Really, there shouldn't be any "selection". All of the community questions
should be put over, and the candidates then may choose to answer any or all
of them. If a candidate does not answer a question, people can then take
from that what they will.
This is a community selection process. There is
pay to join, which is
> antithetical to the movement's philosophy.
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 13:41, Todd Allen wrote:
> > Why would we "not want it to be a membership organization"? In fact, many
> > of us want exactly that, since the WMF seem
Why would we "not want it to be a membership organization"? In fact, many
of us want exactly that, since the WMF seems to think it can lord it over
the communities instead of fulfilling its role of serving them.
The new Board rules basically say that the Board itself gets to say how the
Except, apparently, if someone says "fart". For godsakes, that's about the
mildest of language you could ask for. I could use far stronger about this
If the "UCoC" means that people can't say "fart" because someone might get
their feewings hurted, then I've very well been right to
Erm, wait. He said what, "fart"?
It's not a particularly good look for a WMF employee to be moderating
someone critiquing the WMF, especially when, while their statement may have
been strongly worded, it used pretty mild language. This should either be
undone, or at least decided upon by someone
It depends on the nature of the incident. If the harassment took place on
the wiki, yes, it should be reported via an on-wiki process since it does
not involve private information. On the English Wikipedia, that would
generally be AN/I.
If the harassment happened off-wiki (e.g., via harassing
gt; > > Best
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:55 PM Anders Wennersten <
> > > m...@anderswennersten.se>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you choose to not take active part in he strategy process it it
> Den 2020-07-31 kl. 17:28, skrev Todd Allen:
> > Where was the public RfC that these "700 individuals" participated in?
> > one I saw, which took place on Meta, was, again, a very firm "No".
> > Off-wiki backchanneli
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 15:29, Todd Allen wrote:
> > That was a firm "No" on any Universal Code of Conduct. There shouldn't
> be a
> > "drafting committee" for it, it was disapproved.
> It's not clear to me what you're referr
even if the parliament is unanimous in a decision, it does
> not mean all citizens, or even groups of citizens, agree. But is the
> best way we know how to come to a decision.
> And how to implent it is still open, and will most likely involve all
> parties being effected by it
That was a firm "No" on any Universal Code of Conduct. There shouldn't be a
"drafting committee" for it, it was disapproved.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:49 AM Christel Steigenberger <
> Hello everyone,
> We are happy to announce that the
And, how might one view it?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:29 AM Zack McCune wrote:
> Hello all -
> A quick update on timing: this Board briefing has been rescheduled for July
> - Zack
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 AM João Alexandre Peschanski <
I tend to agree with this. I'm one of the first to criticize WMF when they
deserve it (I wish they didn't as often!), but I see nothing wrong with
consumers of huge amounts of data being asked to chip in to cover the costs
of providing it. That is, of course, provided that there is never any fee
Yes, this is very concerning indeed, and please do keep us up to date,
especially if any of these measures are used against someone for editing
Wikimedia projects or being a part of one of our communities or groups. I
know that some countries are considering economic sanctions for these types
Worked out great the last time WMF tried to pull something like this,
Oh, wait. By "worked out great" I mean "was an unmitigated disaster." One
wonders if the folks at the WMF are
I don't see a particular issue with requesting totally voluntary donations.
It's not like we're putting up a paywall, so if someone can't afford it
right now, they lose nothing by not donating. It may even be that for some
(as per the feedback in the previous email from Nick) that making a small
Had the WMF just mentioned Earth Day, I don't think there would have been
any trouble with that. The issue here is the support of an explicitly
political organization, not just of Earth Day. I can't imagine anyone could
have had an issue with an anodyne banner saying something like "Remember
There certainly is a lot to reflect on, isn't there?
Maybe you can do some reflecting on the fact that those "long-time
contributors" were, in many cases, working on Wikipedia before most people
had ever even heard of it (when I first started working on it, "What's
Wikipedia?" would be a question
I'm certainly not a big proponent of a global code of conduct (especially
after the Fram disaster), but if there is to be one, I could actually see
one like this being useful. We have had instances in the past where smaller
projects had an admin corps that abused their tools to preserve content
I don't think the "FAQ" gets the point. The "AQ" was if the "rebranding"
was acceptable. The answer was a resounding "no".
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 5:16 PM Samir Elsharbaty
> Hi everyone,
> The Brand Project Team felt it was important to address the concerns and
> questions around
Unfortunate, but certainly the right call.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:57 PM Katherine Maher wrote:
> Dear everyone,
> As a part of the Wikimedia movement’s ongoing response to the COVID-19
> pandemic, we are postponing Wikimania Bangkok 2020. This decision was made
> with the full support
The answer to that proposal was a clear, unambiguous "no". Not "keep
Immediately stop this process. And don't use an agency blocked for spamming
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 11:33 AM Essie Zar wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> There are some new updates and
I don't think the posting itself is inappropriate. It's Wikimedia-related
business, and that, broadly, is what this list is for.
Still, the use of ALL CAPS for a subject which will only be of relevance to
a small fraction of readers is indeed a bit much. (And that's true even
beyond geography; I
Then, they're welcome to pop on in any time. If they choose not to, well,
no one can make them. Anyone is able to use those tools.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Guillaume Paumier
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:31, Todd Allen a écrit :
> > I don't th
press your views in a good-faith and
> respectful manner.
> On Wikimedia projects, we do things in full public view.
> To prove your point, please link to the log of the irc channels and the
> admin back-channels to start with.
> On Wed,
I don't think anyone had bad intentions. It was just redundant.
Real time communication is on IRC. Asynchronous communication is either on
the wiki, preferably, or on the mailing list.
Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work just
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020,
; might also have to identify those who have asked the questions and get
> > their consent to publish. That can take a couple of days, so please
> > stay tuned.
> > Best wishes,
> > Nicole
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 21:25, Todd Allen wr
The second video seems to be incomplete. There are, for example, several
jump cuts, e.g., at 05:07, 11:08, 17:08, 22:31, etc. At 11:14 the
presenters invite questions or comments, and at 41:32 someone is clearly
being called upon to offer one, but they are not shown in the video.
I've just tested it out for Chrome. The load time is slightly on the long
side, but overall, this is an excellent tool that I think will be very
helpful indeed. Really well done!
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:52 PM Ilana Fried wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I’m very excited to share a new
These are very disappointing. It does not seem like a bit of the feedback
on earlier versions was taken into consideration at all. Can we expect
anything we say to matter this time around, or will we once again be
talking to the wall?
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 8:24 PM Katherine
That's...really not how this works. We don't say "It's hard to gain
consensus, so screw it, we're going ahead anyway." If you can't gain
consensus for what you're doing, then you should stop doing it. Yes,
consensus for major changes is hard. That doesn't mean it is not required
or should be
I would tend to agree. This process has been ongoing for many months now,
and the community raised substantial concerns about the initial proposals.
Whether deliberate or not, allowing only a week for discussion of the final
product seems an attempt to ram it through. Surely longer than a week can
I was more responding to it having been placed into an actual article (the
one on Wikipedia itself) with the only source being a diff and tweet. An
internal website log and a tweet wouldn't be enough for inclusion of
something like that in an article about any other
It's neat if it happened, but currently, that material was only "sourced"
to a Wikipedia diff and a tweet (and not even a tweet by her). We'd need
better than that for verification, so I'd hold off saying it definitely
happened until fact-checked sources confirm it did. (Not to say I don't
2019 at 4:22 PM John Erling Blad wrote:
> Try holding your cellphone vertically.
> tor. 12. des. 2019, 22.38 skrev Todd Allen :
> > Erm, I remember what websites looked like in 1996. I even made some then.
> > It looks nothing like that.
Erm, I remember what websites looked like in 1996. I even made some then.
It looks nothing like that.
On the other hand, on the site you linked to? The first thing I see is an
absolutely huge photo of a robot looking at me. I have to scroll down past
that to get to the actual meat, the text
There comes a time at which "deprecated" has to turn into "no longer
supported". Unfortunately, there are inevitably some people left who that
will inconvenience, but without that, systems collapse under the weight of
providing legacy support for obsolete, rarely-used protocols.
nto WP or en.wikt shortly after I had heard about the
> > MW
> > > > participation in the strike. I jumped to an apparently wrong
> > conclusion.
> > > > Sorry.
> > > >
> > > > I am glad that the availability of free knowledg
As far as I can tell, only the Foundation wiki is showing the strike
message. That particular one is pretty much theirs to do as they like with.
If they started doing that to any other wikis without their agreement,
well, then we'd have a problem. But so long as it's only the WMF wiki
I would agree with Philippe. I don't think I am stupid, but I know at times
I have said stupid things.
And I think Fae's concerns are reasonable, and also call into question
whether we should be encouraging tourism revenue to flow to illiberal,
repressive regimes to begin with. But certainly if
Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be
taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in
this process is a serious problem, and it is exacerbated by trying to push
discussions to a private medium. Discussions should take place openly and
Yes, let's see an actually public RfC on this. We shouldn't have to argue
about what the support/oppose proportions are, we should see it right there
on an on-wiki page where anyone is free to review them.
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 2:06 PM David Gerard wrote:
> I concur, it sounds sensible.
> the recommendations, especially as there may be people who read and engage
> with this list who have not had time to study the recommendations (or
> indeed the Fram saga cited a number of times earlier).
> Best regards,
> Todd Allen (időpont: 2019. a
we getting this garbage from WMF "working groups"? Do they
know nothing at all about how the projects work, or do they not care and
are trying to override them?
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen wrote:
ed with VE, or Superprotect, or...any of that. What WMF should've
learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted interference with a local
Has that lesson, at least, been learned?
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
" However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions
(I'd call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between
5 and 10 thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the
NC would also create a nightmare for downstream reusers.
If I want to use some portions of a Wikipedia article in a blog post, and I
have a couple ads on my blog to help defray the hosting costs, does that
violate NC? And certainly the stuff James brings up, regarding providing
"And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
We can't and no one can.
Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
specific expressions of those
>> How about talk pages?
>> Z poważaniem / Kind regards
>> *Szymon Grabarczuk*
>> userpage: pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
There does not seem to be anywhere to comment on these, which there should
be. I saw at least one which is highly objectionable and which I would like
to object to.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber
> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> They’re here!  We are delighted to
I wish that it were. Unfortunately, it is actually the case.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:42 AM Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> This is sarcasm, right? Right?
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, wrote:
> > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of g
Doxing means to reveal personal data about someone against their wishes. So
if you found out my address and telephone number and posted it to this
thread, that would be doxing me.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:26 AM Thyge wrote:
> - and please explain the meaning of 'doxxed" as well. Is that US slang?
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon,
and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
"football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
get it done
That "arcane lore" has resulted in the largest educational work ever
produced by humanity, and free for everyone both as in speech and as in
So I think we need to consider carefully before radically changing it. It
has worked, and worked unimaginably well, for most of two decades. That's
Well, first off, there's no guarantee that anyone even knows their real
name. They could find mine, sure, but then I've never made an attempt to
keep it secret. I suspect many editors never have given out their real
name, and publishing a guess would be unethical beyond belief.
But just no, in
Well, I think we're all well aware that not everything pertaining to the
situation is on-wiki. There were clearly communications that were not, even
if just those that took place during WMF's review procedure, the ones
they've had with ArbCom, etc.
The question that was asked, specifically, was
why can't the WMF
> > say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
> > You really think he's just outright lying?
> > On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > > If you really think Fram's framing of events her
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
1 - 100 of 207 matches
Mail list logo