I think it's a good question.
The first thing, I think, is to regain the community's trust, which has
been very badly damaged at this point. I only see one way for them to do
that, and that is to back off, sooner rather than later. Ensure the
community that this will not happen again, at least
No they're not. Just within the last month or thereabouts, the English
Wikipedia ArbCom desysopped three administrators. One for poor tool use and
communication, one for simple misuse and aggressive communication
afterward, and one for socking. Admins are by no means "immune to
I think that's true too; such things are very often used metaphorically. I
think everyone here is clear that no one is literally going to be drug off
in a white van by a balaclava-wearing goon squad from the WMF and sent to a
But the fact remains, those systems of justice are things we
alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> considered you to be.
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen wrote:
> > According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> > maintenance tagging two ar
ke myself (fifteen years), and community
> victims of harassment asking T for help.
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen wrote:
> > "Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> > all these discussions would not have been d
"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes,
, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen wrote:
> > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
> > Bad!"
> > If you don't want your ar
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
I don't believe we can presume everyone who hasn't participated in the
discussion would like to disagree but is afraid to.
Among all active contributors, I suspect non-participants are mostly a mix
of unaware of the issue, don't have a strong opinion about the issue, don't
If you're suggesting we become in any way like Facebook, Twitter, or
Flickr...then, please, gods help us no.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:34 PM Andy Mabbett
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen wrote:
> > It is not always necessary for everyone to se
That one I'll give you. I suppose we could all turn it down a couple
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Robert Fernandez
> But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic?
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen wrote:
> > I think that's more
ncy as you define it in
> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
> harassment and sexual abuse. This process involves multiple layers of
> investigation and approval. The only thing it lacks is the ability
> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's vic
These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone.
Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to
anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But
it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to
They certainly don't have the expertise. Most of them aren't regular
participants on the English Wikipedia, and even those who are often dial
back after joining the WMF. The most relevant expertise is participation in
the project itself, and familiarity with how things are supposed to be done
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement for
nonpublic information (
, as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the
English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and
I wouldn't even have any idea what I'd need to do to be a sysop on Commons.
I frequently do find copyvio images and nominate them for deletion on
Commons while working on the English Wikipedia spam queue (and yes, I'm
familiar with copyright law, and they have all, to my knowledge, indeed
I'm not even aware that we'd be subject to GPDR.
We already allow removal of personal information in some cases (outing by
others, accidentally revealing one's IP address, etc.). If we were going to
allow it in any case that doesn't happen today, that would need to be
agreed to by the community,
"Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too.
Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it
can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced,
we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already
We should no more follow French censorship laws than we should follow
Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance with the laws in
On Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:53 PM sashi wrote:
> I am writing to ask if there are any plans to
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > &
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
Fae, I really like that flowchart. Is it linked somewhere that uploaders
can see it?
On Mar 15, 2018 7:09 AM, "Fæ" wrote:
> 1. Happy to rediscover Clipboard History plugin in Chrome. It saves
> the frustration of hunting around, or rewording, a reusable snippet of
Yes, and then there's always the question. If he's getting paid, why aren't
I? Why is he getting paid per word of article translated? Why am I not
getting paid per spamvertisement deleted or vandal blocked? Why am I not
getting paid for closing discussions that it takes hours of reading input
It is rather unfortunate that we went ahead with things like "Wikipedia
Zero" without objection. It rather undermines our moral authority to demand
net neutrality, and now that's really needed. Someone could easily say "But
you support non-neutral schemes when it benefits you!", and not be far
> >> "This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some
> > > >> stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD
> > > >> everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
> > > >>
> > > >>
Is that still going on?
I'm against sexism and all for improving coverage of women on Wikipedia.
I've helped to encourage events toward that end, and they've turned out
pretty well. We now have quite a few more articles, for example, on women
involved as pioneers in outdoor sports and activities
If I misread that part, my apologies. That still doesn't change the core
issue, that money is being offered, and that it's being offered for
quantity rather than quality.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Gergo Tisza <gti...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:04 AM, T
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
> I didn't. I'm calling out the
Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
We've already had horrible projects to write tons of stubs before, like the
"place" bots. And in those cases, we'd know at least roughly what they
would do and how.
This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118
Will there be anything available for editors who will not be able to view
or participate in the event when it is live?
Also, Youtube has seemed to be under criticism lately for taking steps to
not allow all features of its site to be accessible to those of all views,
and regardless is certainly
Andy (or Fae), if you've corresponded with them, could you please post that
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Great to see this, thanks!
On Aug 18, 2017 5:15 PM, "Danny Horn" wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> The Community Tech team has released a new security feature this week:
> LoginNotify, which gives you a notification when someone tries and fails to
> log in to your account.
I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points (NPOV,
copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
community needs. And a project with thirty users and a thousand articles
will not be well
With the recent ruling about ISPs being allowed to collect and sell user
data in the US, we're at "highly exceptional circumstances". Good Internet
citizens allow anonymous participation. We can soft block them, but surely
we can revert vandals and block their accounts.
If we can't even manage
They pay them quite a lot. Youtube allows rights holders to put ads on
content that's theirs and collect the money from them instead of having
them taken down, if they want to.
This is nothing more than another swipe at fair use. Automated systems
cannot tell the difference between a full on
I think it depends how it's being used. If the nonfree content is presented
as an integral part of the interface, such as inline with the article,
that's a problem. On the other hand, if the interface just allows the
separate Apple Maps to be pulled up, that's a bit different. We frequently
Could we set it up so that the uploader could set their preferred
"Attribute me as..." text, if they want something different from the
default? And make the facilities for generating it automatically more
That would both help good faith uploaders to get better compliance without
Thanks for the specific examples.
I'm not a German speaker, and I know context and nuance can be lost in
machine translation. That being said, the one about someone who was
offering attribution and then got slapped with a bill for a simple
technical error is very disturbing. Especially since as
photo as a business model.
> (again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the
> 2017-03-02 14:50 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>:
> > The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give
The CC-BY-SA license asks for a basic courtesy: You give an acknowledgement
to the person who graciously let you use their work totally free.
It takes all of five seconds to add "Photo by ___" to a caption. It
takes very little more to add a note that the photo is CC licensed. I can
The idea was floated that since discussion has taken place on individual
sections, discussion was not needed for the final document. I did not see
any indication that this was the final decision on the matter. Though
clarification would be quite appreciated.
On Feb 26, 2017 5:12 PM, "Pine
I think we definitely should think about next steps if the draft fails to
gain consensus. (And, for that matter, if it does get consensus, there will
be a lot of followup work in that case too.)
But if it fails, one of the most important questions will be "Why did
people object to this and how
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, I had no idea it was going on until very recently. It seems the
> > initial communications were pretty much restricted to those alr
Actually, I had no idea it was going on until very recently. It seems the
initial communications were pretty much restricted to those already
involved in technical areas or mailing lists.
"The community", when we're talking about something that will affect
everyone, means, well, everyone who
And a partridge in a pear tree?
But seriously. This is exactly what I was afraid of with opening the door
to political advocacy.
On Feb 6, 2017 2:24 PM, "James Salsman" wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi
I don't think anyone is disputing the facts. I'm certainly not. And I am
gravely concerned by what's being done, and I entirely oppose it.
However, that doesn't mean I want to see WMF used as a political
mouthpiece, even when what's being said happens to be things I fully agree
Before starting down the path of wording banners, let's decide if we want
them at all.
Almost every political issue can be tangentially related to Wikimedia
projects. The question needs to be if it's a major existential issue. SOPA
was such a thing, it was a direct threat to the core mission of
So now I'm put into the awkward position of having to agree with
essentially everything the post said, and still have to disagree with it
having been made.
The WMF should not be taking political stances without input and consensus
from the community. Period. If it thought it needed to in this
I think that's an interesting thought in general, but what used to be true
still is today. Europe in general, and the UK in particular, has
significantly weaker free speech guarantees than the US does. This
manifests in quite a few ways, from "hate speech" to "right to be
The issue is not just in the current post, but that this is, I believe, the
third or so time that the same person has brought up the subject in as many
days. Bringing a subject up once is one thing. Bringing it up repeatedly is
inherently discourteous because it clogs the mailing list.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:01 AM, James Salsman wrote:
> Should the Foundation take a position on a general strike?
> I know this is an unusual
These are all very nice sentiments. But they're phrased in very vague ways.
Is there anywhere we can see the actual concrete plan for the use of these
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Samantha Lien wrote:
> This press release is also available online here:
What you posted there regards contract terms between the artist and
Youtube. That's between them to fight out. If they don't like Youtube's
terms, they can take their stuff elsewhere.
DMCA safe harbor has nothing to do with contracts. It means that, if you
run an interactive web site
In addition, we'd be making significantly more difficult the detection and
mitigation of abusive anonymous editing. Currently, when someone edits as
an IP, gets blocked, resets their router, and changes the last octet, we
can easily tell they're socking around a block. And to mitigate that, we
Yeah, there just might be a few of us around here who participate on
Wikipedia and Quora both. Not that I'd know anyone like that. :)
Congratulations on the new position.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> Congratulations, Ms. Battles!
I think making available and funding conflict resolution training is a good
idea (provided it's available online of course, it would not be reasonable
to expect a worldwide group of people to physically attend it). Making it
mandatory via a grant is a nonstarter, though, adminship standards are a
I appreciate that you've put forth this account. That's in no way facetious
or just a pretext, I am actually very glad to see someone speak to this.
I'd like, however, to suggest what would actually begin the process of
healing, since that's your intent. Most of us knew at least more or
I won't take a position on this particular issue, since I rarely visit
Commons, but "Ignore all rules" should categorically not be taken as
"Ignore consensus" or "Ignore other editors". That way lies madness.
On Mar 14, 2016 2:11 PM, "Philippe Beaudette" wrote:
Welcome, and best of luck in your new role. I'm very pleased indeed to hear
that it will be you to fill it.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Katherine Maher
> Thank you, Patricio.
> I want to thank the Board for this opportunity, and for their
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 29 February 2016 at 19:10, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > No. You are either transparent and honest, or you are not.
> > Andreas
> > ___
Your second citation didn't at all match what I recall Jimmy saying on the
subject, so I went and read it. Even the specific email you cite is not, in
any way, "...arguing the case against
introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services...". Some quotes
from the email you cited:
It may be that at this point, reinstating James would not be a terribly
feasible idea, even if it is a nice thought. And, well, it's a volunteer
position. I wouldn't blame him at all if he's no longer even willing to
serve in that role.
I think, however, that the suggestions that have been put
It's very good to know that those changes are being considered at all. I do
tend to agree with Andreas about two chapter seats being a slight
overrepresentation, but I think there should be one.
If I were to make my ideal board (and I realize you may have something else
in mind, but
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised either. Can't discuss details for obvious
reasons, but some of the stuff I saw while on the ArbCom would really make
your hair curl. Trolls can get pretty vicious.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Tobias
So, why not make the best of both worlds?
If you need another Trustee immediately, well...I don't really think that,
you have a quorum without it. And an appointed trustee who lost a community
election is not a community elected trustee. It is insulting to say that
they are. James Heilman was the
I'm glad you've decided to join the discussion. (And do appreciate it; I'm
sure by now you know exactly what you're walking into.)
I don't, however, see that your statement says much. The heart of the issue
is that you assisted in implementing and enforcing a "no poaching"
We are not "seeing movement" by a vague statement of "we're working on it".
In the case of James Heilman, they said essentially the same thing. What
resulted was a vague statement that used a lot of words to say nothing at
all. There needs to be full disclosure and specifics, not a lot of waffle.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who would feel uncomfortable with that.
So if something like that were to be done, people should certainly be asked
first, and that only be done if they explicitly agree.
Still, I think a lot of others would feel like their efforts are being
Once the VisualEditor was fit for purpose and a good deployment strategy
had been developed, the English Wikipedia community overwhelmingly
supported rolling it out. (
Folks (WMF board, and those closely related), do we really have to hold a
vote of no confidence to get your attention? Do you have any doubt that
Absent that, please start listening to the volunteers. Listening, as in
doing what they'd like you to do. Otherwise, I'll be putting forth
I wonder how many ways there are to say "No"? Well, let's start with "no".
(My actual thoughts on this idea would probably get me put on moderation,
so I'll refrain.)
I helped build this project to be freely available to all reusers for all
purposes. The WMF's job should be to provide as many
There is still a significant problem the Board does have, though.
"Chapter/thorg selected seats" are not community seats. And we've recently
found out that none of the seats at all are actually considered to be
community-selected, and that a community elected board member can be
I think Fae's frustration (and everyone else's) is quite understandable. I
understand your concern with keeping the discussion civil, but there does
come a time to move from "Please provide more information about this" to
"Stop stonewalling and giving nonanswers, and tell us what in the hell is
Now this is something that's worthy of being dismissed (involuntarily, if
necessary) from the WMF board. This individual clearly does not meet our
community values of transparency and honesty, or at least such is in
Is the Board considering doing so, or reading this at all? It's
Are either of these trustees occupying the seat formerly occupied by James
On Jan 5, 2016 6:01 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" wrote:
> Dear all,
> As Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board Governance Committee, I am happy
> to introduce the two newest members
Jimmy Wales stated that the Board would work with James to provide a
statement. Could you please make clear if the final statement issued is
something he agreed to?
On Jan 1, 2016 1:15 AM, "geni" wrote:
> On 31 December 2015 at 13:02, Patricio Lorente
I don't think it's a "silly idea" to immediately notify 1800+ voters that
they've been overruled by 8 people. I think it's something the Board
should've been prepared to do at once, with a full and complete rationale.
Instead, we keep hearing patronizing "Oh, we'll give you more information
I think the expectation is that, unless this truly was an emergency that
required immediate and unforeseen action, planning would have been done in
advance for the possible outcomes.
That wouldn't be making it a foregone conclusion, as Jimmy said. There
should have been plans for how to
It's more complex if they've acted illegally, certainly. Under the law
they're citing, it looks like they have. Since community directors are
elected by a "class" (editors meeting the eligibility requirements), the
law states removal would be possible only by that class, one would presume
Even if there are legal reasons that disclosure is not possible, a simple
statement to that effect ("For legal reasons, we cannot provide additional
information") should be at the very least forthcoming.
If the removal was "not for cause", which apparently is allowed, that
should be explicitly
I join everyone else here in hoping we'll be hearing a very good reason for
this. I understand it may not be possible (or wise) for Doc James to
provide that, but it certainly shouldn't be done for simple differences of
On Dec 28, 2015 4:17 PM, "SarahSV" wrote:
If he were in favor, it would've been a simple resignation. I'm not sure
why it's surprising he would oppose it.
On Dec 28, 2015 6:39 PM, "Ilario Valdelli" wrote:
> On 29.12.2015 02:17, MZMcBride wrote:
>> ; Approved: Patricio Lorente, Alice Wiegand, Frieda Brioschi,
Buying a photo, when we have ready access to massive amounts of freely
usable content, would be quite unacceptable and a misuse of funds, no
matter the amount of the funds. I hope someone can actually clarify what
Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page.
uot;Andreas Kolbe" <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's
> > really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow accept
Yes indeed, thank you.
On Nov 5, 2015 10:36 AM, "Quim Gil" wrote:
> Superprotect  was introduced by the Wikimedia Foundation to resolve a
> product development disagreement. We have not used it for resolving a
> dispute since. Consequently, today we are removing
If you've had some users requesting such a feature, could it perhaps be
added as an opt-in preference setting? I'd be very annoyed by such a
feature if it couldn't be disabled, and many might just be confused by it.
On Oct 29, 2015 2:08 PM, "Romaine Wiki" wrote:
> That is
Will any consideration be given toward selecting a new leader for the
engineering team who has been an active volunteer with a Wikimedia project
for some period of time?
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I wanted to let
Tone deafness of the WMF, and thank my phone for silly spelling.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
You're talking to one now, and I know several others. Now speaking for me,
I would never want to be VP of anything, and so I'm certainly not asking
Well, let's not forget the big picture.
For all the bickering and squabbling it might have entailed, for all the
stumbles that might have happened in the process, the lot of us have
created the largest and probably most significant educational work in the
history of the world. And we've done it
Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
(which is a clear violation of net neutrality).
Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not
favoring -any- service over any
This is indeed an accomplishment. Well due congratulations to all involved.
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:47 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree all Wikipedia articles are sort of peer reviewed. When I speak
about GA/FA I refer to it as Wikipedia's semi-formal peer review process.
This was testing done right. The feature was offered as opt in and clearly
marked as beta. A bug was found and quickly fixed. When you're testing beta
software, you have to expect bugs.
We've been quick enough to knock rollouts done poorly or made default with
inadequate testing, and should be.
I think that would be very helpful indeed. This part of the article was
most recently discussed under subject Stop changing the genre. Click here
to review or participate in the discussion.
On Sep 10, 2014 11:38 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org
On 10 September 2014 04:58,
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a
structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
build new features and flows on
I think a lot of reasons for the document mode commenting system got
missed. But there are very good reasons we must retain that.
One huge thing is that article talk pages are not only for discussions, but
also for metadata (article assessments, history, Wikiproject data, as
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote:
fter the catastrophic
aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that
On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above.
en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the WMF
shrugged and said Nah, rather
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
You can start by asking around in your own circle of aquaintance, and I'll
bet that such research will make you quickly realize that hard stats will
be very hard to discover, since in my circle, most of the women I know are
I think, especially given that the Foundation has indicated some
willingness to review their stance regarding such community initiatives,
it's time to revisit the idea of a time-limited trial of restricting
mainspace new page creation to autoconfirmed (and manually confirmed)
editors. The concern
I've found one very recently, actually, or at least if there is an opt-out
it's very opaque.
I use the desktop interface on my mobile. I've no intention of ever
changing that. There used to be an option that permanently disabled mobile
interface for a given browser (I presume via a persistent
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo