014-09-07 Thread Steven Walling
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 1:54 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Steven Walling wrote:
 ...
  We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly
  try to provide more free time or money to editors

 That is absolutely false. Individual Engagement Grants have recently
 been proven to be substantially more cost-effective in achieving the
 Foundation's stated goals than any other form of grant spending, on a
 per-dollar basis. Is there any evidence that any Foundation
 engineering effort of the past five years has done as well? I haven't
 seen any.


Individual engagement grants are not a monetary reward for contributing
content. They are, just like larger programs internally at WMF or in a
chapter, intended to produce another outcome which has a wider and more
sustainable impact. Suggesting that the success of IEG is evidence we
should/could just pay editors directly in some way is quite the stretch.

Providing cash on a large scale to motivate contributors has diminishing
returns as an alternative strategy to usability improvements, when you
consider that the software platform which enables content creation will
continue to show its age. Even if we lived in a parallel universe where
every editor of Wikipedia was paid for their work, we'd still need to
continually improve the platform they used to make the encyclopedia.

It's interesting you bring up IEG though. If you're not talking about 1:1
alternatives to software improvements, but instead you want us to consider
potentially complementary new ideas to motivate people to edit... go for
it. No one can deny the positive impact of initiatives like The Core
Contest on English Wikipedia (I've been a contestant myself).[1] Piloting a
larger scale set of contests where there are rewards or prizes for winners
might be a pretty cool IEG project that could prove your theory.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest
___
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] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-09-05 Thread Steven Walling
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:

 IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target
 deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF
 staff in general to be salesman for it - it is scaring the community
 that all WMF staff seem to be so heavily vested in this 'product' as
 the salvation of the wikis.


This is rank hyperbole.

The MediaWiki deployment train delivers new software to all projects every
week. One stage is to non-Wikipedia projects, which actually get new
software *first.* Then in a second stage is for all Wikipedias
simultaneously. So the default behavior for rollouts, if all you do is
merge your code and wait, is that English Wikipedia gets basically no
special treatment..[1]

Now, for larger feature rollouts like VisualEditor or MediaViewer, the
testing stage and eventual launch set their own special schedule. We have
used English Wikipedia as a testing ground a lot in the past, which is
natural when you consider a variety of factors.[2] That doesn't mean we
haven't worked hard to test things out with non-English projects. Some
examples:

-- MediaViewer spent a long time being tested outside English Wikipedia
before it ever touched that project. It started with pilots in non-English
Wikipedias and English Wikivoyage.[3]
-- Flow is currently soliciting editors on non-English projects to test it
out voluntarily on a sub-set of pages. Any projects that want to help shape
the future of this software should pick a discussion space they want to use
for testing and speak up.
-- My team (Growth) has begun waiting for translations of experimental
interfaces, so we can A/B test in many languages simultaneously. We're
about to do this again in this month, by testing task recommendations in 12
languages right from the start.[4] We've done with other projects as well,
like A/B testing changes aimed at anonymous editors in four languages.
-- The Content Translation project is starting with Spanish and Catalan
Wikipedias.[5]

After we get past the testing stage, none of this erases the fact that
English Wikipedia is still the largest project by far, and is a major
problem spot to be dealt with regarding issues related to new editor
acquisition and retention. The data clearly suggests that it's a project we
should be focusing on if we want to fix these problems, but we're certainly
not ignoring others.

1). wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Deployments
2). All technical staff and community contributors share English as their
working language. Software gets built in English first obviously, so we
don't have to wait on translations as a blocker for deployment. English
Wikipedia is also our largest project, so we can get larger randomized
samples during A/B tests. Making A/B tests shorter while also retaining
accuracy is good.
3). https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Release_Plan
4).
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Task_recommendations/Experiment_one
5). https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation/Roadmap
___
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] editor retention initiatives

2014-08-24 Thread Steven Walling
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is there a list somewhere of all currently active Foundation
 initiatives for attracting and retaining active editors?  I am only
 aware of the one project, Task Recommendations, to try to encourage
 editors who have made a few edits to make more, described starting at
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JbZ1uWoKEgt=60m20s


Task recommendations is one nascent initiative that my team is working
on.[1] We're still in the very early prototyping and testing stages. (BTW,
the whole video segment starts two minutes earlier at about the 58:00
mark.)

Task recommendations is far from the only thing we're doing to attract and
retain active editors. Pretty much the entirety of the features development
roadmap for desktop and mobile is focused on this problem. VisualEditor,
Flow, mobile web and apps work, and more all address this problem from
different angles. You can keep up with what the Foundation is doing by
checking out the monthly engineering reports.[2]


 Is there any evidence at all that anyone in the Foundation is
 interested in any kind of change which would make non-editors more
 inclined to edit, or empower editors with social factors which might
 provide more time, economic power, or other means to enable them to
 edit more?


We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to
provide more free time or money to editors. We can, however, help people do
more with the free time they have, and ask new people to become
contributors. Both of those are things we're tackling. A central goal of
improving the usability of the core editing experience across devices is to
save people time and energy. My team's also trying other things to attract
new community members, such as actually inviting people to sign up.[3]

1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Task_recommendations
2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/latest
3.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Anonymous_editor_acquisition#Invite_users_to_sign_up
___
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] The reader, who doesn't exist

2014-08-21 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
 wrote:

 Or, have them filled from Wikidata. Then, {{Infobox}} would be all the
 wikitext you need. This could also help to abstract infoboxes to load a
 placeholder/hint on mobile, then loading the box on request (click).

 Well, one can dream...


This would be ideal I think, since it would allow for more responsive
styling without resorting to ugly hacks specific to infobox markup.

So far as I can tell though, there is one major blocker to this: edibility.
People need to be able to update the infobox data without leaving Wikipedia
and being sent to Yet Another Wiki. This is potentially doable in
VisualEditor I think, but is hard or maybe impossible to do with any
elegance in wikitext.
___
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] let's elect people to serve on the wikimedia engineering community team! (brainstorming)

2014-08-06 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hm. Garfield is the closest person I know in the Foundation to the FDC in
 its role of evaluating the Foundation's Annual Plan for the entire
 organization. The only other people I can think of who might be able to
 comment for the whole org are Gayle and Lila.


You don't need to go through the FDC to talk to teams about their goals.
You can just go talk to them via the wiki, or a mailing list.
___
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] let's elect people to serve on the wikimedia engineering community team! (brainstorming)

2014-08-05 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:53 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:

 Theoretical overlap, perhaps. People in the role of Community Liaison,
 Product Development and Strategic Change Management, a title Orwell would
 be proud of, are not doing what's being described in this e-mail. The
 current community liaisons are really paid advocates and they're tasked
 with shilling bad products. This isn't the fault of the people in these
 roles, many of whom I know and respect, but we should be honest that their
 role is much closer to that of a marketer or public relations person.


You're being a jerk in this paragraph, Max. There is a huge difference in
attitude, skills, and experience between marketers/PR people and the
Wikimedians that work in the community liason role. The community liasons
put in a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to advocate not only *to *the
community, but *for it* within the Foundation. They do this quietly, often
behind the scenes, and with little praise. If you know and respect these
people, the respectful thing would not be to reduce their very hard jobs to
a pithy but inaccurate summary for your rhetorical purposes.

To come back to the proposal: there's a lot of merit to the idea of a
formal community group not paid by the WMF to get deeply involved in
understanding the engineering roadmap and advising the Foundation. The list
of potential tasks Gryllida made is pretty good.

There are certainly staffers who've seriously considered trying to set this
up. The only barrier has been time and energy. It's probably best if the
community just goes ahead and elects a volunteer group, and then proposes
that it work with WMF engineering and product teams. TL;DR: be bold. If
you're not proposing setting up something involving money, the only barrier
is finding the right people, which will just take time. A gesture of good
faith might be to involve one relevant WMF person, like Rachel diCerbo (the
new director of the community liasons in product). She's been doing this
kind of thing a long time.

Steven
___
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] let's elect people to serve on the wikimedia engineering community team! (brainstorming)

2014-08-05 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 MzMcbride, I'm not sure that WMF is overstaffed, but I would like to see
 more specific performance metrics for some groups. The FDC commented on
 this as well and I hope WMF is taking that to heart. I'm pinging Garfield
 for comment on that portion of this discussion.


Garfield is not really the right person to ask about this. A CFO (or at
least, our CFO) doesn't set or monitor performance metrics for individual
teams other than his own.

Regardless, I think it's an important topic Pete. Having more community
members comment on and question the yearly or quarterly goals for teams in
general would be step toward the kind of feedback Gryllida mentioned in the
start of the topic. If anyone is interested in digging in to this more,
there's a thread on the Talk page of the WMF engineering goals for 2014-15
document, which is at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2014-15_Goals. (There
are also goals for other teams of course, but since this is an
engineering-related thread I wanted to focus on just that.)
___
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] Bitcoin now accepted, but there are privacy concerns

2014-07-30 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 There is a post on the blog saying that bitcoin is accepted but there are
 several questions about why WMF is asking for contact info. Is that an IRS
 requirement? Might want to post the reason in the blog entry. AFAIK with
 the nonprofits I donate to none require personal info for small
 contributions.

 Thanks,
 Pine


The relevant blog post, for context:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/07/30/wikimedia-foundation-now-accepts-bitcoin/
___
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] Board approval of the FDC's 2013-2014 Round 2 recommendations

2014-06-30 Thread Steven Walling
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Patricio Lorente 
patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear friends in the Wikimedia community,


 After meeting face-to-face in May to deliberate on the four proposals
 they received for the 2013-2014 Round 2 annual plan grants, the Funds
 Dissemination Committee (FDC) posted their funding recommendations to
 the WMF Board of Trustees. [1]

 Four proposals were submitted in this round, and one of them (the
 Wikimedia Foundation) did not receive a dollar allocation. Funding
 requests from the three other organizations (Centre for Internet and
 Society, Wikimédia France and Wikimedia Norge) this round totaled
 US$1,555,953.

 The funds available for movement entities through the FDC process in
 2013–2014 was US$6,000,000. Of this, $4,432,000 was allocated in Round
 1, leaving $1,568,000 for Round 2. In this round, the FDC has
 recommended funding allocations totaling approximately $1,235,062. The
 remaining approximately $332,938 will be returned to the Wikimedia
 Foundation's reserves. The recommended allocation for the WMF is
 excluded from this, as it includes the next year's budget for the
 Wikimedia movement as a whole.

 I am pleased to share with you the news that the Board of Trustees has
 made the decision to approve the FDC's 2013-2014 Round 2 funding
 recommendations in full. [2] These funding recommendations will now be
 implemented by the Foundation.

 Many people have put in significant work to make this process a
 success. As the Board Representatives to the FDC, we would like to
 thank the Round 2 applicants themselves, the Funds Dissemination
 Committee members and staff, and the members of the community who
 participated in the community review period. We congratulate the
 applicants and look forward to learning more about how their annual
 plans progress.

 Best,

 Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta, Board Representatives to the FDC

 [1]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2

 [2]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/Board_decisions/2013-2014_round2

 --
 Patricio Lorente


Hi Patricio,

I have a question about something in the software development portion of
the FDC recommendations regarding the Wikimedia Foundation proposal.

In that, it says The effectiveness of persona-based strategy for the
identification of user needs and prioritization is not clear, as no
evaluation of this has been done after the roll-out of Mobile apps.  It is
suggested that the software team assesses the effectiveness of its
processes, tools, team by an appropriate mix of surveys, and use of experts
in the field and take corrective action to address the gaps.

Which mobile apps are you referring to?

This passage seemed to lack sufficient detail to explain what was being
commented on, and why. Many teams have used user-centered design tools like
personas, user stories, and usability testing. Not all of them are used in
the same way, and we don't use a single one size fits all approach to
gathering user needs since every product tends to target different kinds of
users (mobile vs desktop, readers vs new editors vs existing editors, and
so on). In this regard, the feedback is somewhat confusing and not very
actionable.

Steven



  Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
 Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente

 ___
 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board approval of the FDC's 2013-2014 Round 2 recommendations

2014-06-30 Thread Steven Walling
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hi Patricio,

 I have a question about something in the software development portion of
 the FDC recommendations regarding the Wikimedia Foundation proposal.

 In that, it says The effectiveness of persona-based strategy for the
 identification of user needs and prioritization is not clear, as no
 evaluation of this has been done after the roll-out of Mobile apps.  It is
 suggested that the software team assesses the effectiveness of its
 processes, tools, team by an appropriate mix of surveys, and use of experts
 in the field and take corrective action to address the gaps.

 Which mobile apps are you referring to?

 This passage seemed to lack sufficient detail to explain what was being
 commented on, and why. Many teams have used user-centered design tools like
 personas, user stories, and usability testing. Not all of them are used in
 the same way, and we don't use a single one size fits all approach to
 gathering user needs since every product tends to target different kinds of
 users (mobile vs desktop, readers vs new editors vs existing editors, and
 so on). In this regard, the feedback is somewhat confusing and not very
 actionable.


Phoebe reminded me off list (thanks!) that the FDC recommendation link has
actually been posted before, and as the Board liason Patricio can't
necessarily answer this question. I'll just post this on the Talk page.
Sorry for any confusion. :)

Steven
___
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] Please be considerate of everyone's time.

2014-06-16 Thread Steven Walling
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:22 AM, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:

 Could I ask if there are any plans by WMF to address some of the content
 problems in Wikipedia?  Pretty much any article in my specialist area
 (which is actually not all that specialist) has serious problems - gross
 factual errors, omissions, bias and so on.  I know from other specialists
 that this is not just restricted to my area: economics, sociology, many
 areas of the arts and humanities have similar problems.

 This is not just a Wikimedia issue, it's a public interest issue.
 Wikipedia is now the go-to place for knowledge for pretty much everyone in
 the world. I don't see how WMF is fulfilling its mission (empowering people
 to collect and develop and disseminate educational content under a free
 license) when the content isn't actually educational.


Hi Ed,

The Wikimedia Foundation does not write nor edit content on Wikipedia, nor
does it dictate editorial policy. All of the content is written, edited,
and controlled by whomever would like to volunteer their time to improve
it.

As such, this is often why the response to a statement like Pretty much
any article in my specialist area (which is actually not all that
specialist) has serious problems is to invite you to edit it.[1] :-) If
you need help, there are forums like the Teahouse,[2] where you can get
answers from friendly, experienced Wikipedia editors. If you simply don't
have the time to volunteer on improving any content, you can of course
always leave suggestions on the Talk page associated with any article.

Steven

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse
___
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] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-06-04 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is there any thought of making metrics updates more machine-readable,
 exposing data/metrics/timelines?  Right now the excellent data is
 flattened into slides, and then further flattened into a single pdf.


If anyone is seeking more data on the project-wide or feature-related
metrics we typically discuss, there are several tools available. Other than
the Report Card [1] and stats.wikimedia.org, probably the best resource is
our extensive list of dashboards on Meta.[2] Those provide a lot of
structured data over time. The format for the Reviews are slides since the
primary intended audience of the Quarterly Reviews is still
internal-facing.

Steven

1. http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Data/Dashboards
___
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] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-23 Thread Steven Walling
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Thanks, Edward! I was starting to worry that no one would ask.

 I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
 And I will go wherever people feel comfortable speaking freely to hear
 them. Some of us feel comfortable on this list; others are more
 comfortable on a criticism-oriented site like WO. That social pattern
 is not uncommon, and in these situations I usually feel comfortable in
 both environments.

 The trash talk. . . Most of the concerns I've heard about WO involve
 the snarky, personal comments that are front and center in the forums.
 I know this makes it very difficult for many people to listen to
 anything else they have to say. I've called them out on this a few
 times, but I was reminded that everyone is there for different reasons
 and the trash talk somehow works for a few of them. What can I say?
 The great thing about free speech is that everyone is free to say
 anything. The only thing I can think of that might be better is that
 everyone is free to ignore anything. ;)

 Beyond the trash talk are some very real concerns from some very
 insightful people. If you're concerned about whether I'm getting
 accurate information, I don't take for granted anything said there
 without a secondary source- just like anything said here. Some of the
 concerns I've heard there seem to be taboo in the mainstream WP
 community. It's very interesting that WO was brought up when I asked
 about Child Protection Policies, for example. Harassment Policy is
 another issue that seems to be unwelcome in some forums. But there are
 also concerns that I've seen come up in this forum, too, like how to
 improve the quality of articles. That's not too surprising, since I'm
 not the only person who is active in both communities. There are more
 concerns than I can go through here, but I started a relatively
 trash-free thread there to get an understanding of their concerns:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4531. Maybe it
 would help others, too. If it would be welcome here, I'd pose the same
 question to understand the greatest concerns in this community.

 Finally, I ask everyone to respect my own right to free speech. I am
 not just Lila's partner; I am a person with my own opinions, my own
 motives, my own interests, and my own needs. I have no professional
 affiliation with WMF, and Lila and I have gotten pretty good at
 keeping our professional lives to ourselves at home. For those of you
 who work at the WMF and have voiced concern over my participation on
 WO, you can rest assured that I have absolutely no influence over your
 professional lives. For everyone in the WP community, I'd like you to
 know that I form my personal opinions of people on my direct
 interactions with them- not what someone says on a forum somewhere.
 Please, feel free to interact with me. :) There were also some
 concerns about my mentioning that I communicate with some of the
 people at the WMF about WP stuff. I stopped mentioning any employees
 of the WMF- including those in my immediate family- and I've come to
 the conclusion that it isn't in anyone's best interests to discuss
 anything related to WP in private with WMF employees. I'm kinda
 learning as we go here, so I apologize for any brainfarts like that.
 Ultimately, I'm asking you to treat me as you would any new WP
 contributor, because, at the end of the day, that is all I am.

 I'm hoping to get to know all of the people in this forum better. It's
 harder for me to follow along here because a lot of the stuff is very
 specific and often discussed with little context. I'll catch up. In
 the meantime, I'll continue asking questions, some of which may be
 inconvenient. Like I said, I am not Lila; I'm that guy who asks stuff
 while everyone else is hoping he just keeps his mouth shut. :P Please
 respect my right to free speech; I'll be respecting your right to
 ignore me.


I don't think you're going to find that anyone thinks you don't have a
right to free speech. For historical context here: on this mailing list
very very few people have ever been banned or put on moderation. It takes a
huge amount of bad behavior to get moderated on Wikimedia mailing lists.

The same culture persists on Wikipedia and most other Wikimedia projects.
The many Wikipedia discussion spaces and the many Wikimedia mailing lists
are extremely open environments where you can see people expressing a wide
variety of perspectives and ideas on how to run the projects. We often get
criticized for not strictly enforcing our civility guidelines/policies.
Many might say we swing too far toward tolerating blatantly rude but
otherwise intelligent/insightful participation.

I figure since you're new it bears repeating: Wikipediocracy isn't really
the go-to general purpose discussion forum for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself
is the place contributors in good standing talk about the future of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement regarding Host for Wikimania 2015

2014-04-21 Thread Steven Walling
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Ellie Young eyo...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On the recommendation of the Wikimania 2015 selection Jury Committee, we
 have accepted the proposal from Mexico DF to host. The proposal will be
 further vetted by the WMF staff in the coming month, after which time we
 hope to confirm the award.


Congrats to Wikimedia Mexico. :)

I have only one concern about possibly attending a Mexico City Wikimania,
which is safety. The bid on Meta sort of acknowledges this by saying
Safety is like any big city, some areas are unsafe at night.

I feel a bit like a dumb, xenophobic American bringing this up, but I have
to be honest and say Mexico tends to have a reputation for violent
crime.[1] Sources do seem to suggest Mexico City proper may be
better,[2][3] but it would be comforting to hear how we've assessed the bid
regarding the safety issue, and how we're going to be prepared in case the
worst (robberies, kidnappings) do happen.

1.
http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings/mexico-travel-warning.html
2.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mexico/mexico-city/practical-information/health
3.
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g150800-s206/Mexico-City:Mexico:Health.And.Safety.html
___
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] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations

2014-04-16 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On the software side, we have Ubuntu Linux (itself highly indebted to
 Debian) / Apache / MariaDB / PHP / Varnish / ElasticSearch / memcached
 / Puppet / OpenStack / various libraries and many other dependencies [2],
 infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of
 these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and
 support, some don't.

 One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on
 server-side to client-side open source applications used by our
 community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice
 (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on,
 like OpenStreetMap.


Speaking personally, I think we should consider doing this kind of thing on
rare occasions and where there is a critical dependency. There are two
questions that I think are relevant:

1). Do they *really *need our help?

Organizations like Ubuntu and Puppet are in fact supported by for-profit
companies as well as through a FOSS community. There are other examples
here, like Redis and Vagrant. They surely do not need our money to survive.
However, something like MariaDB might, since they're in fact asking us.

2). Would Wikimedia projects be fine, if these other organizations/products
perished?

Seems like we really depend on MariaDB having strong support in the future,
as an open source infrastructure requirement. We moved to Maria in part
because Oracle is a terrible terrible steward of open source, including
MySQL. There are other great FOSS databases out there, but switching to
something like PostgreSQL or a non-relational database (I troll) would be
infinitely more painful. It's in our self-interest as an organization and
for the survival of Wikimedia projects that our database engine is a
healthy open source product.

Products you mentioned which don't pass this test include things like GIMP,
Inkscape, and LibreOffice. It feels like it would be wasteful of donor
money to support something most of our users don't really depend on/we
don't depend on internally at the WMF. We'd essentially be making an
investment in these open source products, not ensuring a critical piece of
our toolkit survives.

Steven
___
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] neologisms

2014-04-08 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:35 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 What does productize mean in the context of

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Growth_Quarterly_Review_(February_2014).pdf
 ?


Sorry for the jargon. We try to avoid tech industry terminology in public
communication but sometimes when we publish an internal document it slips
out.

Wiktionary defines productize as make something a commericial product.[1]
Productization is defined as The act of modifying something, such as a
concept or a tool internal to an organization, to make it suitable as a
commercial product.[2]

Remove the commercial part of that, which implies selling, and it basically
applies. In software development and in the Wikimedia context, it basically
means to take something that is an experimental concept and make it a
permanent part of the site for users -- whether that's readers, editors or
donors depends on the software in question.

The word product is used not to strictly clarify that something is not a
service. On the Web, the line between products and services is decidedly
fuzzy, at least when you talk to people who work in the tech industry. In
reality people when people say a product they really just mean a thing
people use or buy.

1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/productize
2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/productization
___
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] Updating the typography on all Wikimedia sites

2014-03-26 Thread Steven Walling
Hi all,

I wanted to give people an extra notice that we're updating the default
typography across all Wikimedia sites, for users of the Vector skin. This
was mentioned in the last Tech News edition that goes out to all local
wikis, and also announced by our Release Manager, Greg Grossmeier, as part
of the software deployment roadmap.

This will happen in the following order:

   1. Test wikis and mediawiki.org tomorrow. That's Thursday, March 27th.
   2. Non-Wikipedia projects on Tuesday, April 1th.
   3. All Wikipedias on Thursday April 3rd.

If people have questions, there is a summary of the changes and an
extensive FAQ at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh. There
will also be a post at blog.wikimedia.org tomorrow morning.

For a bit more backstory, this is the first time we're graduating something
from the opt-in beta features framework to the stable version of
Wikimedia sites. This has been in beta for desktop users since November
2013,[1] and has been tested by more than 10,000 registered users across
Wikimedia communities.

Thanks to the many editors and readers who took time to send us comments or
questions. This feature went through several major iterations based on
community feedback -- there were 100+ discussion threads on the Talk page,
in addition to mailing list discussions. We're really lucky to have so many
Wikimedians willing to get their hands dirty when it comes to the dark art
of web typography. ;-) Congrats to the designers, engineers, and others who
volunteered their time to help make this ready to release as new default
typography.

P.S. Apologies for cross-posting this and spamming your inbox, if you're
also on wikitech-l or other technical mailing lists.

1. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/07/introducing-beta-features/

-- 
Steven Walling,
Product Manager
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
___
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] More new editors?

2014-03-07 Thread Steven Walling
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Charles Andrès 
charles.andres.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 TLDR:transform the thank you campaign after the fundraising  in a Thank
 you campaign: became an editor


We've tried this before and so far it hasn't worked very well. See results
from 2012-13 at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Donor_engagement/Thank_You_campaign

Generally speaking, we're moving away from trying to use banners to blast
lots of readers with the same messages. That's true in both fundraising
(where they've learned to only show someone a donation request 1-2 times)
and in editor engagement work. Our next work trying to convert unregistered
people to become editors is going to be focusing on targeting anonymous
editors, asking them to signup, and teaching them about the benefits of
having an account so they can make an informed choice. See draft docs at:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Anonymous_editor_acquisition

Steven
___
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] extend mediawiki software to allow append a group, and COI to an edit

2014-02-23 Thread Steven Walling
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote:

 could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
 1. it should knows groups
 2. allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
 3. allow to select one of the groups joined to an edit when saving
 4. add a checkbox COI to an edit, meaning potential conflict of
 interest
 5. display and filter edits marked with COI in a different color in history
 views
 6. display and filter edits done for a group in a different color in
 history views
 7. allow members of a group to receive notifications done on the group
 page,
or when a group is mentioned in an edit/comment/talk page.


[With my WMF product manager hat on...]

This a big request with many moving parts. We should probably try to
separate them out and simplify where we can. I'd recommend filing bugs for
structured information about groups, profiles, the ability to join/leave
groups, activity feeds per group, and more. This is something that is of
general interest, and is not specific to COI-related issues at all.

Gryllida's comment was a bit abrasive but is a correct understanding of the
challenge here I think, in terms of creating richer kinds of information
about types of edits/editors without making a user do unnecessary extra
work. Imagine if there is essentially as many group types as there are
categories, for instance. It probably makes more sense to have collections
of pages associated with a group, so that we can generate a feed of group
activity not by making the user select a group when saving, but
automatically. So for example: I'm in Group:Beer and I edit the article
on Pilsner, so my edits show in a feed of edits by Group:Beer members to
articles in that subject.

In the long run, we should start creating structured information about
topical groups, and let people access it both through a group page as well
as some kind of editor profile. However, it's not going to happen in the
next calendar year, so I'm not sure it's a good interim solution to the
problem of how to make COI disclosures easier. AbuseFilter also is honestly
probably not the right solution, even if self-tagging existed.

Steven
___
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] [Wikitech-l] Reasonator use in Wikipedias

2014-01-23 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Daniel Mietchen 
daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com wrote:

 What about having the Reasonator sit in the Draft namespace, with a
 link from the search results or the text preloaded for non-existing
 pages in the main namespace?

 Daniel


It is still far too early to do this. We still need to resolve a lot of
open questions around the Draft namespace. We don't advertise drafts on red
links or search yet, we haven't figured out how to deal with drafts for
articles that already exist, how to present a proper feed of drafts, and
lots more. Plus, it's only on English Wikipedia so you're not going to get
much bang for your buck working on implementing some kind of suggested
content via Wikidata.

We should put this idea in the list of future possible enhancements at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Draft_namespace
___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-13 Thread Steven Walling
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to technologize such very basic
 user interactions.  It takes as much work to thank someone using
 notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message.


That's empirically not true.

If I am on a page history or list of user contributions, it's takes just
two clicks and you don't leave the page. To leave someone a Talk page
message takes several new page loads and steps.
___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-13 Thread Steven Walling
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 I dunno, guys.  I certainly would take a talk page message over a
 mechanical thank any day of the week.  More particularly, I notice a
 significant trend in using thank notifications to express agreement with
 people without having to actually say yeah, I agree somewhere.

 That the loss of human contact, replacing it with another technological
 whizbang, is considered a net positive...well, I guess that's what can be
 expected from Wikimedia.


I don't view Talk page messages and thanks notifications as competing or
detracting from each other, and I think pretty much everyone works on
Thanks would agree. They are additive. It's helpful to have different
levels and types of ways to engage with each other on the wiki.
___
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] Thanking anonymous users

2014-01-12 Thread Steven Walling
I really really wish we could thanks IPs too. It sucks to treat them like
second class citizens.

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Amir E. Aharoni 
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:

 Something like the new message orange bar :)

 I guess that designers and Growth people may know an answer, but all
 thoughts are welcome.


With my product manager for Growth hat on... Like Kaldari said we can't
give people who aren't logged in Echo notifications at the moment. The only
alternative is to post to the IP talk page. This would require us to
basically build a user account, i.e. a bot, in to Thanks to deliver a Talk
page message for the IP. That's probably not going to happen, to be honest,
and there isn't the manpower behind Echo right now to design/build proper
anonymous notifications. If you're gung-ho about this idea I think Nemo is
right, just use the Talk page. :)

My instinct here is to try and use this as an experimental tool for showing
IPs the advantages of logging in. That is, show them an unclaimed account
with thank you or other notification, then prompt them to sign up after
they read it. This would give us temporary anonymous notifications and also
show people what they would get for taking a moment to sign up. This kind
of technique is extremely powerful for demonstrating the value in
registering for a site, and you can similar examples in many other places,
such as Twitter's log in and tweet flow that happens if you use one of
their share buttons on a news article etc.

If you look at our draft (emphasis on the draft) documentation at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Anonymous_editor_acquisition you will see us
mentioning ideas like the proto-account that Tim brought up as well.
(Just to poke at the technical issue Marc brought up... is there any reason
we wouldn't use Redis for this? It seems well suited to storing high
volumes of data we would intend to be temporary.)
___
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] WMF employee writing articles for $300

2014-01-05 Thread Steven Walling
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
 http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ in
 which it is revealed that a WMF employee is engaged in undeclared paid
 editing on English Wikipedia, and charging what it appears to be $300 per
 article.

 I have cc'ed both Sue and Jimmy in on this email, but also sending to this
 list as I know they, and other WMF employees, do use this list, and I think
 it would be pertinent that they respond publicly to the issues raised here.
 It is ever so more important given that the undeclared paid editing
 occurred AFTER the whole Wiki-PR debacle (Sue's press release, WMF's
 cease-and-desist, and of course the resultant media attention).

 What do Jimmy and Sue believe should occur given that such editing violates
 Wikipedia policies and also Jimmy's so-called Bright Line Rule. In relation
 to Jimmy's line, many are still clueless as to what exactly this Bright
 Line is (it's not very bright), and how it should be applied in practice,
 so Jimmy, if you are out there, your comment is requested on that.

 Cheers,

 Russavia


I'm with David and Nathan here.

The evidence presented is an anonymized oDesk account and a screenshot.
Screenshots are very easily doctored, and Wikipediocracy trolls have many
reasons to attack a Wikimedian like Sarah. I wouldn't be surprised if
they'd go so far as to set up a fake account using her picture and
information.

If you really cared about solving this, you could try emailing Sarah, her
superiors, and Sue directly. Considering many staff don't follow high
volume lists like Wikimedia-l, especially on the weekend, it's not exactly
the best way to get a response from the WMF. It is, however, a great way to
stir up bullshit drama.

I'll hold out for Sarah's comment, if she feels comfortable. Otherwise
smells like trolling.

Steven
___
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] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

2013-12-13 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:17 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:

 As Peter just said, there is no risk if WMF converts bitcoin donations to
 USD immediately.


Uh... except that because Bitcoin is not a regulated currency, it's value
has the potential to fluctuate wildly, and seems to have done so since it
attracts speculators of all crazy sorts. Seems pretty fuckin risky to me.

Who's to say if the work involved in accepting bitcoins, monitoring
transactions, converting them, etc. will be worth the actual donations we
receive in bitcoin? Developing and maintaining payments systems doesn't
come for free. Fundraising and finance staff at WMF work extremely hard to
keep these systems running smoothly, and I for one don't think it's worth
adding yet another potential system to build/maintain just to placate
bitcoin devotees who want us to help promote their libertarian fantasy
project.
___
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] Let's accept Bitcoin as a donation method

2013-12-12 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jake Orlowitz jorlow...@gmail.com wrote:

 * Our peers like EFF, and Internet archive accept it


To be totally honest, I think this is moot.

Support for bitcoin among these two organizations has hardly been a ringing
endorsement. In the past, EFF has rejected it for very practical reasons I
think still apply.[1] As for Internet Archive, I was literally in the room
when their fundraising staff announced they started accepting bitcoin, and
they actually said they didn't really understand what it was, other than
people requested they accept it.

In general, I would personally like it if the WMF avoided accepting
bitcoin. Today, bitcoin isn't really a functioning currency of exchange --
it's actually used more as an investment tool to create wealth that
naturally appreciates in value, like playing the stock market or buying
gold. Avoiding lots of risky investments is something our very competent
financial managers already steer clear of, and I see no reason to start
taking on more risk now.

1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin
___
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] Which Wikipedias have had large scale bot creation of articles this year?

2013-11-28 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote:

 Hopefully your research does not conclude this is a good idea; I had been
 contacted to create such bots multiple times in the past. I had declined
 such queries, as the need in automating this means inefficiency in manual
 content creation. Such inefficiency should be addressed directly instead,
 in the wiki software.


No, we're not exploring doing bot article creation ourselves. I'm simply
trying to understand differences between projects when it comes to article
creation. There are some smaller communities that have relatively large
levels of daily/monthly article creation, and I want to identify which ones
are running bots.

[Using my personal email to follow up, since it's what I usually use on
mailing lists.]

Steven
___
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] Which Wikipedias have had large scale bot creation of articles this year?

2013-11-28 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 6:50 AM, 梁忠明 sprco...@gmail.com wrote:

 In Chinese Wikipedia, there're no such bots to create lots of biological
 articles - Ranyv, one of my colleagues there, said that Chinese is not a
 language adopting the Roman alphabet, thus it is difficult to generate
 translation names for those species - unlike Vietnamese and others, they
 can use the binomial name as the article name. But there are some users use
 AWB to create articles for places, Taipei Metro stations, etc.

 As I know, in Vietnamese Wikipedia, such situation happens. I've heard that
 there is a Vietnamese robot user (Cheers!-bot) create lots of articles
 about biological species, making its article count surpassing the Chinese
 (and Portuguese?) one, over 750,000 articles. That sparked a small-scale
 debate among the Chinese Wikipedian community.


This was very helpful, thank you!

Can you give me an example of AWB-created articles?

Steven
___
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] Which Wikipedias have had large scale bot creation of articles this year?

2013-11-28 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Steven,

 What qualifies as many? On ro.wp, Andrebot is creating sections of
 articles about the population of villages/communes in Bulgaria,
 Hungary and Croatia, also creating articles where they do not exist.
 That will probably amount to a few hundred articles by the end of the
 year.


This counts, since it seems that in 2012 and more recently in 2013, bot
article creation has exceeded manual creations. See:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ReportCardTopWikis.htm#lang_ro

Thanks for the info!
___
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] Which Wikipedias have had large scale bot creation of articles this year?

2013-11-25 Thread Steven Walling
Hi all,

My team is doing some background research in to Wikipedia article creation
right now.[1] One question I'd like answer is which Wikipedias are
currently (i.e. this year) running bots to create many articles.

I know that Lsjbot has run (or is running) on Swedish (sv), Cebuano (ceb),
and Waray-Waray (war). It seems to me that, by looking at the stats for new
articles per day,[2] Dutch (nl) and Vietnamese (vi) Wikipedias might have
also been running bots? Am I wrong?

I'll be posting more about our article creation research work soon. We'll
need feedback from non-English Wikipedians in particular, since as a team
we only have extensive experience creating articles on enwiki.

Many thanks,

-- 
Steven Walling,
Product Manager
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation
2. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesNewPerDay.htm
___
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] Copyright infringement - The real elephant in the room

2013-11-22 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:37 AM, WereSpielChequers 
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:

 Typo correction and vandalism reversion are certainly both entries to
 editing, and it isn't just anti-vandalism where the opportunities have
 declined in recent years. Typos are getting harder to find, especially in
 stable widely read articles. Yes you can find plenty of typos by checking
 new pages and recent changes, but I doubt our  5 edits a month editors are
 going to internal maintenance pages like that. I suspect they are readers
 who fix things they come across. It would be interesting to survey a sample
 of them I suspect we'd find many who are reading Wikipedia just as much as
 they used to, but if they only edit when they spot a mistake then of course
 they will now be editing less frequently. And of course none of that is
 actually bad, any more than is the loss of large numbers of vandals who
 used to get into the 5 edits a month band for at least the month in which
 they did their spree and were blocked..

 The difficulty of getting precise measurements of community health makes
 it a fascinating topic, and with many known factors altering edit levels in
 sometimes poorly understood ways we need to be wary of oversimplifications.
 No-one really knows what would have happened if the many edit filters
 installed in the last four years had instead been coded as anti vandalism
 bots, clearly our edit count would now be much higher, but whether it would
 currently be higher or lower than in 2009 when the edit filters were
 introduced is unknown. Nor should we fret that we shifted so much of our
 anti-vandalism work from very quick reversion to not accepting edits.
 However it isn't sensible to  benchmark community health against past edit
 levels, we should really be comparing community activity against readership
 levels. If we do that there is a disconnect between our readership which
 for years has grown faster than the internet and our community which is
 broadly stable. To some extent this can be considered a success for Vector
 and the shift of our default from a skin optimised for editing to one
 optimised for reading. Of course if we want to increase editing levels we
 always have the option of defaulting new accounts to Monobook instead of
 Vector. My suspicion is also that the rise of the mobile device, especially
 amongst the young, is turning us from an interactive medium into more of a
 broadcast one. It is also likely to be contributing to the greying of the
 pedia.

 I am trying to list the major known and probable causes of changes of the
 fall in the raw editing levels in a page on
 wiki
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/Going_off_the_boil%3F
 ,
 feedback welcome.


Holy smokes this thread has gotten off topic, but I'll bite. ;)

Making articles that need spelling and grammar fixes easily available to
new editors is precisely what we're doing with GettingStarted, our software
system for introducing newly-registered people to editing. (Docs at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GettingStarted and
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Onboarding_new_Wikipedians). We're currently
getting thousands of new people to make their first typo fix a month on
English Wikipedia, and we're moving to other Wikipedias soon.

In English Wikipedia it's quite easy for us to do so, since there's a large
category of articles needing copyediting. In other Wikipedias, it's not
easy, because there is no such category. If you want to help us help
newbies, the best thing you could do is create a copyediting category on
your Wikipedia and link it to the appropriate Wikidata item
(either Q8235695 or Q9137504).

As a side point: when we examine first-time editors contributions, these
days it's rare to find someone start out by correcting vandalism, probably
because now bots and users of tools like Huggle or Twinkle catch it all so
fast. It's so small a number that when we examine samples of new
contributors in our qualitative research,[1][2] we just put it in the Other
category of edit types.

Steven

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Qualitative_analysis
2.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/OB6/Contribution_quality_and_type
___
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] Copyright infringement - The real elephant in the room

2013-11-13 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Wikimedia Foundation needs to wake up and deal with the real tech
 elephant in the room. Our primary issue is not a lack of FLOW, a lack of a
 visual editor, or a lack of a rapidly expanding education program.

 Our biggest issue is copyright infringement. We have had the Indian
 program, we have had issues with the Education program, and I have today
 come across a user who has made nearly 20,000 edits to 1,742 article since
 2006 which appear to be nearly all copy and pasted from the sources he has
 used.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DrMicro#Copyright_infringement
 This
 has seriously shaken my faith in Wikipedia.

 This is especially devastating as there is a tech solution that would have
 prevented it. The efforts are being worked on by volunteers here
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Turnitin and has been since at
 least March of 2012. We NEED all tech resource at the foundation thrown at
 this project. Other less important project like FLOW and the visual editor
 need to be put on hold to develop this tool.


Relevant info on the subject of copyvio is the recent plagiarism study by
the Education Program team. They looked different types of users (students,
newbies, experienced editors, admins) and compared them. Results were
published on Meta at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Plagiarism_on_the_English_Wikipediaand
also discussed in the last WMF Metrics  Activities meeting:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2013-11-07

AFAIK this is the best data we have about how often different kinds of
editors close paraphrase or outright copy/paste.
___
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 DC Annual Plan for 2013-14

2013-11-09 Thread Steven Walling
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Kirill Lokshin 
kirill.loks...@wikimediadc.org wrote:

 Hello everyone,

 Wikimedia DC has released its Annual Plan for 2013-14.  The plan can be
 found on our wiki at http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Annual_plan_(2013–2014);
 a
 copy will also be posted on meta shortly.

 As always, any comments or suggestions would be very welcome.

 Cheers,
 Kirill


Thanks for sharing this, and congrats on publishing what looks like a great
plan.

One part I think is a bit vague is the one about analytics development. At
the beginning, you give the example of using WikiMetrics to measure
outcomes of edit-a-thons and such, which is great. Then you take a second
tack later in the document, saying Wikimedia DC will support the
development and maintenance of a stable set of online tools that can be
used by partner institutions including creating a single analytics report
which will aggregate statistics from various existing tools.

Analytics tool development is a complex and difficult problem. In addition
to our technical challenges, there seems to always be many competing
priorities you have to balance, even if you just focus on one end user. If
Wikimedia DC is going to venture in to this territory, I think you could be
clearer about whether you're going to first focus on measurement of your
own programs, or if building a tool(s) for partner institutions is really
something you're best placed to do. These two things have very very
different requirements when it comes to how much money you'd need, people
resources, and so on.

If you're seriously considering building an analytics report of some kind,
I would highly encourage you to reach out the Analytics team at the WMF,
for technical advice and advice from the team of research analysts. (The
public analytics mailing list is a good place to start.) They can also help
you when it comes to figuring out stakeholder analysis and collecting
concise requirements from end users of any analytics tools, since it's
something they have to do inside the Foundation.

Steven
___
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?

2013-11-01 Thread Steven Walling
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.
___
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 Education] How to force to enable Visual Editor

2013-10-16 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote:

 This is a really interesting idea - not just for VE but for other
 new-user tools as well.

 CCing to Steven, who's been doing some work with the signup interface
 - is this sort of hook technically practical?

 Andrew.


Yes, technically speaking it is probably not difficult to set VisualEditor
opt-in on the basis of a URL parameter. How/if we should implement it that
way, I leave up to James and the VE team.

To be honest, if we think VE is more advantageous for new editors, we
should be delivering by default for all of them, not selectively. The
design team has been working on concepts for a design where the switch
between wikitext and visual editing is done after hitting Edit, allowing us
to consolidate the current confusing situation with two buttons. This is
probably the most elegant solution. It makes room for individual users
potentially setting their default edit mode to one or the other, reduces
extra button clutter, etc.


-- 
Steven Walling,
Product Manager
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
___
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] When was the first edit-a-thon(s)?

2013-10-16 Thread Steven Walling
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, Sarah Stierch wrote:

 Hi everyone,

 I've asked a question on the new Program Evaluation  Design portal about
 when people think the first edit-a-thons took place. (Or the very first, if
 we know!)

 It would be great to have your input on meta:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/Parlor/Questions

 Thank you and please spread the word!

 Sarah


Sarah,

Do you mean the first Wikimedia editathon, or the first editathon period?

Editathons predate Wikipedia by years, and are about as old as the wiki
itself. The old school name for them is barn raisings.

 http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/BarnRaising


 --
 --
 *Sarah Stierch*
 *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
 *www.sarahstierch.com*
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 ?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] Mobile image upload

2013-08-25 Thread Steven Walling
On Sunday, August 25, 2013, James Heilman wrote:

 Mobile image upload is a huge plus thus thanks to all who made it
 happen. It is allowing those who might not otherwise have be able to
 get involved to do so. Just saw this image come in through the mobile
 site
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dirty_white_pseudomembrane_classically_seen_in_diptheria_2013-07-06_11-07.jpg


Awesome! Maryana, Kenan, and the mobile team will be psyched to hear this.
:)


 I have never seen diphtheria as it is exceedingly rare in my area of
 the world. And technically this image is very hard to take. Look
 forwards to mobile editing arriving.


Mobile editing is here now, on the m.wikipedia.org mobile website. You
should see a pencil icon on every section. Feedback on how it works or
doesn't for you would be most welcome, since it's only been out of beta
since the end of July.



 --
 James Heilman
 MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

 The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
 www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 ?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] Questions for the Board post-Wikimania

2013-08-14 Thread Steven Walling
Hey all,

During Wikimania's QA panel, the Board lamented that, as always, they did
not have enough time to answer all the questions from the audience and
posted beforehand on-wiki. They did say they were accessible to follow up
with on unanswered questions though, so I am taking this opportunity to
start an open thread.

The question I am personally interested in, I posted on the Wikimania wiki
page,[1] and it's...

The 2013-14 Annual Plan allocates 40% of the Wikimedia Foundation budget
and 59% of the staffing to engineering and product development. However, it
seems that few of Board members have professional expertise in theses areas
(compared to previous years and in general). Does the Board feel it has the
necessary expertise to lead the Foundation in this area? Would the Board
consider recruiting expert seats with more experience in engineering and
product development?

There are several other excellent questions posted on-wiki as well. I know
people are still traveling and likely jet-lagged even if they're home, so I
am in no huge hurry to get an answer. Thanks to the Board in advance. :-)

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

1. https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Board_Q%26A
___
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] Let's have the courage to sit down and talk about VisualEditor

2013-08-01 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams 
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:

 If you had followed that, and understood that the Minimum Viable Product
 included cut-and-paste, table editing, and maybe the ability to
 successfully and completely edit the hundred or so most edited articles out
 of all the millions, you wouldn't have hit the level of pushback you've
 encountered. You released a sub-viable product, which is what caused the
 storm you encountered.


Minimum viable product does not mean anything and everything works
perfectly just like you want right out of the box, and it definitely does
not mean feature parity with an existing product (i.e. wikitext editing).
The purpose is to release something that can help us gather feedback and
test the concept behind the product in the real world instead of in a
lab.[1] Table editing and other advanced markup is not really necessary to
test the concept with the target audience, and decide whether to move
forward.

We all know VE didn't and doesn't edit everything in a way that's perfectly
up to snuff. No one has been claiming it doesn't have warts. What the team
is pushing back against is the idea that they can just turn it off and
develop a great new editor in a vacuum, away from real use by a
representative swath of current editors (registered and anonymous, new and
old). The lack of use by a sufficiently large and representative group of
editors is a big part of why the _seven months_ of original opt-in use
didn't fix most issues.

Erik and James have clearly admitted we can achieve our goals while moving
at a slower pace than the initial rollout and making other concessions.
Despite this, the attitude of some seems to be that they should be
committing seppuku for daring to release something not 100% perfect
according to [insert personal criteria for editing perfection here]. That's
not the kind of reaction that drew me to Wikipedia back in 2006, not by a
long shot. Rather, most of us find Wikipedia so rewarding because there is
room to be bold in the name of helping the encyclopedia. Which is precisely
what the VE team has been attempting to do.

Do I really really wish editing references and tables and templates was
easier when I'm writing articles in my off hours? Holy smokes yes. Is it
helping us get there to be making bitter comments about how Erik or anybody
else at WMF doesn't care about editors? No.

Steven

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_product
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVR82uP_f6Q
___
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] Let's have the courage to sit down and talk about VisualEditor

2013-07-30 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:13 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 de:wp convinced you. What would it take to convince you on en:wp? (I'm
 asking for a clear objective criterion here. If you can only offer a
 subjective one, please explain how de:wp convinced you when en:wp
 hasn't.)


[Speaking personally, not for the VE team in any way.]

Why should a consensus of any arbitrary number of power editors be allowed
to define the defaults for all editors, including anonymous and
newly-registered people? Anonymous edits make up about 1/3 of enwiki edits,
IIRC. Every day, 3,000-5,000 new accounts are registered on English
Wikipedia. These people are not even being asked to participate in these
RFCs. Even if they were, they typically don't know how to participate and
find it very intimidating.

This system of gauging the success of VE is heavily biased toward the
concerns of people most likely to dislike change in the software and
frankly, to not really need VE in its current state. That doesn't mean
they're wrong, just that they don't speak for everyone's perspective. The
sad fact is that the people who stand to benefit the most from continued
use and improvements to VE can't participate in an RFC about it, in part
because of wikitext's complexities and annoyances. It is a huge failure of
the consensus process and the Wikimedia movement if we pretend that it's
truly open, fair, and inclusive to make a decision about VE this way.

In WMF design and development, we work our butts off trying to do research,
design, and data analysis that guides us toward building for _all_ the
stakeholders in a feature. We're not perfect at it by a long shot, but I
don't see a good faith effort by English and German Wikipedians running
these RFCs to solicit and consider the opinions of the huge number of
new/anonymous editors. And why should they? That's not their job, they just
want to express their frustration and be listened to.

To answer David's question: I think we need a benchmark for making VE
opt-in again that legitimately represents the needs of _all the people_ who
stand to benefit from continuing the rapid pace of bug fixing and feature
additions. I don't think an on-wiki RFC is it.

Steven
___
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] Let's have the courage to sit down and talk about VisualEditor

2013-07-30 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 OK - so why were those people listened to on de:wp? What happened
 there that they convinced you?


If you're replying to me... this is why I said I wasn't speaking for the VE
team. I didn't make that call. :)

Steven
___
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] Updates on VE data analysis

2013-07-26 Thread Steven Walling
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:52 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Do you intend to measure the total number of edits per day prior to
 and after the visual editor roll-out?

 It appears that you have not analyzed or presented any data associated
 with those statistics.


We run A/B tests precisely so we don't need to rely on that kind of
analysis. Pre/post launch comparisons are notoriously subject to
confounding effects. I really wish we could just look at that kind of data,
because running properly designed and instrumented experiments is really
hard. But we can't, if we want to really know what caused an increase or
decrease in edits.

When you look at these kinds of numbers just on a pre/post basis, it's very
hard to discern what causes a drop or increase in any given metric. We
know, for instance, that as the summer progresses, editing activity drops
and climbs again in the fall. We also have no idea what the impact of other
deployments during that week might be (even small improvements or
regressions in performance have big effects, for example). The list of
unknown potential confounds go on.

For the interested: Dario covered why this kind of pre/post analysis is
faulty in his discussion of cohort analysis and analytics tools at a
Metrics  Activities meeting.[1][2]

Steven

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2013-03-07
2. Slides:
https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/presentation/d/12HWRzf8XHsWC9zE3onyi6eeA_J98bPxoknLY_be-vUc/edit#slide=id.p
___
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] About the concentration of resources in SF (it was: Communication plans for community engagement

2013-07-24 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.comwrote:

 Anyway, being able to disband the SF office as regards software
 development (and perhaps more), and switch to remote work only, would
 probably be the single most effective measure for enhancing communication
 and cooperation in the movement.


As someone who moved to SF to work here, I could not disagree more. The
amount of time and energy I save being near many of the people I work with
closely in the same space is enormous. Not to mention the fact that many of
us work better together with people we are able to see socially and so on.
I could go on, but the truth is I think no one actually responsible for
making such a decision is crazy enough to get rid of a central office.
(Move the office? Maybe someday if we really are forced to. We've done it
before. But get rid of a central office? No.)
___
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] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Victor Grigas vgri...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 In my view, this whole argument would provide reason to:
 1.) Only use a third party video option sparingly, as-needed until there
 are better open-source video options to use.
 2.) Put more resources into open source video.


On a positive note, it seems like progress on #2 is hopefully around the
corner, with the new Multimedia team being staffed.[1]

1.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/08/breaking-through-walls-of-text-richer-wikimedia-experience/
___
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] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?

2013-07-11 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
  On July 11th at the next WMF Metrics  Activities meeting, myself, Erik
  Möller, Howie Fung, Maryana Pinchuk, and Dario Taraborelli are going to
  deliver a short update on the state of Wikimedia editor communities. (For
  those not familiar:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings)

 This presentation will be at the meeting in 30 minutes. Don't worry if
 you're interested but can't make it; the meeting will be recorded.


The video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALT8_Toyc0g now.
___
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] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?

2013-07-05 Thread Steven Walling
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Denny Vrandečić 
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote:

 Wait - removing the captchas lead to a decrease of reverted edits in terms
 of absolute numbers? Woot? Anyone has an explanation for that?


I think the explanation is pretty clear from the numbers Nemo shared. This
CAPTCHA was annoying as hell, and was directed not just at people adding
links or hitting some kind of AbuseFilter, but everyone who was editing
anonymously or with a new account. It was literally throwing the baby out
with the bath water.

As someone who had to experience that CAPTCHA as a new user on ptwiki last
year, I am not surprised at all that we attracted many more positive
contributions just by removing it. Sadly, from looking at bug 49860 and
gerrit change 69982, it seems that this deeply annoying feature is going to
be put back in place.

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
___
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] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?

2013-06-25 Thread Steven Walling
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.comwrote:

 1) I'm confused: first you ask about community initiatives then you list
 activities by chapters and the like. Community initiative makes me think
 of edit drives, custom tools and scripts, processes, guidelines,
 configurations.


Sorry for the confusion. I'm open to hearing about any non-WMF activity,
but I assumed that people would be most knowledgeable
about initiatives that came from chapters or other parts of the community.


 2) Are you interested in last year or all our history?


Let's say since about 2011, with more recent being of primary interest.


  3) Is it really impossible to look for the impact on the statistics
 (assuming you're speaking of eiting activity) and then ask what caused the
 impact? How much big but indetected/undetectable impact is there? (There
 must be contrasting forces for that.) Are you interested in impact that
 can't be even seen in statistics?


We're also looking at which projects are growing, so as you say, looking at
the stats and then asking what caused it. If you are aware of a editor
recruitment or retention activity that measured, I'd also be interested in
hearing about that, even if it didn't necessarily make some kind of visible
 jump in the total active editors of a project.

Steven

P.S. Thanks to the folks who reached out off-list with examples.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] What community initiatives have made an impact on editor engagement?

2013-06-22 Thread Steven Walling
Hi everyone,

On July 11th at the next WMF Metrics  Activities meeting, myself, Erik
Möller, Howie Fung, Maryana Pinchuk, and Dario Taraborelli are going to
deliver a short update on the state of Wikimedia editor communities. (For
those not familiar:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings)

This is the beginning of the new fiscal year for the WMF, and we'd like to
use this time to recap what we know about the decline or growth of
Wikimedia communities. We're focusing on the following set of questions...

* Are Wikimedia projects as a whole in decline?
* Is English Wikipedia in decline?
* Which WMF projects have been successful in driving growth?
* Which non-WMF trends have driven growth (e.g. community projects)?
* How does data/measurement enable us to drive growth?
* Which future changes are expected to drive growth?

I'm reaching out to this list on behalf of the team, so that we can get a
list of the non-WMF projects that have had a measurable impact on the size
or diversity of Wikimedia projects.

One obvious example that comes to mind is Wiki Loves Monuments. Others are
the Wikipedia Challenge in Kiswahili and Setswana, and edit-a-thons, such
as this year's fashion edit-a-thon put together by Wikimedia Sverige.

What am I missing from this list?

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF May 2013 Metrics and Activities Meeting: Thursday, June 6, 18:00 UTC

2013-06-06 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote:

 That's amazing!

 This is the now-closed office hours calendar, which I think was run by
 someone in WMF (but I could be wrong):


 https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=wikimedia.org_1co89h9c5s99d0jt9ld1tlsols%40group.calendar.google.com


Yes, I started this back when I was keeping tabs on office hours for Sue
and others. We replaced it with a calendar feeds generated off the Meta IRC
office hours page.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New designs for account creation and login rolling out gradually to all projects

2013-06-05 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 The remaining projects we have held off on because there are localizations
 still to be completed (on translatewiki) or there are problems with
 localizations already finished. Since the work of localizations is never
 100% complete however, we are putting out a hard *deadline of June 5th*,
 after which we'll be turning on the forms for all projects, in all
 languages.  If you're interested in learning more about which wikis in
 particular need help, please email me off-list or get in touch via my user
 talk page anywhere.


Per my previous announcement and a note delivered more widely as a part of
Tech News (thanks Guillom, Odder and others for that), we're going to be
enabling the new design as default for all remaining Wikimedia projects
today. You should start seeing it visible after 22:00 UTC.

All of the top 10 language projects by size are complete and should have no
remaining issues, but the long tail of smaller wikis have not yet completed
translation [1]. The messages have been out for several weeks now, so if
you're like Turkish, Hindi, or Urdu and don't have the new login or signup
strings translated, now's your reason to get started. ;-)

Even if translations are complete, you might notice a few red links to be
tidied up. There's a list of these help links in our testing
documentation,[2] and I'll be going around trying to help do any final
customizations.

1. See a list sorted by completed translations for MediaWiki core at
https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special%3AMessageGroupStatsx=Dgroup=coresuppressempty=1language=#sortable:3=desc
2.
mediawiki.org/wiki/Account_creation_user_experience/Testing#Providing_help_links

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New designs for account creation and login rolling out gradually to all projects

2013-05-29 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

- Wikipedia in 21 languages, including English, German, French, Italian,
Polish, Dutch, Chinese, Hebrew, Arabic, Korean, Czech, Swedish, and
 others.
- In English: Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wiktionary,
and Wikiquote.
- Wikimedia Commons
- Wikidata
- Meta
- MediaWiki .org


Just a quick update: we enabled for most of these wikis this afternoon.

Sue: thanks for the kind words. I'm glad the combination of the redesign
and Getting Started worked out for the editathon!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] New designs for account creation and login rolling out gradually to all projects

2013-05-28 Thread Steven Walling
Hi everyone,

Per our blog post last month,[1] we've been testing redesigns for account
creation and login across the projects. We've been doing so on an opt-in
basis, but we've dealt with any major bugs and translations are complete
for quite a few languages.

Starting tomorrow and barring any last minute hiccups, we're going to start
rolling out the new designs. Right now we're limiting it to about 30
projects, including the following...

   - Wikipedia in 21 languages, including English, German, French, Italian,
   Polish, Dutch, Chinese, Hebrew, Arabic, Korean, Czech, Swedish, and others.
   - In English: Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wiktionary,
   and Wikiquote.
   - Wikimedia Commons
   - Wikidata
   - Meta
   - MediaWiki .org

There are still local customizations that will need to be made in many of
these, but they are the kind of thing that doesn't require a developer to
do, just edits to the wiki. Look for announcements soon on your local
Village Pump equivalent for more info, or check out our
testing documentation.[2] I'll be around to help any of these wikis that
don't have an admin handy to make requested changes.

The remaining projects we have held off on because there are localizations
still to be completed (on translatewiki) or there are problems with
localizations already finished. Since the work of localizations is never
100% complete however, we are putting out a hard *deadline of June 5th*,
after which we'll be turning on the forms for all projects, in all
languages.  If you're interested in learning more about which wikis in
particular need help, please email me off-list or get in touch via my user
talk page anywhere.

Please speak up if you have any questions. You can still try these new
forms on any Wikimedia project via the method mentioned in the two links
below...

1. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/25/try-new-login-accountcreation/
2. mediawiki.org/wiki/Account_creation_user_experience/Testing

--
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

P.S. Sorry if there are odd linebreaks in this message. Has anyone figured
out how to avoid this in Gmail?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?

2013-04-28 Thread Steven Walling
On Sunday, April 28, 2013, Risker wrote:

 I'd actually suggest the opposite:  That the only people eligible to vote
 for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia
 projects.  That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board
 eligibility.  Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter
 staffbut eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election
 every year that involves the entire community.

 Risker


Speaking personally, I agree with Risker.






 On 28 April 2013 16:43, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff
 had
  been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
  surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would
 qualify
  under the edit count requirement anyway.
 
  Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count
  requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required
  so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would
 qualify.
  If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to
 lower
  the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
  most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
 
  Thanks,
  Sue
  On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
 wrote:
 
   On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
 wrote:
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
better standardize and with it simplify volunteer community, for
 all
elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
essential to run the site are included.
  
   The first elections (in 2004) had a simple three months in the
   community rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The
   first election with any complicated rules - allowing people in
   without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff,
   ex-Board members, *and* Wikimedia server administrators with shell
   access were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who have
   commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010
   and 15 May 2011.
  
   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en
   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
  
   So we've already got those in :-)
  
   I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
   (those who don't independently qualify as community members) voting
   or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
   *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
   should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
   Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
   in Berlin!
  
   (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
   course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
   elections)
  
   - Andrew.
  
  
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org
 
   wrote:
Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not
  active
   on
the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
  the
chapter-selected board seats.
   
   A.
   
   
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
   nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
   
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
   
 I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the
 election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
community. Presumably that would include most members of most
organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
   
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] New account creation and login ready for testing on all projects

2013-04-25 Thread Steven Walling
Hi all,

Today the Editor Engagement Experiments team has ported our new designs for
account creation and login to the current version of MediaWiki core,
meaning it is now available for testing on all Wikipedias and Wikimedia
projects.

The main purpose of starting with an opt-in testing period is to iron out
any last minute bugs and wait for localizations to catch up before we turn
it on by default. Testing instructions and background on this project are
available in our blog post,[1] and we're holding IRC office hours this
Saturday at 18:00 UTC to discuss things.[2]

I'm in the process of posting locally to Village Pumps as well, targeting
the top ten Wikipedias and the English version of all other projects. Help
spread the word if you can. :)

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

1. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/25/try-new-login-accountcreation/
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New account creation and login ready for testing on all projects

2013-04-25 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 That is looking really beautiful.  SJ


Thanks SJ!



 On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Matthew Roth mr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  and here's Steven's blog post:
  http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/25/try-new-login-accountcreation/
 
 
  On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
 
  Hi all,
 
  Today the Editor Engagement Experiments team has ported our new designs
 for
  account creation and login to the current version of MediaWiki core,
  meaning it is now available for testing on all Wikipedias and Wikimedia
  projects.
 
  The main purpose of starting with an opt-in testing period is to iron
 out
  any last minute bugs and wait for localizations to catch up before we
 turn
  it on by default. Testing instructions and background on this project
 are
  available in our blog post,[1] and we're holding IRC office hours this
  Saturday at 18:00 UTC to discuss things.[2]
 
  I'm in the process of posting locally to Village Pumps as well,
 targeting
  the top ten Wikipedias and the English version of all other projects.
 Help
  spread the word if you can. :)
 
  --
  Steven Walling
  https://wikimediafoundation.org/
 
  1. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/25/try-new-login-accountcreation/
  2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 
 
 
  --
 
  Matthew Roth
  Global Communications Manager
  Wikimedia Foundation
  +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635
  www.wikimediafoundation.org
  *https://donate.wikimedia.org*
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



 --
 Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lack of community involvement in WMF budget planning

2013-04-23 Thread Steven Walling
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Nathan wrote:

 The necessity of public comment on a detailed budget is overblown. I
 don't think the Foundation should dedicate a lot of time or resources
 into getting input into the budget development process from members of
 the community. This is one area where expertise and the ability to
 dedicate a substantial amount of time does matter, crowdsourcing a
 budget doesn't work. The WMF is not a wiki.


I fully agree.

My team, Editor Engagement Experiments, was one of the few submitted to the
FDC for approval.[1] We got almost no substantive questions or comments on
the Talk page or mailing lists from community members about our budget. I
got a lot more valuable feedback/questions from single hour-long meeting
with Dariusz (chair of the FDC) than from any of the public discussion or
question period.

To Leslie's point and SJ's replies: no matter how efficient our process
internally, adding a lengthy community discussion period adds overhead for
staff. The idea that we would publish and not respond directly to
volunteers, as SJ suggested, is silly. Of course we would. Having that
discussion is the whole point of publishing something before it's
finalized. The question is: is it worth the cost in staff time?

In this case I think the answer is that it would suck time and energy from
budget planning and would not add much real value to the budget other than
warm and fuzzy feelings. The amount of transparency would also not be
substantively increased, because we already publish the WMF budget and
annual plan, and respond to inquiries about it.

I'll finally note that budget planning internally is not a totally open
collaborative process. Budget owners (typically directors at the management
level) and above gather feedback and input from teams, but otherwise we
leave it up to them to work out with Sue and and C-level staff. I am very
happy to do this, and to be able to do my job without having to argue about
money with anyone. I'd like it to stay that way, thanks.

Steven

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours about upcoming account creation and login redesigns

2013-04-23 Thread Steven Walling
Hey all,

As you might know, the Editor Engagement Experiments team spent several weeks in
2012-13 testing changes to the account creation page, aiming to make
it easier for new editors to join our projects.[1]

Soon you'll see wider announcements on-wiki and on the blog about the
soft launch of the interface changes we've built now that testing is
over. The short version: for roughly a week, we're initially launching
the changes in MediaWiki core on an opt-in basis, so that editors can
test the localizations and hunt for bugs on their home wiki without
potentially disrupting the essential functions of login and account
creation.

This Saturday the 27th at 18:00 UTC,[2] we'll be hosting IRC office
hours to talk about these changes with anyone interested. Please join
us. :-)

--
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Account_creation_user_experience
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A refreshing change to the ConfirmEdit extension

2013-04-22 Thread Steven Walling
Sorry for cross-posting, but I wanted to make sure more people are aware
this before we deploy it (likely on Thursday the 25th).

-- Forwarded message --
From: Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org
Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Subject: A refreshing change to the ConfirmEdit extension
To: Coordination of technology deployments across languages/projects 
wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org


Hi all,

This is a heads up that we've added a small new feature which hopefully
will make things less painful for users across the projects: the ability to
refresh the CAPTCHA you're presented without refreshing the entire page. It
should work everywhere ConfirmEdit can throw the image CAPTCHA at someone:
account creation, login, the edit form, etc. (It won't modify the simple
math CAPTCHA, and so on.)

The original enhancement request for this (
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14230) goes back to 2008. A
patch was submitted back in January by lalei:
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/44376/

If you want to test this out yourself before it's deployed, you can use
http://toro.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page

 Forgive my awful pun in the subject line,

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Adopt a page

2013-03-30 Thread Steven Walling
On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Strainu wrote:

 Guys, I think you're reading more into it than it is. When you're adopting
 an animal you don't  get to decide what and how much it gets to eat.
 Similarly adopting a wiki page wouldn't mean you pay for having a say on
 the content. At the bottom end of the reward scale you could get a badge
 you could put on YOUR website, without having your name on Wikipedia at
 all.

 I'm not necessarely in favour of this idea but i wanted to see if it's been
 discussed before. I guess that if it has, people havebeen confusing this
 idea with paid editing.


Big +1 to this comment.

There's actually plenty of even more neutral ways to do this IMO, and none
of them have anything to do with promoting the donor or paid editing. For
example: a simple count of how many readers donated in support of this
article. This article sponsored by 70 Wikipedia readers like you.
Contribute today by editing or donating. Or something like that.

Anyway this discussion should be on a public wiki, ideally Meta, and we
should invite Megan, Zack, and the rest of the fundraising team, not to
mention the wider community.




 Pe sâmbătă, 30 martie 2013, Thomas Morton 
 morton.tho...@googlemail.comjavascript:;
 a
 scris:
  It's a weird dichotomy.
 
  I've spent several hundred quid on source material for my current topic
  area. I could easily have spent several grand.
 
  Paid editing is a major issue, because it conflicts with our culture
 
  But if someone were able to buy my sources then it would be of huge
  benefit.
 
  And, controversially, if someone could fund me one day a week to write
  these articles I could likely expand from one GA per month to covering
 this
  entire field in GAs in a year.
 
  Without that it will take me a good five years
 
  I've come recently to see that funding article work is not inherently an
  awful thing. But it needs to be done with extreme care to protect our
  ideals and neutrality. And that is a HARD problem.
 
  Tom
 
  On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Thomas Dalton wrote:
 
  On Mar 30, 2013 1:04 AM, Mono monom...@gmail.com 
  javascript:;javascript:;
 wrote:
  
   How so?
 
  It would be completely against our culture. Wikipedia is a volunteer
  written encyclopedia.
 
  You would end up with a two-tier system of paid editors and unpaid
 editors.
  There would inevitably be a lot of conflict between those groups. The
 whole
  concept would be extremely divisive.
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; javascript:;
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement *please read*

2013-03-27 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:

 The Board has appointed a Transition Team which consists of the Chair of
 the Board of Trustees Kat Walsh,  and HR Committee member Alice Wiegand,
 Sue, Sue’s deputy and the Wikimedia Foundation’s Vice-President of Product
 and Engineering Erik Moeller, Geoff Brigham our General Counsel, and Gayle
 Karen Young, our Chief Talent and Culture Officer. I am the final member
 and am the Chair of the Transition Team, and Sue will be facilitating its
 work on my behalf.

 (In case you don’t know, non-profit organizations often have outgoing EDs
 support the recruitment of their successors. The Board is of course
 ultimately responsible for appointing the Executive Director, but we want
 our search to be supported by our staff members, including Sue. Sue , Erik,
 Geoff and Gayle have done a lot of hiring for the Wikimedia Foundation over
 the past number of years, and we know they will bring experience and wisdom
 to the process.)

 I will also be responsible for making this a transparent (where possible)
 and confidential (where needed) process and will set up the corresponding
 pages on Meta in the coming days (please give me some time to do so :).
 First step will be the office hours with Sue and myself this Saturday.


Thanks Jan-Bart.

I suggested to Gayle earlier this afternoon that it would be ideal for
staff and community members to have some place where we can write out
recommendations to the transition team about what kind of attributes and
experiences we'd like from a new ED. A simple Request for Comment, where
people can post thoughts, is likely to grow very large, but is one idea. In
any case, the huge advantage of having this public announcement far in
advance is clearly the opportunity for this kind of transparent feedback
for the Board on selecting a new ED, and in that light I just want to say
thanks to the Board and to Sue for doing this the right way.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-03-23 Thread Steven Walling
On Saturday, March 23, 2013, ENWP Pine wrote:

 Tilman,

 Thanks, it's great to see the momentum here in Mobile Contributions.

 Was there any discussion about how to convert the selfies uploaders and
 people who sign up for the watchlist
 feature into more active contributors? This seems like an opportunity to
 make progress on what I think should
 be the #1 WMF-wide priority right now, which making progress on the active
 contributor statistics.

 Pine


This is very interesting to all of us on the Product team, because we think
a lot about how to convert high quality contributors on every feature,
mobile and desktop.

Converting users who signed up with one set of intentions to do something
even slightly different can be a very difficult thing. This is why, for
example, AFT5 users who accept a call to sign up edit at dismal rates
compared to natural converts to registered editing. In product
development we ideally prefer to think of ways to attract and support users
who are interested in a useful activity, rather than say, try to turn
readers who want a reading list into editors using a watchlist. Making that
conceptual shift is a big ask for people with no prior experience editing.

The selfies group is an interesting example to talk about because these
people clearly are open to contributing. I would venture that they just
have the wrong mental model for what a useful photo is. Maryana and the
design team have been working on a mobile intro to contributing photos
that I think is a really great example of how to not just build in the base
functionality of something like mobile photo uploads, but actually try to
target new users who have the right motivations and concepts about the
feature. I'm sure Maryana, Vibha, and Munaf could expand on this more. :-)



 --

 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:32:54 -0700
 From: Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org javascript:;
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
 
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF
 initiatives
 Message-ID:
 CAPDdKA6M+PLM7OHfJNKQcNVp_cS0EUEeBMATjvS=
 jjydv01...@mail.gmail.com javascript:;
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

 Minutes and links to slides from this week's Quarterly Review meeting
 of the mobile contributions team have been posted at

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Mobile_contributions,_2013-03-18


 On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  Hi folks,
 
  to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
  corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
  and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
  starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
  to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
  Board [1]:
 
  - Visual Editor
  - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
  - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
  - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity
 
  I'm proposing the following initial schedule:
 
  January:
  - Editor Engagement Experiments
 
  February:
  - Visual Editor
  - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)
 
  March:
  - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
  - Funds Dissemination Committee
 
  We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
  metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
  their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
  otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
  also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.
 
  My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
  review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
  meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
  discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
  which we can use to discuss the concept further:
 
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
 
  The internal review will, at minimum, include:
 
  Sue Gardner
  myself
  Howie Fung
  Team members and relevant director(s)
  Designated minute-taker
 
  So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
  Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.
 
  I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
  duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:
 
  - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
  compared with goals
  - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
  - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
  - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
  action items
  - Buffer time, debriefing
 
  Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
  structures for internal accountability, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Global bans RFC closed

2013-03-03 Thread Steven Walling
On Mar 3, 2013 1:47 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hmm. There were 77 comments in support, and 68 comments in opposition,
 but it was closed as supporting the global bans policy in its current
 form. Interesting.

Note the comments for the second option were to support the position that
the policy needed revision. Essentially it means not yet, not I oppose
global bans . There were only 17 comments in favor of having no policy
whatsoever. The RFC was originally drafted without the third option because
the terms of use approved by the Board includes reference to a community
policy about global bans. While the mere concept of global bans is clearly
distasteful to some, it has and will still happen in very rare occasions.
There's no putting the genie back in the lamp. In light of that, I think
it's a good thing that there is a  consensus decision-making process
outlined for how to do it.


 On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
  This RFC has previously been discussed on this list. The RFC is now
closed.
 
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_bans
 
  Pine
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: IRC office hours with the Editor Engagement Experiments team

2013-02-06 Thread Steven Walling
Reminder that this is happening later today.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:57 PM
Subject: IRC office hours with the Editor Engagement Experiments team
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Hi all,

This Wednesday at 22:00 UTC,[1] there will be an open discussion in
#wikimedia-office with our team, Editor Engagement Experiments.[2]

We've launched several new features since our last office hours --
including interactive guided tours and a getting started page for
newly-registered Wikipedians. We'll likely discuss these projects,
including testing results so far, as well as any questions people might
have.

Thanks,

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_engagement_experiments



-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours with the Editor Engagement Experiments team

2013-02-04 Thread Steven Walling
Hi all,

This Wednesday at 22:00 UTC,[1] there will be an open discussion in
#wikimedia-office with our team, Editor Engagement Experiments.[2]

We've launched several new features since our last office hours --
including interactive guided tours and a getting started page for
newly-registered Wikipedians. We'll likely discuss these projects,
including testing results so far, as well as any questions people might
have.

Thanks,

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_engagement_experiments
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2013-01-20 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Following up on this...

The Editor Engagement Experiments team had the first one of these with Erik
and Sue last Tuesday (the 15th). Tilman was there to take notes, and I
published our slide deck, so there is a transcript and PDF to review for
those interested at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editor_engagement_experiments

Erik will likely share some notes soon on how he and Sue want to rejigger
the meeting structure based on this first try. Overall it was helpful for
all parties, but obviously in a meeting this long and covering this kind of
material, adjustments can and should be made.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikivoyage: Chance, bore, or hazard

2013-01-12 Thread Steven Walling
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nlwrote:

 Dear colleagues,

 Since November 2012, Wikivoyage is a part of the Wikimedia movement. I
 have come to some thoughts about this old/new project, both from the
 perspective of a collaborator and from the perspective of the
 movement.

 Chance:
 Wikivoyage has a huge potential; it may open the movement for new
 collaborators who were not attracted enough by Wikipedia. There is
 still low hanging fruit, and there are working chapters - and the WMF
 - to support the new family member. Integrating Wikivoyage is also a
 challenge for the movement, it has to prove that it is capable to do
 so. (And recommend itself for other wikis to join.)

 Bore:
 But, if Wikivoyage fails to make use of its potential, it will be one
 more Wikimedia wiki rather small and limited in range, such as
 Wikiquote or Wikinews. A community grown over the years may be good in
 binding (linking the existing members to each other), but less in
 bridging (being open for new members and contacting others). We see
 the same phenomenon (that new people find it difficult their way, or
 are even expelled more or less explicitly) also with Wikipedia, but on
 a much higher level. Also Wikipedia loses community members slowly,
 with difficulties acquiring new ones.

 Hazard:
 Wikipedia developed a lot of rules over the years, often after heavy
 debates and scandals. For example, the Seigenthaler incident and other
 cases of calumny led to the policy about Biographies of Living People.
 Wikivoyage has still a rather limited set of rules, and wishes to
 remain so. Wikipedia is neutral, Wikipedia uses references, while
 Wikivoyage allows to criticize e.g. a restaurant and does not require
 a source. But where is the limit between exercising one's freedom of
 speech and libel? Scandals can backfire to the whole movement.

 In my humble opinion, this is a good moment for Wikivoyagers (old and
 new ones alike) to engage in discussions about style, limitations,
 good practices, and improve the site to make it newbies easier to
 join. With the good will from all sides, Wikivoyage should become a
 chance for the movement rather than anything else.

 Kind regards
 Ziko


Thanks for the thoughtful commentary Ziko.

As one step toward properly welcoming Wikivoyagers... are many of them on
this list? It would be cool to get some replies and short introductions
from those that are. :)

It might also be good to cross-post this to the Traveller's Pub in English,
German, and others we can.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Aaron Swartz is dead

2013-01-12 Thread Steven Walling
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:

 Official statement from the family:

 http://soupsoup.tumblr.com/**post/40373383323/official-**
 statement-from-the-family-and-**partner-ofhttp://soupsoup.tumblr.com/post/40373383323/official-statement-from-the-family-and-partner-of

 I hope someone will perhaps write a blog post for the Wikimedia blog about
 his impact on the Wikimedia and free knowledge movement. This could be a
 community project.

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Bloghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Blog

 -Sarah


I do not know about a blog post, but a few San Francisco Wikimedians
(myself included) are exploring the possibility of holding a quiet,
respectful open house next week in honor of Aaron, hosted at the Foundation.

I should emphasize that we haven't decided yet, since if Creative Commons
or the EFF are holding events of any kind, we will likely defer to
supporting that, rather than holding anything separately. I will keep folks
posted.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Featuring the edit tab in Vector (by making it red)

2013-01-09 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Matthew Roth mr...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Steven's link, without the extra is in it:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_engagement_experiments


Thanks Matthew. :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-04 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:

  It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
  arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
  funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
  way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
  their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
  others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.

 I do agree that better mechanisms for dispute resolution, dealing with
 topic warring, article ownership, and plain old incivility are needed.
 But I don't believe that those issues are at the heart of the editor
 retention problem as you seem to suggest, but rather, that they tend
 to occur later in the editor lifecycle, among a subset of editors
 which in fact already has survived many of the primary factors that
 deter new editors and are therefore relatively likely to retain. The
 new editor experience is characterized more by templating and assembly
 line style enforcement of existing policies than it is by incivility,
 topic warring, article ownership and incivility.

 I'm wondering whether the key findings in Halfaker's recent rise and
 decline paper resonate with you:
 http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/

 Existing data like the above supports strongly the notion that
 well-intentioned, good faith contributors are much more heavily
 discouraged in 2012 than they were in 2004 or 2005, but this can be
 explained in significant part with the influx of bad faith
 contributors that have necessitated increasingly heavy handed ways to
 control against bad edits (Huggle, Twinkle, AbuseFilter, etc.) --
 which catch good faith editors in the crossfire -- as well as
 increasing expectations of what constitutes an acceptable quality edit
 / page creation.

 In an environment where most folks who show up want to help, it's easy
 to be welcoming and supportive of new contributors. As Wikipedia had
 to deal with more and more spammers, crackpots and assholes, while
 simultaneously being more and more scrutinized in terms of quality and
 reliability, new users have increasingly been seen as guilty until
 proven innocent and are dealt not so much in a deliberately uncivil,
 but more in an assembly line robotic fashion that's highly
 discouraging. Templating with standard messages, no matter how
 friendly, is much more common than explicit incivility toward a new
 user and lack of any form of personal encouragement or gratitude.

 If that is correct, then the answer -- at least for very new users --
 isn't first and foremost a more disciplined enforcement of existing
 policies. Rather, new editors are simply treated in a manner that's
 discouraging more than it is encouraging, without that treatment being
 in violation of any policy -- indeed, with various policies in fact
 calling for precisely such discouraging actions to be taken in order
 to preserve quality, to enforce notability and sourcing policies, etc.

 The answer, then, is to find ways to make the new user experience more
 encouraging and pleasurable, such as:

 * simplifying the interface so that we can at least get rid of
 technical reasons that lead to early edits being unsuccessful and
 reverted (Visual Editor, talk page replacement, notifications, etc.);
 * making it easy to find things to do that are relatively low-risk
 (something the E3 team is experimenting with right now) so that new
 editors can have a more ladder-like experience of becoming good
 contributors;
 * guiding the new user in a clear and instructive manner, and pointing
 them to places where they can get help from another human being (cf.
 Teahouse)

 More disruptive technical solutions could include:

 * safer alternative work/collaboration spaces that don't suffer from
 the contention issues of the main article space (sandboxes on
 steroids)
 * easier ways for new users to re-do an edit that has been reverted
 (cf. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Improve_your_edit )
 * real-time mechanisms for coaching, collaboration (chat, real-time
 collaborative editing) and mentor matchmaking

 More disruptive policy-level changes would include rethinking some of
 the more problematic quality-related policies, especially notability.

 That's not to say that we should ignore the deeper social issues that
 arise in maintaining a universal encyclopedia in a radically open
 manner (and indeed, the community has learned, evolved and continually
 improved its ways of dealing with those issues). But most new users
 give up well before encountering those issues. When new editors
 complain about Wikipedia being mean, they complain more often about
 reverts, templating, deletion nominations, etc. -- none of which are
 in fact inherently uncivil according to Wikipedia's own policies,
 but rather part of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-04 Thread Steven Walling
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:

 With respect to welcoming and assisting new users on the English
 Wikipedia where there is a bewildering volume of varied activity by new
 and experienced users it might be helpful if we had a recent changes
 options that showed only edit by new editors with less than say 100 edits
 that could be monitored. Newbie helpers could then welcome, comment,
 compliment, or otherwise assist the new user. Obviously access to such a
 recent changes option by those looking for trouble could also be used in
 ways that would discourage the new user. Perhaps access could be limited
 to only flagged newbie helpers.


These aren't power tools like what vandalfighters have in Huggle or
Twinkle, but I would check out the two following feeds of new editor
activity, if you want to give this kind of task a try:

-- 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributionscontribs=newbiewhich
shows newbie edits of all sorts
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:FeedbackDashboard which shows the
positive, negative, and just plain confused comments by new editors who
have at least clicked the edit button once. This one in particular needs
attention from thoughtful, experienced contributors.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-03 Thread Steven Walling
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
 arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
 funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
 way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
 their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
 others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.


Right! Because we all know the solution to social problems is oligarchy.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?

2012-12-28 Thread Steven Walling
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value
 goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to
 optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run
 the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use
 the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be
 competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be
 jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and
 engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low
 risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation?


I would prefer all Wikimedia organizations continue to make decisions based
on what we really want to get done (i.e. our strategic goals and
priorities), then find the money to do those things. Not the other way
around.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2012-12-19 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee


We've been talking about this on the Editor Engagement Experiments team,
and within the wider product group in WMF engineering, for at least a
couple weeks now. I just wanted to say that this is a great step forward,
and that the E3 team is quite happy to be first in line. It's great to have
a chance to put our experimental data and analysis in front of both the
people doing the review, and anyone who might read the public notes. An
enormous amount of work goes in to data collection and the production of
reliable, understandable results, so it's good to have another venue to
discuss it.


 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing


One quick item of clarification here Erik: does Discussion of proposed
changes mean proposals by the team, or proposals by those on the review
panel?



 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners are too bright, too long

2012-12-02 Thread Steven Walling
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:

  They are now expanded
 by default


Not //quite// the case, actually. So far as I can see, the banners slide
open when you mouse over them, but stay closed by default.

I think it's kind of bad tactic, since it defies user expectations that
actions are triggered by clicks, not on hover. But it is fairly common
among some advertisers. One thing that might balance this out would be
making the close icon more high profile (previous banners have had a proper
icon, rather than a simple letter-like X).

One plus: the new dropdown takes up less space on the page than the
previous version, since the Jimmy appeal seems to be either removed or
squashed to a smaller size.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Reminder: IRC office hours about account creation and login redesign

2012-12-01 Thread Steven Walling
This is happening in just a few minutes.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org
Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Subject: IRC office hours about account creation and login redesign
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Hi all,

As you might have noticed, especially if you're an English Wikipedian, the
 Editor Engagement Experiments team has been working on redesigning the
user experience of account creation, A/B testing new designs and
functionality for the past couple months.

We finished our final A/B test last week,[1] and we're now moving on to
make the features which tested well permanent.[2] In order to make sure
that the experience of signup and login are consistent, we also plan to
make some changes to the design of login.[3]

In order to answer any questions people might have and gather feedback,
we're holding the first office hours about our redesign work. We also plan
to enable the test version of the new account creation experience at 100%
(rather than 50/50, as previously) so that people can give it a try.

When: Saturday December 1, 2012. 19:00-20:00 UTC. Time conversion links
etc. are on Meta.[4]
Where: #wikimedia-office

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Account_creation_UX
2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Account_creation_user_experience
3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Login
4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours




-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours about account creation and login redesign

2012-11-28 Thread Steven Walling
Hi all,

As you might have noticed, especially if you're an English Wikipedian, the
 Editor Engagement Experiments team has been working on redesigning the
user experience of account creation, A/B testing new designs and
functionality for the past couple months.

We finished our final A/B test last week,[1] and we're now moving on to
make the features which tested well permanent.[2] In order to make sure
that the experience of signup and login are consistent, we also plan to
make some changes to the design of login.[3]

In order to answer any questions people might have and gather feedback,
we're holding the first office hours about our redesign work. We also plan
to enable the test version of the new account creation experience at 100%
(rather than 50/50, as previously) so that people can give it a try.

When: Saturday December 1, 2012. 19:00-20:00 UTC. Time conversion links
etc. are on Meta.[4]
Where: #wikimedia-office

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Account_creation_UX
2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Account_creation_user_experience
3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Login
4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] #switch limits

2012-09-20 Thread Steven Walling
Template authors on any and every wiki, this one's for you. ;)

-- Forwarded message --
From: Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org
Date: Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] #switch limits
To: wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org


Over the last week, we have noticed very heavy apache memory usage on
the main Wikimedia cluster. In some cases, high memory usage resulted
in heavy swapping and site-wide performance issues.

After some analysis, we've identified the main cause of this high
memory usage to be geographical data (données) templates on the
French Wikipedia, and to a lesser extent, the same data templates
copied to other wikis for use on articles about places in Europe.

Here is an example of a problematic template:


https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mod%C3%A8le:Donn%C3%A9es_PyrF1-2009action=edit


That template alone uses 47MB for 37000 #switch cases, and one article
used about 15 similarly sized templates.

The simplest solution to this problem is for the few Wikipedians
involved to stop doing what they are doing, and to remove the template
invocations which have already been introduced. Antoine Musso has
raised the issue on the French Wikipedia's Bistro and some of the
worst cases have already been fixed.

To protect site stability, I've introduced a new preprocessor
complexity limit called the preprocessor generated node count, which
is incremented by about 6 for each #switch case. When the limit is
exceeded, an exception is thrown, preventing the page from being saved
or viewed.

The limit is currently 4 million (~667,000 #switch cases), and it will
soon be reduced to 1.5 million (~250,000 #switch cases). That's a
compromise which allows most of the existing geographical pages to
keep working, but still allows a memory usage of about 230MB.

At some point, we would like to patch PHP upstream to cause memory for
DOM XML trees to be allocated from the PHP request pool, instead of
with malloc(). But to deploy that, we would need to reduce the limit
to the point where the template DOM cache can easily fit in the PHP
memory limit of 128MB.

In the short term, we will be working with the template editors to
ensure that all articles can be viewed with a limit of 1.5 million.
That's not a very viable solution in the long term, so I'd also like
to introduce save-time warnings and tracking categories for pages
which use more than, say, 50% of the limit, to encourage authors to
fix articles without being directly prompted by WMF staff members.

At some point in the future, you may be able to put this kind of
geographical data in Wikidata. Please, template authors, wait
patiently, don't implement your own version of Wikidata using wikitext
templates.

-- Tim Starling



___
Wikitech-l mailing list
wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] CNET News: Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia

2012-09-19 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 In the past, those conversations were short, and ended in a permaban (cf.
 Jimbo's past statements about blocking anyone offering commercial editing,
 cf. Kohs).

 Today, the people concerned are chapter trustees and Wikipedians in
 Residence.

 I would say things have changed.


Precisely. Kohs and his ilk never showed any interest in anything but
themselves, and fully merit permabans. People like Max and Roger may have
conflicts of interest, but at least they've contributed something that
doesn't end in them making a buck. That's how they got in positions like
chapter trustee and Wikipedian in Residence.

Which is not to say that the situation is ideal, nor that Sarah and others
are wrong to be nervous. If someone with a COI did something that was
inappropriate, I think it can and should be dealt with strictly and quickly
by the community, like always. But comments like the one you just made,
which are obviously designed to stir up some kind of moral panic, don't do
us any good.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing language wide

2012-09-19 Thread Steven Walling
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:

 Hello


 Is there a place (I looked on meta and saw nothing) where the situation
 with regards to paid editing or more generally the practices toward
 declaration of conflict of interest in all linguistic versions of Wikipedia
 summarized ?

 For example, I more or less know that the English version requires the
 user to not create an account with the name of his company; requires to
 basically mention when there is a potential COI; and ask preferably to edit
 talk pages rather than directly.

 I more or less know that the French version does not seem to care if
 accounts feature a company name (or rather a derivative version of the
 company name); that indicating a potential COI is better; but that directly
 editing the wikipedia page is fine.

 I have no idea how other languages deal with this.

 I was interviewed today by a journalist from a historian publication and
 she asked me what was the status of this for a couple of other languages,
 in particular Spanish and Italian (I guess she knew these languages, which
 I do not). I realized I had no idea

 If there is a Spanish and/or an Italian person around, I would be happy to
 know.

 But more generally, would not it be interesting to gather somewhere (uh,
 meta) the current practices with regards to COIs ?

 Florence


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_editing for a
placeholder.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] CNET News: Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia

2012-09-18 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:

  I don't know anything about this case, but it does seem that paid
 advocacy
 is increasing, and although the community seems opposed to it as a whole,
 that message isn't getting through to individual editors. It's becoming
 very discouraging to have to deal with it, or to edit alongside it.


Your concern is totally legit Sarah, but before we jump to saying paid
advocacy is actually increasing, I think it would be interesting to try and
think about whether it's merely that it's more prominent and open.

The kind of guidelines that PR orgs and Wikimedians are encouraging, such
as being transparent about a COI, could create the misperception that there
is more paid advocacy. Maybe it's just that we're actually starting to see
people be more open?

The thing that scares me the most is the kind of edits uncovered by
WikiScanner back in the day: those who are editing with a COI but who are
acting in secret. The thing that I don't even want to think about when it
comes to paid advocacy is how many skilled sockmasters are writing articles
that look okay but are really spam?

In short: I think people like Max and Roger, who make public declarations
about their identities and conflicts of interest, are not the ones who
scare me. We can always find those people and start a conversation with
them.

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


  1   2   >