Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

2019-06-16 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-15 Thread Todd Allen
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 sanctions"; if

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-15 Thread Todd Allen
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 gulag. But the fact remains, those systems of justice are things we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
"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 stop it." First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
, 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
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 articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-12 Thread Todd Allen
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 understand what's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-12 Thread Todd Allen
If you're suggesting we become in any way like Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr...then, please, gods help us no. Todd On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:34 PM Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen wrote: > > > It is not always necessary for everyone to se

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-12 Thread Todd Allen
That one I'll give you. I suppose we could all turn it down a couple notches. Todd On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Robert Fernandez wrote: > But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic? > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen wrote: > > > > I think that's more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-12 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-12 Thread Todd Allen
Robert, 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-12 Thread Todd Allen
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 on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-11 Thread Todd Allen
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

2019-05-12 Thread Todd Allen
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 been

Re: [Wikimedia-l] GDPR and Wikimedia content?

2018-05-28 Thread Todd Allen
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

2018-05-27 Thread Todd Allen
"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 publicly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

2018-05-25 Thread Todd Allen
We should no more follow French censorship laws than we should follow Turkish ones. All editors are responsible for compliance with the laws in their jurisdiction. Todd On Fri, May 25, 2018, 12:53 PM sashi wrote: > Hello, > > I am writing to ask if there are any plans to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

2018-05-12 Thread Todd Allen
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 > > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

2018-05-10 Thread Todd Allen
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation. If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ¿Qué te hace feliz esta semana? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 11 March 2018)

2018-03-15 Thread Todd Allen
Fae, I really like that flowchart. Is it linked somewhere that uploaders can see it? Todd 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 >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid translation

2018-02-24 Thread Todd Allen
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 and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality

2017-11-27 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-16 Thread Todd Allen
> >> "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? > > > >> > > > >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-16 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-15 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-15 Thread Todd Allen
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-15 Thread Todd Allen
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 editors

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Presenting Community Engagement Insights 2016-17 Report: Tuesday, Oct 10, 1600 UTC

2017-10-09 Thread Todd Allen
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

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

2017-08-19 Thread Todd Allen
Andy (or Fae), if you've corresponded with them, could you please post that correspondence here? Todd ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New feature: LoginNotify

2017-08-18 Thread Todd Allen
Great to see this, thanks! Todd 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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

2017-08-02 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's set up a Tor onion service for Wikipedia

2017-06-05 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] heads up: latest wacky jape from the music industry to whittle away DMCA safe harbours

2017-03-30 Thread Todd Allen
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

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

2017-03-10 Thread Todd Allen
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 link

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

2017-03-07 Thread Todd Allen
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 prominent? That would both help good faith uploaders to get better compliance without a lot

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

2017-03-05 Thread Todd Allen
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

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

2017-03-02 Thread Todd Allen
photo as a business model. > > (again: please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the core of the > discussion) > > Best, > Lodewijk > > 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

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

2017-03-02 Thread Todd Allen
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 see

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Todd Allen
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. Todd On Feb 26, 2017 5:12 PM, "Pine

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-24 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-21 Thread Todd Allen
Bernhardson < ebernhard...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-21 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-06 Thread Todd Allen
And a partridge in a pear tree? But seriously. This is exactly what I was afraid of with opening the door to political advocacy. Todd On Feb 6, 2017 2:24 PM, "James Salsman" wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi > wrote: > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Todd Allen
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 with. Todd

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] guidance from Foundation leadership as to where to draw the line on policy requests?

2017-02-02 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Publicpolicy] news events impacting the Foundation's ability to hire and its employees' ability to travel

2017-01-31 Thread Todd Allen
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 forgotten" to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Publicpolicy] news events impacting the Foundation's ability to hire and its employees' ability to travel

2017-01-31 Thread Todd Allen
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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should the Foundation take a position on a general strike?

2017-01-29 Thread Todd Allen
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 8:01 AM, James Salsman wrote: > Should the Foundation take a position on a general strike? > > https://twitter.com/trevortimm/status/825395993789157376 > > https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/825403294667436033 > > I know this is an unusual

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

2017-01-26 Thread Todd Allen
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 funds? Todd On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Samantha Lien wrote: > This press release is also available online here: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Music industry threats to safe harbor?

2016-12-19 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor safety and anonymity: ending IP address exposure?

2016-11-12 Thread Todd Allen
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 can

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Personal Update

2016-11-01 Thread Todd Allen
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. Todd On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote: > Congratulations, Ms. Battles! > > I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-10 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-07 Thread Todd Allen
Denny, 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disabe Media Viewer for non-logged-in users and logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons

2016-03-14 Thread Todd Allen
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: > Consensus

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] Wikimedia Foundation executive transition update

2016-03-10 Thread Todd Allen
Katherine, Welcome, and best of luck in your new role. I'm very pleased indeed to hear that it will be you to fill it. Todd On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Katherine Maher wrote: > Thank you, Patricio. > > I want to thank the Board for this opportunity, and for their

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

2016-02-29 Thread Todd Allen
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 > > ___ > > > > Or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

2016-02-28 Thread Todd Allen
Fae, 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:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

2016-02-27 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

2016-02-23 Thread Todd Allen
Dariusz, 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

2016-01-30 Thread Todd Allen
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. Todd On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Tobias wrote: > Right.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-01-29 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

2016-01-26 Thread Todd Allen
Hello Arnnon, 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"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

2016-01-22 Thread Todd Allen
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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A page about new editors in different projects

2016-01-21 Thread Todd Allen
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 noticed and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

2016-01-19 Thread Todd Allen
Once the VisualEditor was fit for purpose and a good deployment strategy had been developed, the English Wikipedia community overwhelmingly supported rolling it out. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_125#Gradually_enabling_VisualEditor_for_new_accounts )

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

2016-01-16 Thread Todd Allen
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 it'd pass? 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

2016-01-16 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

2016-01-09 Thread Todd Allen
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 removed without

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

2016-01-09 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

2016-01-08 Thread Todd Allen
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 serious question. Is the Board considering doing so, or reading this at all? It's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees

2016-01-05 Thread Todd Allen
Dariusz, Are either of these trustees occupying the seat formerly occupied by James Heilman? 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

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

2016-01-01 Thread Todd Allen
Patricio, 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

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

2015-12-30 Thread Todd Allen
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

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

2015-12-30 Thread Todd Allen
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

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

2015-12-29 Thread Todd Allen
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 by

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

2015-12-28 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board of Trustees

2015-12-28 Thread Todd Allen
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 opinion. On Dec 28, 2015 4:17 PM, "SarahSV" wrote: >

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

2015-12-28 Thread Todd Allen
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

2015-12-02 Thread Todd Allen
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 happened here. Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

2015-12-02 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect is gone

2015-11-05 Thread Todd Allen
Yes indeed, thank you. On Nov 5, 2015 10:36 AM, "Quim Gil" wrote: > Superprotect [1] 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next step in the development

2015-10-29 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in Engineering leadership

2015-07-02 Thread Todd Allen
Lila, 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? Thanks, Todd On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear all, I wanted to let

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in Engineering leadership

2015-07-02 Thread Todd Allen
... 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's cool?

2015-06-10 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] First Wikipedia Article has been Formally Peer Reviewed and Published

2014-10-04 Thread Todd Allen
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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Invitation to beta-test HHVM

2014-09-19 Thread Todd Allen
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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

2014-09-10 Thread Todd Allen
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 wrote: On 10 September 2014 04:58,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

2014-09-07 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

2014-09-06 Thread Todd Allen
Erik, 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 examples from

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-09-01 Thread Todd Allen
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 should have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-09-01 Thread Todd Allen
Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: 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. The en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the WMF shrugged and said Nah, rather

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-08-28 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] personally communicating with new editors (was: Re: editor retention initiatives)

2014-08-26 Thread Todd Allen
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-08-24 Thread Todd Allen
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   2   >