Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

2020-09-11 Thread Todd Allen
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
whole farce.

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 strongly oppose it.

Todd

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:45 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> As you can see, Dan, your choice of imagery, appreciated and encouraged in
> less buttoned-up journalism, is offensive to some subscribers here.  Your
> strong criticism of the Foundation, on the other hand, is perfectly
> acceptable.
>
> As a professional wordsmith, I am confident you can continue to voice this
> criticism while employing milder imagery, or indeed dispensing with
> figurative language entirely.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an organization
> > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> 18
> > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are* considered
> > collegial.
> >
> > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to special
> > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> the
> > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
> > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is also
> > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> things
> > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> >
> > I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly respected
> in
> > the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who has
> > written for a ton of outlets and there's not an editor in the world that
> > I've worked with who would've asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
> > If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's actions
> > over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of a
> free
> > information movement being converted into a third-tier social media app.
> > *I'm* grossly offended by board policies that empower the vested, the
> > connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
> > grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
> > arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual say
> in
> > what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
> > than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
> > smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
> >
> > No, I didn't mean petit.
> >
> > Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
> > vigorously is what adults are able to do.
> >
> > It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One of
> > the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
> > self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
> being
> > suppressed on dubious grounds.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to write
> for
> > > many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
> > > abusive behaviors in our community.
> > >
> > > On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that they
> did
> > > not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
> > action
> > > because it offers a frame.
> > >
> > > This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
> > >
> > > We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a code
> of
> > > conduct.
> > >
> > > So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for discussions,
> > and
> > > I hope the language will remain respectful.
> > >
> > > I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
> about
> > > « wmf flatulence ».
> > >
> > >
> > >  I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
> > supposedly
> > > asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
> > >
> > > It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on this
> > > thread, it sets an aggressive climate.
> > >
> > > Please could we all feel empowered to  apply our founding principles
> and
> > > refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Nattes à chat
> > >
> > >
> > > Envoyé de mon iPhone
> > >
> > > > Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra  a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Yair
> > > >
> > > > I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
> the
> > > > strategy program took place. Affiliates were 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

2020-09-09 Thread Todd Allen
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 who doesn't work for WMF.
That's a substantial conflict of interest.

Todd

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due to
> posts with unacceptable language.
>
> I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this list,
> so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.
>
>Asaf (volunteer capacity)
>on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> 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] Sexual harassment

2020-08-23 Thread Todd Allen
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 emails), on the
English Wikipedia it may be reported to the Arbitration Committee (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee). Other
projects may have different processes for handling incidents which involve
off-wiki harassment.

Todd

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 4:11 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> Well, I don't know the fact directly but the standard procedure is to
> discuss it with a local administrator on the relevant talk page or notice
> board. So, Vermont is correct.
>
> The T does not usually take action in cases that can generally be handled
> by the local community. Thus, responses such as "falls outside the
> Foundation's remit" isn't bad in such cases.
>
> Regards.
>
> Isaac
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020, 22:51 Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l, <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > More generally, conduct issues are handled locally. We do not have a
> > central authority to handle issues like this; local communities are, in
> the
> > vast majority of cases, capable of handling conduct problems of it’s
> > editors. Not to mention that T would be incapable of handling every
> minor
> > conduct problem.
> >
> > It also is not something that is usually emailed to emergency@; if
> there’s
> > extensive problems with harassment, and local functions do not work,
> > c...@wikimedia.org will get you in touch with T who can look into the
> > issue.
> >
> > However, you haven’t tried to handle this locally. Creating an ANI
> section,
> > seeing that people aren’t 100% in agreement with your preferred outcome,
> > and then removing it is not very helpful towards resolving this.
> >
> > From my somewhat limited looking into the events, there’s been some
> > problematic shows of incivility on from both parties, with WWGB using the
> > word “cutie” in an offhand edit summary. It isn’t appropriate, it
> certainly
> > didn’t improve their point, but calling it sexual harassment and hoping
> for
> > the WMF or others to take immediate and dire action without community
> input
> > is misleading and unrealistic. On a collaborative project, problems are
> > handled collaboratively with uninvolved editors looking at the issue
> from a
> > third party perspective, giving their input, and at some point an
> > administrator coming along to enact the consensus. That’s why
> noticeboards
> > of this type exist, which discuss and evaluate conduct issues to seek a
> > resolution. We do not know how other community members and admins would
> > have participated in the discussion because it was cut short.
> >
> > I noticed that you said, on Facebook, that you did not feel safe talking
> to
> > WWGB directly about it, and that you did not feel safe on ANI. I’m very
> > sorry to hear this; though I am not sure what you believe to be unsafe
> > about leaving a talk page message stating your having taken offense at
> > WWGB’s remarks, or asking for input from administrators and the community
> > to resolve the issue, those are the methods of fixing issues. If either
> > action were met with hostility, insult, or further harassment, there
> would
> > be a very clear and simple case for an administrator to take action, and
> > thus would have been much easier. If WWGB, however, apologized and agreed
> > not to continue with such conduct in the future, it would also have been
> > much easier. We don’t have a sort of secret police to handle issues in
> > private. The community processes exist for a reason, and when permitted
> to
> > take place, usually work.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Vermont
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 17:27 Aron Manning 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 22:43, Chris Sherlock <
> chris.sherloc...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have been advised by the WMF that if anyone is concerned about
> being
> > > > sexually harassed they must report this to AN/I and there are no
> > private
> > > > mechanisms to report this sort of thing.
> > > >
> > > > Is this for real?
> > >
> > >
> > > Assuming you've contacted Trust, "falls outside of the
> > Foundation's
> > > remit" is a standard answer to receive as a regular editor.
> > >
> > > Bringing the issue to ANI it will most likely be ignored. If your issue
> > is
> > > with a long-term / established editor it has a significant chance to
> > > boomerang .
> > >
> > > Sadly, this is for real and somewhat the reason behind the UCoC
> proposal.
> > > Whether that will change this is another question.
> > >
> > > Aron
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

2020-07-31 Thread Todd Allen
Hello Ciell,

These discussions took place on meta, not on en.wp. I don't believe anyone
has brought up the English Wikipedia in particular.

Todd

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:08 AM Ciell Wikipedia 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Since this is about a Universal Code of Conduct, please do not focus this
> thread on the English language Wikipedia alone.
>
> Ciell
>
> Op vr 31 jul. 2020 18:25 schreef Aron Manning :
>
> > As firmly endorsed by 41 community members (out of thousands) in the ToU
> > for WMF
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_1/Diversity/9#Terms_of_Use_for_the_WMF
> > >
> > discussion,
> > I think we can agree that the Terms of Use (and also the Code of Conduct)
> > should apply to WMF employees as well, not just volunteers.
> >
> > However, I don't see how from that it could be inferred that there should
> > be no Code of Conduct for the communities.
> > I believe that the important question is how the CoC will be implemented:
> > will it be a tool for silencing unwanted POVs or a tool for addressing
> > toxicity?
> >
> >
> > Just my thoughts.
> > Aron
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 18:11, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> >
> > > It is known and widely recognized that online communities were excluded
> > > from the strategy process. There was no way one could open RfC on the
> > > process, and no approval of the strategy by the editing communities.
> > >
> > > This has to be fixed now. It is difficult to fix, because there are
> > already
> > > too many boundary conditions attached, and I am personally trying to do
> > > whatever I can as a member of the transition strategy group.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, there was no real RfC rejecting the UCoC (at least I
> > am
> > > not aware of one), even though many users, in particular, on the
> English
> > > Wikipedia in relation to the Fram affair, were very vocal about this.
> But
> > > people become vocal about many things, some of them, for example,
> > continue
> > > to advocate that we should fork from the existing project and this
> > forking
> > > is the only way forward. People say many things, and we have community
> > > processes to see what is consensus and what is not.
> > >
> > > In the current situation, specifically concerning UCoC, is to wait for
> > the
> > > draft / drafting principle, whatever comes on 24 august. If many people
> > > think the product is not acceptable they should open RfC on meta or on
> > the
> > > projects and see whether there is consensus it is unacceptable. For
> these
> > > RfCs to happen, but for this people should really follow the process,
> > read
> > > the draft and see what the consequences are. If online communities are
> > not
> > > involved in this process either, then things will go over and over
> again
> > -
> > > UCOc accepted as proposed, included into ToU, followed by a couple of
> > > high-profile bans, shistorm in the most active communities, and
> complete
> > > denial by WMF managers. We have been there and we do not want this
> > > happening again.
> > >
> > > 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
> your
> > > > privilege.  But the fact is that the Strategy is the steering
> document
> > > > now for the nearest activities in the Movement. And the endorsments
> are
> > > > there to be read.
> > > >
> > > > If you had wanted the endorsement to be visible in the form of a Rfc,
> > > > you missed to express that in an appropriate  moment.
> > > >
> > > > Anders
> > > >
> > > > (This being my third entry, it will be my last)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Den 2020-07-31 kl. 17:38, skrev Todd Allen:
> > > > > I have read that, but do not see any public RfC nor any individual
> > > > > statements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:34 AM Anders Wennersten <
> > > > m...@anderswennersten.se>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

2020-07-31 Thread Todd Allen
I have read that, but do not see any public RfC nor any individual
statements.

Todd

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:34 AM Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

> Read https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
> and people involved supporting it and endorsing its different phases
>
> Anders
>
> Den 2020-07-31 kl. 17:28, skrev Todd Allen:
> > Where was the public RfC that these "700 individuals" participated in?
> The
> > one I saw, which took place on Meta, was, again, a very firm "No".
> >
> > Off-wiki backchanneling stuff doesn't count.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:18 AM Anders Wennersten <
> m...@anderswennersten.se>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The development of the Code of Conduct is part of the Strategy. The
> >> strategy and this part was endorsed by some 700 individuals representing
> >> more or less all parts of the Movement. And that group is the closest we
> >> have seen resembling a government body of the movement. But as in a
> >> democracy, 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
> >>
> >> Anders
> >>
> >> Den 2020-07-31 kl. 16:28, skrev Todd Allen:
> >>> Uh, guys?
> >>>
> >>> That was a firm "No" on any Universal Code of Conduct. There shouldn't
> >> be a
> >>> "drafting committee" for it, it was disapproved.
> >>>
> >>> Todd
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:49 AM Christel Steigenberger <
> >>> csteigenber...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We are happy to announce that the Universal Code of Conduct drafting
> >>>> committee has been assembled. We had 26 volunteers apply, either by
> >>>> publicly signing up on the Meta page, or by sending an email.
> Volunteers
> >>>> from 18 different countries applied, speaking 11 different languages.
> >>>>
> >>>> We had Wikimedian applicants with different levels of experience
> >> on-wiki,
> >>>> from someone who started editing only last year to people who have
> been
> >>>> editing for more than 18 years and/or have more than 300,000 edits.
> >>>> Applicants held a variety of different roles within the movement, and
> >> also
> >>>> informed us about interesting and relevant experiences in their
> >> real-life
> >>>> careers. It was very hard to narrow down from this diverse and
> extremely
> >>>> qualified pool of applicants.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the final selection, two aspects guided the decision making - we
> >> want a
> >>>> committee that at the one hand will represent important parts of the
> >>>> movement. Prolific editors as well as Wikimedians whose strength is
> >> more in
> >>>> organizing events, wikimedians from different demographics,
> contributors
> >>>> from small and large wikis, and people holding different roles within
> >> the
> >>>> movement. We also wanted a group of people who will collaborate with
> one
> >>>> another effectively and create the best possible Universal Code of
> >> Conduct
> >>>> for the Wikimedia movement. Experience has taught us that committees
> >> that
> >>>> are too large find it difficult to work effectively, so we decided to
> >> cap
> >>>> the number of seats to 6 volunteer seats and 3 staff seats.
> >>>>
> >>>> More information on the Committee and its new members can be found on
> >> Meta
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >>>> [1], and a timeline for their work is available on the main UCoC page
> >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct> [2].
> Please
> >>>> note that more chances for engagement are coming up during the
> community
> >>>> draft review period starting from August 24.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Christel

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

2020-07-31 Thread Todd Allen
It was a "no" to having any type of universal code of conduct. You can see
the discussion here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_1/Diversity/9#Terms_of_Use_for_the_WMF

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:57 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> 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 referring to here. What is the "that" that
> was a "firm no"?
>
> Dan
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

2020-07-31 Thread Todd Allen
Where was the public RfC that these "700 individuals" participated in? The
one I saw, which took place on Meta, was, again, a very firm "No".

Off-wiki backchanneling stuff doesn't count.

Todd

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:18 AM Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

> The development of the Code of Conduct is part of the Strategy. The
> strategy and this part was endorsed by some 700 individuals representing
> more or less all parts of the Movement. And that group is the closest we
> have seen resembling a government body of the movement. But as in a
> democracy, 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
>
> Anders
>
> Den 2020-07-31 kl. 16:28, skrev Todd Allen:
> > Uh, guys?
> >
> > That was a firm "No" on any Universal Code of Conduct. There shouldn't
> be a
> > "drafting committee" for it, it was disapproved.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:49 AM Christel Steigenberger <
> > csteigenber...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >>
> >> We are happy to announce that the Universal Code of Conduct drafting
> >> committee has been assembled. We had 26 volunteers apply, either by
> >> publicly signing up on the Meta page, or by sending an email. Volunteers
> >> from 18 different countries applied, speaking 11 different languages.
> >>
> >> We had Wikimedian applicants with different levels of experience
> on-wiki,
> >> from someone who started editing only last year to people who have been
> >> editing for more than 18 years and/or have more than 300,000 edits.
> >> Applicants held a variety of different roles within the movement, and
> also
> >> informed us about interesting and relevant experiences in their
> real-life
> >> careers. It was very hard to narrow down from this diverse and extremely
> >> qualified pool of applicants.
> >>
> >> For the final selection, two aspects guided the decision making - we
> want a
> >> committee that at the one hand will represent important parts of the
> >> movement. Prolific editors as well as Wikimedians whose strength is
> more in
> >> organizing events, wikimedians from different demographics, contributors
> >> from small and large wikis, and people holding different roles within
> the
> >> movement. We also wanted a group of people who will collaborate with one
> >> another effectively and create the best possible Universal Code of
> Conduct
> >> for the Wikimedia movement. Experience has taught us that committees
> that
> >> are too large find it difficult to work effectively, so we decided to
> cap
> >> the number of seats to 6 volunteer seats and 3 staff seats.
> >>
> >> More information on the Committee and its new members can be found on
> Meta
> >> <
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >> [1], and a timeline for their work is available on the main UCoC page
> >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct> [2]. Please
> >> note that more chances for engagement are coming up during the community
> >> draft review period starting from August 24.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Christel
> >>
> >>[1]
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >>
> >> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
> >>
> >> Christel Steigenberger (she/her)
> >>
> >> Trust and Safety Specialist
> >>
> >> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

2020-07-31 Thread Todd Allen
Uh, guys?

That was a firm "No" on any Universal Code of Conduct. There shouldn't be a
"drafting committee" for it, it was disapproved.

Todd

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:49 AM Christel Steigenberger <
csteigenber...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
> We are happy to announce that the Universal Code of Conduct drafting
> committee has been assembled. We had 26 volunteers apply, either by
> publicly signing up on the Meta page, or by sending an email. Volunteers
> from 18 different countries applied, speaking 11 different languages.
>
> We had Wikimedian applicants with different levels of experience on-wiki,
> from someone who started editing only last year to people who have been
> editing for more than 18 years and/or have more than 300,000 edits.
> Applicants held a variety of different roles within the movement, and also
> informed us about interesting and relevant experiences in their real-life
> careers. It was very hard to narrow down from this diverse and extremely
> qualified pool of applicants.
>
> For the final selection, two aspects guided the decision making - we want a
> committee that at the one hand will represent important parts of the
> movement. Prolific editors as well as Wikimedians whose strength is more in
> organizing events, wikimedians from different demographics, contributors
> from small and large wikis, and people holding different roles within the
> movement. We also wanted a group of people who will collaborate with one
> another effectively and create the best possible Universal Code of Conduct
> for the Wikimedia movement. Experience has taught us that committees that
> are too large find it difficult to work effectively, so we decided to cap
> the number of seats to 6 volunteer seats and 3 staff seats.
>
> More information on the Committee and its new members can be found on Meta
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >
> [1], and a timeline for their work is available on the main UCoC page
>  [2]. Please
> note that more chances for engagement are coming up during the community
> draft review period starting from August 24.
>
> Best regards,
> Christel
>
>   [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>
> Christel Steigenberger (she/her)
>
> Trust and Safety Specialist
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> 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] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

2020-07-17 Thread Todd Allen
And, how might one view it?

Todd

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
> 28th.
>
> thanks,
>
> - Zack
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:24 AM João Alexandre Peschanski <
> joa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the update Nataliia. I hope he or she is feeling better. Best,
> > João
> >
> > Em qua., 8 de jul. de 2020 às 14:44, Nataliia Tymkiv <
> > ntym...@wikimedia.org>
> > escreveu:
> >
> > >  Hello! Just a quick update: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > was
> > > notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of July
> 8th
> > > needs to be rescheduled because of the illness of one of the key staff
> > > members. We are looking for a new date before the August board meeting,
> > and
> > > we shall share an updated timeline in a few days.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> > > Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > >
> > > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> > working
> > > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend.
> You
> > > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you
> in
> > > advance!*
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
>
> Zack McCune (he/him)
>
> Director of Brand
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> 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] Paid API?

2020-07-09 Thread Todd Allen
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
for use of the API for users of data in regular amounts, but every plan
I've seen thus far accommodates that.

Todd

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:15 AM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Great news: the WMF is going to charge the tech giants for using the API
> millions of times each day. Nothing in the free licenses we use obligate us
> (that is we in our movement) to provide an API for free as in beer. It is
> part of KAAS: Knowledge As A Service, part of the strategic direction
> chosen in 2017.
>
> Thanks for your understanding,
>
> Ad Huikeshoven
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:33 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > Today I stumbled upon this public phabricator ticket [1] created by
> someone
> > from WMF starting with:
> > "My team is creating bi-weekly HTML Dumps for all of the wikis, except
> for
> > wikidata as part of the paid API project."
> >
> > I have so many questions:
> >  - What is the "paid API" project? Are we planning to make money out of
> our
> > API? Now are we selling our dumps?
> >  - If so, why is this not communicated before? Why are we kept in the
> dark?
> >  - Does the board know and approve it?
> >  - How is this going to align with our core values like openness and
> > transparency?
> >  - The ticket implicitly says these are going to be stored on AWS ("S3
> > bucket"). Is this thought through? Specially the ethical problems of
> > feeding Jeff Bezos' empire? (If you have seen this episode of Hasan
> > Minhaj's on ethical issues of using AWS [2]). Why can't we do/host this
> on
> > Wikimedia infrastructure? Has this been evaluated?
> >  - Why is the community not consulted about this?
> >
> > Maybe I missed announcements, consultations or anything, forgive me for
> my
> > ignorance. Any pointers is enough. I also understand diversifying our
> > revenue is a good tool for rainy days but a consultation with the
> community
> > wouldn't be too bad.
> >
> > [1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T254275
> > [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5maXvZ5fyQY
> >
> > Best
> > --
> > Amir (he/him)
> > ___
> > 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] Hong Kong community's concern on implementing Hong Kong National Security Law

2020-06-30 Thread Todd Allen
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
of measures being taken in Hong Kong, so it is a matter that many are aware
of.

Todd

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:53 AM William Chan  wrote:

> Diane and all,
>
> It seems the the bill is far more dangerous than what we the local
> community have expected:
>
> 1. The bill exerts prosecution power on anything Hong Kong, from Hong Kong
> soli to water to Hong Kong-registered ships to Hong Kong-registered
> aircrafts, and applies on both Hong Kong citizens and non-Hong Kong
> citizens.
>
> 2. You can commit this crime anywhere on Earth. Even if such "crime" is
> carried outside of Hong Kong by non-Hong Kong citizens, this law makes Hong
> Kong have the judicial power to expirate such "criminal"
>
> 3. This means that non-Hong Kong contributors writing positively about the
> Hong Kong protests and topics about Hong Kong independence in a
> pro-protester tone can technically violate the bill.
>
> 4. If such a person steps onto a Hong Kong registered Aircraft (such as
> Cathay Pacific Airline Planes) or Hong Kong-registered ships, they can
> logically be arrested and brought to Hong Kong for trial for acts
> documented on sec. 3. Even when both the origin and destination is not in
> Hong Kong.
>
> There seems to be much more problems than expected considering how China
> manipulates its laws to its own good by violating international treaties
> and protections on human rights (when it is against their agenda).
>
> Grave Concern,
> William
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 23:08, William Chan  wrote:
>
> > Dear our beloved global community members,
> >
> > The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT
> > 2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked,
> > considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time,
> > uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including
> > much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its
> > accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found
> at
> > the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text
> > will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those
> > who are currently in Hong Kong.
> >
> > There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this
> > piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known
> > local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation
> > phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:
> >
> >
> > 1. This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation
> > phase. The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local
> > legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on
> free
> > speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where
> > most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation
> bill
> > that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This
> > piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what
> is
> > written before it became a law.
> >
> > 2. This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech
> > even out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the
> > criminalization of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence.
> > This can include, according to what the so-called “people’s congress
> > representative” which most within the city cannot vote for, said acts
> > committed online could also be counted. This may mean writing for, for
> > example, reasons that lead to the rise of the Hong Kong independence
> > movement, may become a criminal act if written in Hong Kong. This is
> > unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP addresses can be documented and
> > tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing for Wikipedia becomes a
> > criminal act, what can go right?
> >
> > 3. It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China
> > had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of
> > the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local
> policies
> > could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the
> input across
> > the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral
> > for its content.
> >
> > 4. Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to
> > Hong Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the
> > bill is unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill
> > violates how local laws are passed.
> >
> >
> > The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed
> > the effects in the short run 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

2020-05-23 Thread Todd Allen
Worked out great the last time WMF tried to pull something like this,
didn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram


Oh, wait. By "worked out great" I mean "was an unmitigated disaster." One
wonders if the folks at the WMF are capable of learning from mistakes, and
one is not encouraged by the apparent answer.

Todd

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:59 PM María Sefidari  wrote:

>  Hello everyone,
>
> Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees unanimously passed a
> resolution and published a statement[1] regarding the urgent need to make
> our movement more safe and inclusive by addressing harassment and
> incivility on Wikimedia projects. The statement builds on prior statements
> from 2016 and 2019,[2][3] affirms the forthcoming introduction of a
> universal code of conduct, and directs the Wikimedia Foundation to rapidly
> and substantively address these challenges in complement with existing
> community processes.
>
> This includes developing sustainable practices and tools that eliminate
> harassment, toxicity, and incivility, promote inclusivity, cultivate
> respectful discourse, reduce harms to participants, protect the projects
> from disinformation and bad actors, and promote trust in our projects.
>
> Over the past nearly twenty years, the movement has taken a number of
> unique and sometimes extraordinary steps to create an environment unlike
> anything else online: a place to share knowledge, to learn, and to
> collaborate together. In order for the movement to continue to thrive and
> make progress to our mission, it is essential to build a culture that is
> welcoming and inclusive.
>
> Research has consistently shown that members of our communities have been
> subject to hostility and toxic behavior in Wikimedia spaces.[4][5] The
> Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy recommendations have also identified the
> safety of our Wikimedia spaces as a core issue to address if we are to
> reach the 2030 goals, with concrete recommendations which include a
> universal code of conduct, pathways for users to privately report
> incidents, and a baseline of community responsibilities.[6]
>
> While the movement has made progress in addressing harassment and toxic
> behavior, we recognize there is still much more to do. The Board’s
> resolution and statement today is a step toward establishing clear,
> consistent guidelines around acceptable behavior on our projects, and
> guiding the Wikimedia Foundation in supporting the movement’s ability to
> ensure a healthy environment for those who participate in our projects.
>
> * Developing and introducing, in close consultation with volunteer
> contributor communities, a universal code of conduct that will be a binding
> minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects;
>
> * Taking actions to ban, sanction, or otherwise limit the access of
> Wikimedia movement participants who do not comply with these policies and
> the Terms of Use;
>
> * Working with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive
> review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those cases
> which pose legal or other severe risks; and
>
> * Significantly increasing support for and collaboration with community
> functionaries primarily enforcing such compliance in a way that prioritizes
> the personal safety of these functionaries.
>
> Together, we have made our movement what it is today. In this same way, we
> must all be responsible for building the positive community culture of the
> future, and accountable for stopping harassment and toxic behavior on our
> sites.
>
> We have also made this statement available on Meta-Wiki for translation and
> wider distribution.[1]
>
> On behalf of the Board,
> María, Board Chair
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
>
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2016_-_Statement_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
>
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Archives/2019#Board_statement_posted_at_Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram
>
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015
>
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights/2018_Report#Experience_of_harassment_has_not_declined_since_2017_and_appears_to_remain_steady
>
> [6]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Provide_for_Safety_and_Inclusion
>
> == Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces ==
>
> Harassment, toxic behavior, and incivility in the Wikimedia movement are
> contrary to our shared values and detrimental to our vision and mission.
> They negatively impact our ability to collect, share, and disseminate free
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annoying ads

2020-05-07 Thread Todd Allen
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
donation to something helps people to feel better when they have little
other opportunity for social connection.

Todd

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:13 PM Nick Wilson (Quiddity) 
wrote:

> This has been on our departments' minds for the past few months. Since the
> beginning of the pandemic, we have been changing our campaign schedules
> (including shortening the Italian campaign) and steadily revising our
> messaging. We are closely monitoring reader and donor feedback, responding
> to what we hear, and making adjustments as we go. There is a lot of
> interest in fundraising right now and how we adapt in the current
> environment and going forward (including amongst Affiliates and closely
> related external orgs whom we talk to). It’s uncertain when things will go
> back to “normal” so it is important we start learning how to fundraise in
> this environment. We are working on a plan to share more information and
> updates. Our team is working with limited capacity right now so these
> deeper updates may not happen right away, but we are making this a
> priority.
>
> We'd also like to acknowledge GerardM’s point about giving people an
> opportunity to give, and note that we’re also hearing this from some donors
> - Some are giving because they are now realizing the huge value of the
> projects. These are some examples we can share:
>
> "I was prompted quite a few times to donate but so far I always rejected
> even if it didn't feel right. Probably this virus situation made me more
> aware of my environment; what's important and what's not."
>
> "I give because I appreciate that there is even a Wikipedia. Solid
> information ties in with our hope and is key to calming these uncertain
> times. Thanks again. Stay well and safe."
>
> "We need Wikipedia, and if everyone give some, well you know... In Norway
> we have a special word for this act... "dugnad" (when everyone contributes,
> it will not be so big efforts for a few) Like we have this corona situation
> now. We must help each other, take care of each other, and do what the
> governments tell us to do. Then the virus will go away much faster."
>
> "I really got into the Internet in 1995 with my 1st home PC…I never thought
> that one day, the global network would be our life-saving resource facing a
> global health crisis...You and all the Wikimedia teams do a TERRIFIC work.
> Wikipedia is the single most important website."
>
> I hope that helps.
> Best,
> Nick
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:47 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > To me this is similar to the argument why we do not really raise funds in
> > some countries that "are poor". Some people are poor, certainly, but many
> > others are not. The argument that we can afford has a relation to our
> > aspirations, ambitions what can we do better, more particularly in the
> > countries where people are stuck in their homes. If anything this is the
> > time to adapt to changing circumstances. People are at home, there is
> this
> > "captive audience" with many people that are helped mentally when they
> have
> > something worthwhile to do.
> >
> > We can reach out for readers, editors and donors.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 14:58, WereSpielChequers <
> > werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Given the large reserves that the WMF carries, and the savings from
> > > cancelling events such as Wikimania 2020, I would have thought that the
> > WMF
> > > was one organisation that could afford to pause its fundraising for a
> few
> > > months. At least in countries where the economy is in freefall.
> > >
> > > In a few months time lots of people will still be in a financial mess.
> > But
> > > the large number of people who are currently going to be worried about
> > > their financial future will hopefully be divided into those who have
> kept
> > > their jobs. or got new ones and those who were right to be worried.
> > > Hopefully some of those who come through this financially OK will be
> in a
> > > position to donate.
> > >
> > > WSC
> > >
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism

2020-04-24 Thread Todd Allen
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
our environment on Earth Day!".

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 2:27 PM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> FFS who is against Earth Day?   Every organization and company
> probably mentions it or observes it in some way.  Get over yourselves.
> ___
> 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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-04-15 Thread Todd Allen
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 was often asked if I'd mention it;
haven't heard that for a while though), and have been working to build,
maintain, and improve it ever since. So maybe there's a reason we care a
great deal about it.

And maybe there's a good reason to listen to the people who literally built
the thing, made it into what it is, and still day to day keep it going.
Maybe we know what we're doing. I think we rather proved it.

Todd

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:00 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When I read something like this, it takes me aback. Yes, people may have an
> opinion, they may even express it and they even may be wrong. Who cares
> really. There is enough to dislike in branding, we are not cattle. From a
> marketing perspective there may be a point. The point would be to bring all
> that we do together, bring it together so that what it is we are and what
> is we do better understood by an audience, an audience that we want to
> entice to like us enough to become part of our Wikimedia movement.
>
> The problem is that the "long time contributors" don't like change. They
> have invested so much in whatever it is they think makes our projects work
> that they do not see the forest from the trees. They forget what our
> primary aim, is and fail to appreciate that all conventions are there to
> support the aim of sharing in the sum of all knowledge. This week Wikipedia
> administrators killed off the ListeriaBot because it defied a convention. A
> convention that they could not explain to me does harm to our public. A
> convention that exists because it was conceded to English Wikipedia that
> they could have non free images exclusive to its project. When challenged
> that they do not care about Wikipedia's quality, that manually maintained
> lists average out to be not as well maintained as Listeria list there was
> silence. They did not care because it did not address their need that their
> convention had to prevail.
>
> "Long time contributors", administrators are the ones expecting others to
> share their sentiment about everything what is bad. I don't. Katherine
> Maher brought an end to a period of stagnation. My impression is that at
> the Wikimedia Foundation things look up. I love it that the WMF wants to
> expand and I totally agree that English Wikipedia, its best known product,
> the brand that is known by many is exactly what is not bringing us
> together.
>
> I prefer people like Mackenzie Lemieux or Jess Wade any time over the "long
> time contributors".. PS with a blog going back 15 years, with 2,606,298
> edits I qualify as a long time contributor..
>
> So if your opinions are as good as the reflections you have on the quality
> of Wikipedia, I do not care about your opinions. By my calculations there
> is on average error rate of 4% in lists because of false friends. Magnus
> blogged how manually maintained list are anything but well maintained
> lists. The key point of branding in the marketing sense is that it is to
> bring out the best of what is on offer.
>
> The basis of what we have on offer is in what we aim to achieve and, for me
> our aim is to share in the sum of the knowledge that is available to us.
> Everything that is in its way of achieving this needs reflection and imho
> there is a lot to reflect.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:59, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > David Gerard wrote:
> > >https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
> > >
> > >So this has been dictated from above - the "community consultation" is
> > >window dressing for a decision that's long been made.
> > >
> > >Hence the nonsensical claims of massive community support by fiddling
> > >the numbers, employing literal wiki spammers to do the consulting,
> > >etc.
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is bad. There are dozens of examples
> > illustrating why this is true, but this forcible rebranding is a
> > particularly good demonstration of the rot.
> >
> > The people most directly responsible here are Katherine Maher and Heather
> > Walls. They're both subscribed to this mailing list, they both understand
> > that this decision would upset long-time contributors, and they both
> > simply decided to ignore any complaints in favor of attempting to siphon
> > more money from donors and force their "vision" on the broader movement.
> > You don't see either of them defending themselves or their actions here
> > for a reason. They didn't both forget how e-mail works or how the wikis
> > work, they've intentionally chosen to plug their ears and march forward.
> >
> > What's more offensive, in my opinion, than this forcible rebranding
> effort
> > is that they've spent and will 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Early thoughts regarding a global code of conduct and a GCC committee

2020-04-07 Thread Todd Allen
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
that violated NPOV and boot off those who objected, and in such an instance
outside intervention may be necessary. (Of course, we'd also need to ensure
that such complaints aren't just sour grapes from editors who failed to
gain a consensus in a content dispute.)

Todd

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:43 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile. Occasionally it
> comes up in conversations, and it has been discussed as part of the
> 2030 strategy process (see
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20).
> I have a few early thoughts that I'd like to share.
>
> I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could
> be good in some limited but important circumstances:
>
> (1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct
> review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that
> removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other
> authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a
> relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's
> governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that
> peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order.
>
> In none of these cases am I suggesting that outsiders should attempt
> to get involved in content disputes or allegations of misconduct by a
> small proportion of a site's administrators or functionaries.
>
> By default, a global code of conduct committee should assume good
> faith regarding local consensus and/or the actions of a local
> arbitration committee, if they exist, and a global code of conduct
> committee should by default assume that any local consensus decisions
> and the decisions of a local arbitration committee are legitimate.
> These default positions may be changed if there is significant
> evidence suggesting that there should be a review of the situation by
> outsiders.
>
> (2) Where a steward, global sysop, Meta administrator, or other person
> in a similarly "meta" online position has allegedly misused their
> position, and other options have been exhausted or would involve
> publicly revealing evidence for which there is a very strong reason
> for privacy.
>
> (3) Where the current Ombudsman Commission (see
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission) has found fault
> with actions that are under its authority to review and recommends
> that individuals be sanctioned.
>
> (4) In the circumstances where, presently, WMF asserts a global ban.
>
> I would oppose the use of a global code of conduct or a global code of
> conduct committee for:
>
> (1) disputes which focus on one or a relatively small number of
> individuals. A global code of conduct committee could easily be
> overwhelmed by the number of cases, and I think that local
> administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a
> project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to
> address these disputes.
>
> (2) content disputes.
>
> (3) functioning as a thin layer of cover for WMF-driven actions or
> acting as an extension of WMF.
>
> (4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making
> people feel safe. The Internet is not a safe place, and no amount of
> heavy policing will effectively guarantee safety on a large scale.
> Also, heavy policing can have the effects of stifling uncomfortable
> debates and providing cover for incompetence and corruption. This is
> not to say that we should accept people trying to bully newcomers or
> publish political propaganda on content pages, but I think that these
> issues are best resolved locally and the norms for them are best
> created locally. In some cases, problems with content may be resolved
> as a secondary effect of resolving problems with conduct.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ever onward,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> 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] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-03-26 Thread Todd Allen
Samir,

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 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Brand Project Team felt it was important to address the concerns and
> questions around Snøhetta and the English Wikipedia, and have now added an
> FAQ about it. [1] Please refer there for the full details about the block
> and what is being done. The project team is in the process of updating the
> project materials, including the FAQ, so feel free to add those pages to
> your watchlist to stay up to date on the latest information.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Samir
>
> [1] https://w.wiki/LEF
>
> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>
> Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > This does have feeling of a company creating a financial relationship
> with
> > the Foundation as way to bypass or backdoor a community ban thats been
> > reviewed already.   Over the years I've worked with many users who been
> > blocked and help them become productive contributors but before they
> start
> > making recommendation or decisions about who we are there needs to be
> > something done to get them back to good standing with the community first
> > untiil thats taken place.It's like asking the fox to rebuild the hen
> > house,  I just dont see how I could support anything they recommend.
> >
> > After the dollars, and t=volunteer time that has been pumped into the
> 2030
> > strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should have
> > been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its comprehensible
> not
> > to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we will be
> > doing anything for the next 10 years.
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 03:20, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an unwillingness
> > > to work with Wikipedia properly:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would agree with this in principle. From what I have seen so far,
> it
> > > looks like either Snøhetta have not done their homework on how we
> > operate,
> > > or they have the arrogance of PR agencies, don't care, and plan to spin
> > > their way through with smoke and mirrors, flashy pages with lots of
> buzz,
> > > little content and all the dialogue they can't avoid. Maybe I am wrong,
> > and
> > > they have just been badly briefed. Who can tell from the outside? Block
> > > evasion does not bode well for their understanding of the community.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:13 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > First, a disclaimer that these comments aren't directed personally at
> > > > you, Essie.
> > > >
> > > > Even if money was unlimited, I thought that Snøhetta deserved the
> > > > community's trust, and I felt that WMF was a good steward of
> resources
> > > > (all of which are questionable), I don't think that this project is a
> > > > good idea. Wikidata is an increasingly important component of the
> > > > Wikiverse, and there are a some problems with WMF rebranding itself
> as
> > > > the Wikipedia Foundation including the risk to the communities and
> > > > affiliates from WMF's political adventures, governance problems, and
> > > > occasional high profile clashes with the community. I don't think
> that
> > > > the costs or the risks here make sense, I wouldn't involve Snøhetta
> > > > given its apparent block evasion on English Wikipedia, and I've been
> > > > unimpressed with WMF's handling of this process during the past few
> > > > months.
> > > >
> > > > I am fine with discussions about branding, but not with this program
> > > > in its current form.
> > > >
> > > > Given the choice, I would freeze this project and spending associated
> > > > with it pending a Meta RfC regarding the community's view on whether
> > > > this project should continue. If the community wants a branding
> > > > project to continue, I would let the community decide on the
> project's
> > > > parameters and budget, and what if any consultant should be involved.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Covid-19] Postponing Wikimania Bangkok until 2021

2020-03-18 Thread Todd Allen
Unfortunate, but certainly the right call.

Todd

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 of the ESEAP host team and Wikimania Committee.
> Together, we will hold Wikimania in Bangkok in 2021.
>
> We are filled with sadness to not see you all in Bangkok in August.
> However, we are confident that this is the best possible decision for the
> well-being of our global community and public health overall. This decision
> was proposed by the ESEAP organizers in line with their countries’ response
> to the COVID-19 pandemic and is in line with recommendations from the World
> Health Organization (WHO).
>
> You are certain to have many questions. We hope to answer some of your
> questions below. We will continue to answer questions on the Wikimania
> Meta-Wiki page and on the Wikimania Telegram group chat (more information
> below).
>
>
> *== What does “postponing” Wikimania mean? ==*
> We will not host an in-person Wikimania in 2020. We are rescheduling
> Wikimania Bangkok until 2021. The ESEAP organizing team[2] will continue
> their work as a regional collaborative between affiliates in the East,
> South East, and Pacific regions to host us in Thailand next year.
>
> The hotel and venue[3] in Bangkok will remain the same. We have not yet
> finalized dates for 2021. We will work with the ESEAP team and Wikimania
> Steering Committee to confirm new dates. We will let you know these dates
> by the end of 2020.
>
> The good news is that Wikimania 2021 will coincide with Wikipedia’s 20th
> birthday year. We expect this to be a truly memorable Wikimania -- an
> opportunity to celebrate reconnection after a year apart, along with the
> remarkable accomplishment of two decades of free knowledge.
>
> *== Will there be an alternative to the in-person event? ==*
>
> There are no plans by the 2020 Wikimania hosts to organize a virtual,
> online event. Hosting Wikimania is a lot of work. The ESEAP team is
> committed to hosting the best possible in-person event in Bangkok in 2021.
> Therefore, they will not have the capacity to organize a virtual Wikimania
> this year.
>
> However, the Wikimania committee, the ESEAP host team, and the Wikimedia
> Foundation all recognize that other members of the community may be
> interested in organizing a remote, global Wikimedia event for 2020.
> Although the Wikimedia Foundation does not have the capacity at this time
> to lead the organizing of a virtual online conference, we recognize others
> may have the desire to do so.
>
> We welcome discussion about online events. Interested parties are welcome
> to contact the Wikimania Steering Committee and Wikimania Foundation staff
> for advice on the Wikimania Meta-Wiki page[1].
>
> We are also considering proposals for improving the capacity of communities
> to organize local virtual convenings, and for how we can support
> communities in organizing impromptu local and regional Wikimedia events
> once the pandemic passes. As the situation has been changing rapidly we are
> still working on specifics and will share more information in the coming
> weeks.
>
> *== What does this mean for scholarship applications? ==*
>
> We are working on a plan for how to process Wikimania 2020 scholarship
> applications.[4] We will share more information in the coming weeks.
>
> *== How was this decision made? ==*
>
> This recommendation was made by the ESEAP organizers based on what we know
> about the current COVID-19 global health pandemic and current WHO
> guidelines. The decision was made together with the ESEAP team in
> consultation with the Wikimania Steering Committee and Wikimedia
> Foundation. Together we are fully and unanimously aligned around this
> decision.
>
> Although we are genuinely sad to not have the opportunity to see you all
> this year, we also are fully supportive of this decision in all of our best
> interests. It allows our ESEAP community hosts to focus on the immediate
> needs of their families, local Wikimedia communities, and local communities
> as a whole. It is in line with global public health guidance and aligns the
> Wikimedia movement as a responsible actor in support of our common public
> good.
>
> We want to thank all volunteers and affiliates that have been involved with
> planning Wikimania. We’re especially appreciative of the ESEAP for their
> leadership, flexibility, and compassion, as we have worked together to make
> some difficult decisions on this important event.
>
> *== Where can I learn more about Wikimania 2021? ==*
>
> There are a number of channels where Wikimania is regularly discussed and
> where plans for 2021 will be posted as they develop. We welcome all
> interested participants to bring together our collective wisdom and
> creativity to discuss what happens next with Wikimania. You can 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-03-14 Thread Todd Allen
Essie,

The answer to that proposal was a clear, unambiguous "no". Not "keep
asking".

Immediately stop this process. And don't use an agency blocked for spamming
our projects.

Todd

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 11:33 AM Essie Zar  wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand
> project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few of
> these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this group
> when your email went out.
>
> As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing with
> the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] ideas
> around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To
> assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner with
> Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for working on
> complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of
> Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New York
> City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this
> improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed naming
> convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design for
> movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will be a new
> branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates.
>
> In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these proposals,
> Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has already
> been given, and has created a process with built-in community involvement.
> The
> process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online with 97
> volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers,
> foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the
> workshops, community participants were asked to break into small groups to
> answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups
> developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are as a
> movement.
>
> Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came out of
> the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the one(s)
> you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any
> concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual concepts
> built or selected by workshop participants.
>
> Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min.
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
>
> Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the project
> talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also be
> available on Meta starting next month.
>
> Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one single
> concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around naming
> (expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They are
> scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can
> continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest.
>
> We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in Snøhetta's
> open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of the
> channels mentioned.
>
>
> https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/
>
> Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various points
> in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas of
> the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe that we
> don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human being
> to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means billions of
> people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and
> include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals the
> movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us
> there.
>
> Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at brandingwikipedia.org and
> the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the project
> talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to drop us a
> note at brandproj...@wikimedia.org if you have questions.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Essie Zar
>
> (from the movement brand identity project team)
>
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html
>
> [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/
>
> [3] https://snohetta.com/
>
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process
>
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>
> * What is a concept?
> A tool making the complex more understandable.
>
> Concepts make complex subjects more understandable. They manage to
> consolidate vast amounts of facts, data and details into a singular
> definition in its context. By creating concepts we allow 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] SEEKING A WIKIPEDIAN IN RESIDENCE! (U.S.)

2020-02-27 Thread Todd Allen
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 live in Colorado, but I'm not interested in such a
position.) So, I think that particular complaint is valid. Use regular
case, and let the reader decide whether it's of importance to them.

Todd

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:28 PM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> As a long time on and off subscriber to this list for many years, I want to
> say that I do find posts about jobs like this very useful, unlike posts
> complaining about capitalization and geography.  It is informative and
> exciting to find out where Wikipedia projects are making in-roads, and what
> better place to find an experienced job candidate who will respect
> community norms and policies while editing on behalf of an employer.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:40 PM Jake Orlowitz 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Annual Reviews, an independent, nonprofit scholarly research publisher,
> > seeks an enthusiastic Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR).
> >
> > The aim of this role is to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the sciences
> by
> > citing expert articles from Annual Reviews’ journals. The WIR will engage
> > with Wikipedia editors across life, biomedical, physical, and social
> > science articles and WikiProjects to help ensure responsible and valuable
> > expansion of content.
> >
> > This is a temporary position for 10 hours/week, paid at $30/hour USD, and
> > is anticipated to last for up to 1 year. This position can only be based
> > remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA,
> PA,
> > NY, HI, or MT.
> >
> > PLEASE APPLY!
> >
> https://annualreviewsnews.org/2020/02/25/seeking-a-wikipedian-in-residence/
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jake Orlowitz
> > *Founder of The Wikipedia Library*
> > *Seeker of well people and sane societies*
> >   kickstarter: bit.ly/CircleKickstarter
> >   me: jakeorlowitz.com
> >   mail: jorlow...@gmail.com
> >   media: @jakeorlowitz 
> >   book: welcometothecircle.net
> > ___
> > 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] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

2020-02-19 Thread Todd Allen
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.

Todd

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Guillaume Paumier 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:31, Todd Allen  a écrit :
>
> > 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
> > fine.
>
>
> That perspective suffers from a lack of empathy. "The tools we already
> have" may work for the limited sample of the population who are currently
> using them. Assuming that that sample is representative is flawed and is a
> classic example of survivorship bias. If we have learned anything from the
> Space experiment and from years of strategy discussions, it is that the
> tools we currently have do not, in fact, work just fine for a large number
> of people, whose voices are missing from our discussions and content.
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> (he/him)
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

2020-02-19 Thread Todd Allen
I don't like those either. I tend to ignore email unless there's a very
good reason for private communication. If not, well, post a message on my
talk page.

The recording is incomplete. A complete recording would be the raw video of
the session without cuts or edits, and with everyone there aware they're
being recorded and knowing anything they say is open to public scrutiny.

The video here failed in that. Every meeting regarding Wikimedia strategy
should be recorded, and the uncut video made available to the public. No
backchanneling, no secrecy, no "Oh they didn't know!". They didn't have to
know to be legally allowed to publish, nor is their permission required.

Todd

Todd

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 11:32 AM Aron Manning  wrote:

> Hi Todd,
>
> I'm not sure how your comment about "backchanneling" is applicable to a
> recording made in public. Please express 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.
>
>
> Aron
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 19:21, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > Nicole,
> >
> > While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, this is exactly why we
> > distrust this kind of backchanneling. If you have something to say, you
> say
> > it publicly, open to criticism and dispute. You don't say it in a "salon"
> > or a "survey" or anything else insulated from that. On Wikimedia
> projects,
> > we do things in full public view.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 10:14 AM Nicole Ebber 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello again,
> > >
> > > I now realised that none of the participants in the audience was aware
> > > of us recording them, and that we aren't able to identify them to ask
> > > for their consent. We are not going to release the full video, but are
> > > of course happy to answer potential questions and create more clarity
> > > where needed.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Nicole
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:30, Nicole Ebber 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Todd,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your question. The video is indeed incomplete. We cut if
> > > > for the viewer's comfort, as the original version is ~60 mins long,
> > > > and has questions and interaction with the audience at All Hands. Our
> > > > main objective for this video was to focus on conveying the broad
> > > > context and content of each recommendation in a quick and accessible
> > > > way, without putting too much emphasis on specific recommendations or
> > > > details.
> > > >
> > > > We'll look into whether the dialogues offer additional clarity. We
> > > > 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 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Nicole,
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > Could
> > > > > you please provide a link to the entire video without cuts,
> including
> > > any
> > > > > questions or comments and the responses to them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Nicole Ebber <
> > > nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We’re in week 4 of community conversations about the movement
> > > strategy
> > > > > > recommendations. Thank you to everyone who has already taken
> part.
> > > The
> > > > > > community conversations will continue until Friday, February 21 -
> > you
> > > > > > can get involved on Meta[1] in Arabic, English,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

2020-02-19 Thread Todd Allen
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
fine.

Todd

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:41 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> I provided feedback previously on Space earlier and I could not find it now
> but I assume it was taken into consideration when the decision was taken.
> Without repeating it, let me remark that the two main questions, which
> remained unsolved, were (i) what is the target audience and (ii) what is
> the content to be discussed there. For (i), we have many different groups
> with many different interests. We have project people (editors), active on
> different projects, we have affiliate people, we have WMF people, there is
> certain overlap between these categories, but I am afraid not much. They
> have very different interests and vision. If I understand it correctly, the
> idea was to bridge the gap between these categories (primarily, between WMF
> and community), but it did not work - it is understandable that people who
> never edited Wikipedia and have no interest editing it, do not find a topic
> on the first Wikipedia contribution very appealing, and those for example
> who deal with Wikipedia as their daily job are not so keen to discuss the
> job on social media - I also have an exciting job but I do not have any
> desire to discuss it anywhere in my free time. Concerning (ii), we have
> people who were looking for something like social media, just to hang out,
> we had people who wanted to discuss project and foundation issues which
> they found important, we had people who were only posting announcements -
> but I do not think we had general understanding why people should come to
> Space to discuss, and what they should discuss. There are discussions going
> on in the projects. Meta started as a cross-product (and cross-language)
> discussion venue, but now it is essentially dead - I long ago stopped
> following my watchlist there. The mailing lists are mainly dead or at least
> half-dead. Understandably, people went to FB and Twitter - they will
> discover at some point that there are serious privacy issues, and, in
> addition, this is like Wild West where you are on your own (I had my FB
> account disabled for alleged copyright violations last year, and there is
> nothing I can do about it), but before they discover it I am not sure why
> they should go to any other platform to discuss - what? There might be some
> room for a social media platform run by WMF, but it should be very well
> discussed what exactly we expect, what we can provide, and how this can be
> done. I would recommend a community conversation - not a "community
> consultation", when a decision has already been taken, and the
> "consultation" is used to legitimize this decision, but a real
> brainstorming, and see what the stakeholders are and what they want. I am
> afraid though that it would be difficult to organize even this
> brainstorming and collect a sufficient number of responses to make
> meaningful conclusions.
>
> (There were opinions voiced that the Space would never take off because it
> is run by WMF who would erase any criticism - well, I have not seen this
> happening. This would not be my concern at this point.)
>
> Despite my skepticism, I believe that people who were running the Space and
> people who invested into the Space clearly had good intentions, and whereas
> things did not work at the end, I would like to thank them - mainly Elena
> and Quim I guess.
>
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:35 PM Quim Gil  wrote:
>
> > Thank you for all the feedback. After scanning different channels, we
> have
> > a wide range of opinions which reflect how deep and complex the problem
> of
> > cross-wiki collaboration is, and also how differently the Space prototype
> > and this decision is being perceived. We will process this feedback and
> > integrate it in the lessons learned. If you have more feedback or
> > questions, please share. This conversation is important.
> >
> > The channels we are watching:
> >
> > * https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/next-steps-on-wikimedia-space/3184
> > *
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Space#Next_steps_on_Wikimedia_Space
> > *
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-February/094269.html
> > and replies
> > *
> >
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/2699004306814050/
> >
> > If you are aware of more conversations related to this announcement,
> please
> > share them here as well.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:30 AM Quim Gil  wrote:
> >
> > > Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation launched Wikimedia Space to
> > experiment
> > > with new ways to connect volunteers, increase movement participation,
> and
> > > showcase community stories. While we remain committed to this 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

2020-02-19 Thread Todd Allen
Nicole,

While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, this is exactly why we
distrust this kind of backchanneling. If you have something to say, you say
it publicly, open to criticism and dispute. You don't say it in a "salon"
or a "survey" or anything else insulated from that. On Wikimedia projects,
we do things in full public view.

Todd

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 10:14 AM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> I now realised that none of the participants in the audience was aware
> of us recording them, and that we aren't able to identify them to ask
> for their consent. We are not going to release the full video, but are
> of course happy to answer potential questions and create more clarity
> where needed.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:30, Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Todd,
> >
> > Thanks for your question. The video is indeed incomplete. We cut if
> > for the viewer's comfort, as the original version is ~60 mins long,
> > and has questions and interaction with the audience at All Hands. Our
> > main objective for this video was to focus on conveying the broad
> > context and content of each recommendation in a quick and accessible
> > way, without putting too much emphasis on specific recommendations or
> > details.
> >
> > We'll look into whether the dialogues offer additional clarity. We
> > 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  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Nicole,
> > >
> > > 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.
> Could
> > > you please provide a link to the entire video without cuts, including
> any
> > > questions or comments and the responses to them?
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Nicole Ebber <
> nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > We’re in week 4 of community conversations about the movement
> strategy
> > > > recommendations. Thank you to everyone who has already taken part.
> The
> > > > community conversations will continue until Friday, February 21 - you
> > > > can get involved on Meta[1] in Arabic, English, French, German,
> Hindi,
> > > > Spanish, and Portuguese, strategize with your community or
> > > > organization, or send the core team your feedback to
> > > > strategy2...@wikimedia.org.
> > > >
> > > > This current round of community conversations is the last opportunity
> > > > to suggest improvements to the recommendations. They will be
> finalized
> > > > before the end of March, and then published for the movement to
> > > > understand them, reflect on what they mean in their project, local,
> or
> > > > thematic context, and move into implementation.
> > > >
> > > > == Movement feedback: what happens next ==
> > > > All feedback is being collected, reviewed and analyzed on an ongoing
> > > > basis. Here are the  next steps after February 21:
> > > >
> > > > * Week commencing February 24: the core team will summarize all the
> > > > feedback received in a report. You are welcome to continue commenting
> > > > and discussing during this time, but the discussions will not be as
> > > > closely facilitated and documented.
> > > >
> > > > * Week commencing March 2: the core team will publish the above
> report
> > > > on Meta to give the movement an opportunity to review the content and
> > > > give feedback as to whether it accurately reflects their input. The
> > > > closing date for this is March 6. This summary report will then be
> > > > finalized and published.
> > > >
> > > > In mid-March, the feedback from the Board of Trustees, movement
> > > > conversations and reviewers' input will be considered in the creation
> > > > of the final, improved set of recommendations. A rationale for things
> > > > that have not been considered will

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

2020-02-14 Thread Todd Allen
Hello Nicole,

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. Could
you please provide a link to the entire video without cuts, including any
questions or comments and the responses to them?

Todd

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We’re in week 4 of community conversations about the movement strategy
> recommendations. Thank you to everyone who has already taken part. The
> community conversations will continue until Friday, February 21 - you
> can get involved on Meta[1] in Arabic, English, French, German, Hindi,
> Spanish, and Portuguese, strategize with your community or
> organization, or send the core team your feedback to
> strategy2...@wikimedia.org.
>
> This current round of community conversations is the last opportunity
> to suggest improvements to the recommendations. They will be finalized
> before the end of March, and then published for the movement to
> understand them, reflect on what they mean in their project, local, or
> thematic context, and move into implementation.
>
> == Movement feedback: what happens next ==
> All feedback is being collected, reviewed and analyzed on an ongoing
> basis. Here are the  next steps after February 21:
>
> * Week commencing February 24: the core team will summarize all the
> feedback received in a report. You are welcome to continue commenting
> and discussing during this time, but the discussions will not be as
> closely facilitated and documented.
>
> * Week commencing March 2: the core team will publish the above report
> on Meta to give the movement an opportunity to review the content and
> give feedback as to whether it accurately reflects their input. The
> closing date for this is March 6. This summary report will then be
> finalized and published.
>
> In mid-March, the feedback from the Board of Trustees, movement
> conversations and reviewers' input will be considered in the creation
> of the final, improved set of recommendations. A rationale for things
> that have not been considered will be provided, too. Our aim is to
> have the recommendations finalized and published in late March. More
> about the actual integration work coming soon.
>
> == Video and podcast about our work; one-pager ==
> Members of the core team - Tanveer Hasan, Information and Knowledge
> Liaison, and Mehrdad Pourzaki, Information and Knowledge Manager -
> recently held a presentation about all the recommendations at the
> Wikimedia Foundation All Hands. They provide a quick, concise overview
> of every recommendation and also some insight into how each was
> developed. Video of the presentation [2] and the presentation slides
> [3] are now on Commons.
>
> Jan Ainali has interviewed me for his podcast Wikipedia Podden. I’m
> speaking with him about the past, present and future of movement
> strategy[4].
>
> The one-pager created by Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado) has been very
> popular. Again, a big thank you to Andrew for putting this together.
> In addition to Arabic, English, and Hindi versions, it is now also
> available in Farsi [5, 6].
>
> == Meeting notes from the office hours  ==
> We have published a condensed summary of the meeting notes [7] from
> the office hours that were held by the core team on Thursday, January
> 30. The notes provide an overview of the key points and questions that
> were raised during the two calls as well as summaries of the
> responses.
>
> == Do you have further questions? ==
> Members of the core team will join the upcoming Wikimedia Café on
> February 15 [8], which will focus on the movement strategy
> recommendations. The Wikimedia Café is a community-led meeting hosted
> by User:Pine and User:Bluerasberry, and we are happy to take part and
> help answer any questions people may have about the recommendations.
> Additionally, if you are looking for more information about any of the
> above topics or about the movement strategy in general, take a look at
> our FAQ section [9].
>
> Happy weekend,
> Nicole
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_movement_strategy_recommendations_presentation_at_WMF_All-Hands_2020.webm
> [3]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Movement_Strategy_at_WMF_All_Hands_2020.pdf
> [4]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WP_72_-_Wikimedia_2030,_a_strategy_interview.mp3#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D
> [5]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:One-page_overview_of_the_first_version_of_the_Wikimedia_2030_movement_strategy_recommendations.pdf
> [6]
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Tool from Community Tech: Who Wrote That?

2020-01-24 Thread Todd Allen
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!

Todd

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:52 PM Ilana Fried  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I’m very excited to share a new tool created by the Community Tech team:
> Who Wrote That[1],
> available as a
> <
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/who-wrote-that-beta/ekkbnedhfelfaidbpaedaecjiokkionn
> >Chrome[2]
> and Firefox[3] browser extension. We developed this tool in response to the
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2017/Search/Blame_tool
> >#4
> wish[4] from the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey[5]. With Who Wrote That?
> (WWT), you can find authorship information directly on Wikipedia articles.
> When you hover over content, the tool highlights all content by the same
> author. When you click on content, the tool identifies the author of the
> revision, along with revision details.
>
>
> We would love your feedback[6]! You can download the
> <
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/who-wrote-that-beta/ekkbnedhfelfaidbpaedaecjiokkionn
> >Chrome[2]
> and Firefox[3] extension, and documentation on the tool is available on the
> MediaWiki WWT page[1]. The data and analysis in WWT come from the WhoColor
> API[7], developed by WikiWho[8], and the MediaWiki API.
>
>
> We hope that you all enjoy using the tool!
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Ilana Fried
>
> Product Manager, Community Tech
>
>
> [1]. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WWT
>
> [2].
>
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/who-wrote-that/ekkbnedhfelfaidbpaedaecjiokkionn
>
> [3]. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/whowrotethat/
>
> [4].
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2017/Search/Blame_tool
>
> [5]. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2017
>
> [6].
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Tech/Who_Wrote_That_tool
>
> [7]. https://api.wikiwho.net/en/whocolor/v1.0.0-beta/
>
> [8]. https://www.wikiwho.net/
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Recommendations released, join the conversation

2020-01-20 Thread Todd Allen
Katherine,

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?

Todd

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 8:24 PM Katherine Maher  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I wanted to share some news with you: the first version of the movement
> strategy recommendations document has been published on Meta [1]. On behalf
> of the movement strategy working groups and recommendation writers, I am
> honored to present them to you. We ask you to please take a moment to read
> through, review, and comment.
>
> In 2017, we set about building the future we want, together. In 2020, your
> fellow Wikimedians have written and shared a framework for how we can bring
> to life our vision of becoming the essential support system of the
> ecosystem of free knowledge.
>
> == Review the recommendations ==
>
> These recommendations are the result of 18 months of in-depth discussions
> and consultation among global Wikimedia community members and research
> into opportunities for our future. The volunteer working groups [2],
> writing teams [3] and strategy liaisons [4] have all invested a significant
> amount of energy into this, and I want to wholeheartedly thank each and
> every person who contributed to creating this work.
>
> I would like to encourage everyone to read this work. There are 13
> recommendations (condensed from 89), accompanied by an explanation of the
> principles [5] that underlie the recommendations, an outline of how these
> recommendations work together [6], as well as an overview of how the
> recommendations were produced and next steps [7].
>
> The core of this material is online in Arabic, English, French, German,
> Hindi, Portuguese, and Spanish. We also have an overview available in
> Catalan, Dutch, Farsi, Hebrew, Polish, and Russian that offers a condensed
> introduction to the recommendations material.
>
> == Share your feedback ==
>
> In order to produce a final document that is representative of and relevant
> to the diverse project communities as well as groups and organizations that
> make up our movement, we are calling on everyone to review the
> recommendations and share their thoughts.
>
> Specifically, we ask you to look at what impact these recommendations might
> have on you and your group or community’s context. Discussions are
> happening on-wiki in many languages, as well as in discussion groups on
> other, off0wiki platforms, and within movement groups and structures.
>
> This round of community conversations will run until the first week of
> March [8]. After this five-week period, the Core Team will publish a
> summary report of input from across affiliates, online communities, and
> other stakeholders for public review. [9] Your input will play a role as
> the recommendation writers finalize the strategy document, and move us
> towards discussions around implementation.
>
> You will find more information about the process in the FAQs [10], and
> please direct any additional questions or remarks to the respective meta
> pages.
>
> Our movement is the sum of its parts. Each member brings to it invaluable
> skills, expertise, and ideas to capture, collect, and share free knowledge.
> And every single contribution made by every community member from the
> beginning has helped us grow into the global, diverse, and unique movement
> we are today.
>
> I am honored to share this on behalf of everyone involved, and am looking
> forward to insights from across the movement over the next few weeks.
>
> Katherine
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People#Second_phase
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Community_Strategy_Liaisons
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Principles
> [6]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Cover_note
> [7]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Process
> [8]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_is_the_timeframe_for_all_of_this
> ?
> [9]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Overview/Timeline
> [10]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions
>
> --
>
> Katherine Maher (she/her)
>
> Executive Director
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

2020-01-20 Thread Todd Allen
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 ignored.

Todd

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 5:48 PM Leila Zia  wrote:

> [writing at my personal capacity.]
>
> Hi Pine,
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:20 PM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > * I realize that a lot of time and money has been spent in the strategy
> > process to this point. I hope that there will be consensus on at least
> some
> > of the recommendations.
>
> True consensus based decision making for this stage, at least given
> the technologies available to us at the moment, is not possible, imho.
> One of the immediate challenges we will face is that the time
> available to folks to participate is varying across people
> significantly. We also have languages as the barriers for people to
> talk directly with each other across languages. At best you can expect
> heavy engagement early on (within different communities) and then
> people gradually disengaging as conversations become lengthy and
> sometimes even harsh or toxic. You may end up with some version of
> consensus at the end (even that is hard as you have to aggregate
> results across many communities and what if one doesn't agree with
> another), but that will be the consensus of those who stayed around
> and that's not a good place to be when you want to finalize the
> recommendations. That makes me think that the approach through which
> one entity accepts responsibility and make a decision while taking
> into account the conversations and feedback that will come in in the
> following weeks may be a better approach.
>
> (Disclaimer: The process is very complex and I don't claim to know
> what the right approach is.)
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

2020-01-13 Thread Todd Allen
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
be allowed for discussion of such a critical item.

Todd

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:25 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Nicole,
>
> After reading this email, and taking into consideration a discussion that
> happened during the January online meeting of United States Wikimedians, I
> feel that the timeline here is aggressive and likely to result in problems.
> In particular, giving the core team one week to review feedback and giving
> the community one week to review the core team's summary seem risky at
> best, even if everyone is communicating in English. When taking into
> account the need for translations,my guess is that one week is an
> impossibly short timeframe for quality work in these phases of the strategy
> process.
>
> I suggesting adding at least one more week to the timeframe for the core
> team to review feedback including translations of comments, and at least
> three more weeks for conversations with the community regarding the core
> team's summary.
>
> I am concerned that this process may be heading toward a rushed and chaotic
> finish.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia was edited from the ISS

2019-12-30 Thread Todd Allen
Internally, absolutely.

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 website.

Hence my suggestion for those involved to get in touch with news outlets.
It's something very cool, and it certainly should be something we see
reporting on. It would make a great feel-good/human interest piece, so I'm
sure someone would be interested in publishing on it. And once that
happens, we can put it in articles too.

Todd

On Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:12 AM Pine W  wrote:

> I saw that user creation log and that does seem to me to be persuasive
> evidence, but persuasive evidence may not be conclusive proof. Carl Sagan
> said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
> ", and I understand if
> people
> would like evidence that is more verifiable to the public than a CU's
> testimony, especially keeping in mind that hoaxes have been a problem on
> English Wikipedia
> .
> However, I also think that "assume good faith
> " applies here,
> and I am mindful of another user who said that people made demands for
> proof of their authenticity in a way that sounded to me like the
> interrogators' primary motivation was harassment. Perhaps "Trust, but
> verify
> " fits how I'm thinking
> about this. The currently available evidence wouldn't be enough for me to
> feel comfortable with sending out a press release, but internally (in
> Wikimedia spaces) I would be happy to celebrate good news if this person is
> able and willing to publicly associate the Wikipedia account with their
> identity as an astronaut.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia was edited from the ISS

2019-12-29 Thread Todd Allen
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
believe anyone, of course, but "Wait for the sources, then we write about
it after" is pretty much always how we do things.) I suspect some news
outlet might be quite interested to write about such an occurrence.

Todd

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 8:10 AM Yury Bulka 
wrote:

> I'm sorry if this was already posted here, I may have missed it. But in
> case it was not:
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia=926638155=926632230
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_spacewalks_since_2015=prev=926631603
>
> I think this is truly amazing.
>
> P.S. I was trying to find some additional sources besides this edit that
> would provide more context for readers, and am currently discussing this
> on the user page of the edit author:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darenwelsh#Edits_from_space
>
> Best,
>
> --
> Yury Bulka
> https://mamot.fr/@setthemfree
> #NotOnFacebook
>
> ___
> 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] The wikisites looks like 1996

2019-12-12 Thread Todd Allen
I'm not using my cell phone. I'm using an actual computer with a 28"
monitor.

There's really no excuse, in web design, for something aside from the
content to absolutely overwhelm the whole monitor on a first view. That
robot image should be about a third of its size.

Todd

On Thu, Dec 12, 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.
> >
> > 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 content. *That* looks like 1996.
> >
> > I'll take the way we have it over that, thanks very much.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:48 PM John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Could we please update them with a slightly more up-to-date skin?
> > >
> > > Take a look at our Norwegian competitor in the lexicon field.
> > > https://snl.no/kunstig_intelligens
> > >
> > > John Erling Blad
> > > /jeblad
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The wikisites looks like 1996

2019-12-12 Thread Todd Allen
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 content. *That* looks like 1996.

I'll take the way we have it over that, thanks very much.

Todd

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:48 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Could we please update them with a slightly more up-to-date skin?
>
> Take a look at our Norwegian competitor in the lexicon field.
> https://snl.no/kunstig_intelligens
>
> John Erling Blad
> /jeblad
> ___
> 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] TLS

2019-11-24 Thread Todd Allen
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.

If said obsolescence causes a security risk as well, there's really no
question to be had; has to be done.

Todd

On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 7:23 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> I use a second generation iPod Touch, which is incapable updating any
> further.
>
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Alex Monk  wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you may have been affected by
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T238038 which would've sent you to a
> page
> > like https://meta.wikimedia.org/sec-warning
> > Why are you attempting to connect using old versions of TLS?
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 20:30, Benjamin Ikuta 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Was support for legacy TLS temporarily discontinued or something?
> >>
> >> I noticed I couldn't connect the other day, but now it seems I can
> again.
> >>
> >> For what it's worth, I strongly oppose any measure that makes Wikimedia
> >> projects less accessible.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> 
___
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] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

2019-09-22 Thread Todd Allen
When I visited it, yes, the message could be dismissed.

Todd

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:53 PM Dennis During  wrote:

> Does anyone know whether the screen allowed a user to click through?
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A screenshot has been uploaded to
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_global_climate_strike_banner_2019.png
> > .
> >
> > Unfortunately, though web.archive.org has snapshots of the website,
> > these do not appear to render the banner as it displayed in a browser
> > on the day.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 at 09:30, Alexander N Krassotkin
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >   Does anyone have a screenshot of the page with this banner? Or a
> > > link to an online archive? Or at least the banner itself?
> > >
> > > sasha.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:54 PM Dennis During 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I couldn't get onto 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 knowledge for all was not
> > disrupted.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 3:19 AM Todd Allen 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > itself, I don't see the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Dennis During 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am profoundly disappointed that WMF employees don't value the
> > mission.
> > > > > > Instead they seem to simply follow fashion and force users and
> > volunteers
> > > > > > to follow their fashionable methods of advocacy.  They use their
> > monopoly
> > > > > > power to deny free access to the world's knowledge that many
> > thousands of
> > > > > > volunteers have diligently assembled. This time it is to show
> > solidarity
> > > > > > with environmental advocates. What will it be next time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 15:35 Pine W  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a few comments.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While I appreciate the sentiment, I wouldn't have put the
> > > > > > > wikimediafoundation.org domain "on strike", just as I wouldn't
> > have
> > > > > put
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > government agency's website "on strike". I think that some
> > discussion
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > climate change would be fine, but I think that WMF's action
> here
> > is
> > > > > > > somewhat strange.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that asking about the climate impact of staff travel is
> > fine.
> > > > > > > However, I would also include questions about travel for
> > Wikimedia
> > > > > events
> > > > > > > more broadly. I believe that the WMF Board has indicated
> support
> > for
> > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > to reduce the Wikiverse's contributions to climate change. As
> > has been
> > > > > > > mentioned in this thread, WMF released a report yesterday
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093519.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > on the subject of sustainability. While I have not read it, I
> > think
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > measuring and attempting to reduce reduce negative
> environmental
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

2019-09-21 Thread Todd Allen
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
itself, I don't see the issue.

Todd

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Dennis During  wrote:

> I am profoundly disappointed that WMF employees don't value the mission.
> Instead they seem to simply follow fashion and force users and volunteers
> to follow their fashionable methods of advocacy.  They use their monopoly
> power to deny free access to the world's knowledge that many thousands of
> volunteers have diligently assembled. This time it is to show solidarity
> with environmental advocates. What will it be next time?
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 15:35 Pine W  wrote:
>
> > I have a few comments.
> >
> > While I appreciate the sentiment, I wouldn't have put the
> > wikimediafoundation.org domain "on strike", just as I wouldn't have put
> a
> > government agency's website "on strike". I think that some discussion of
> > climate change would be fine, but I think that WMF's action here is
> > somewhat strange.
> >
> > I think that asking about the climate impact of staff travel is fine.
> > However, I would also include questions about travel for Wikimedia events
> > more broadly. I believe that the WMF Board has indicated support for
> trying
> > to reduce the Wikiverse's contributions to climate change. As has been
> > mentioned in this thread, WMF released a report yesterday
> > <
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093519.html
> > >
> > on the subject of sustainability. While I have not read it, I think that
> > measuring and attempting to reduce reduce negative environmental impacts
> > from Wikimedia activities is good, including negative environmental
> impacts
> > from travel. However, I also think that there are some benefits to morale
> > and communications from in person meetings, so I would be reluctant to
> > eliminate travel and conferences entirely.
> >
> > I think that it's fine to ask whether WMF senior management is practicing
> > what they preach. However, Fae, I feel that your tone in this thread is
> > excessively harsh on this point. I think that you could ask very similar
> > questions with a tone that is calmer.
> >
> > On the subject of environmental sustainability, my main concern at this
> > time is the banner on the WMF website which I feel is somewhat weird and
> is
> > inconsistent with WMF's goal of being "essential infrastructure". Do we
> > want "essential infrastructure" to go on strike, particularly when that
> > infrastructure is supposed to be for an organization that provides public
> > service and supports the community in publishing reliable scientific
> > information? I think not. However, I think that the banner is regrettably
> > consistent with the series of surprising decisions from WMF in the past
> few
> > months. That is, to me, the most concerning element in all of this. If
> WMF
> > wants to be a public service infrastructure provider then I think that it
> > should act like one.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > ___
> > 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] Wiki loves SDGs

2019-09-18 Thread Todd Allen
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 people would be placed
at risk for traveling there, and the government is known to arrest tourists
just for being gay, that should at least be disclosed to prospective
attendees.

Todd

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 5:48 AM Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> Respectfully, my friend, I disagree. I often make silly or ill considered
> comments.  I hope those will not be the only data points used to describe
> me.
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:59 AM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Sorry but when you call my comments flippant, you call me flippant.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 11:06, Andy Mabbett 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Calling someone "flippant" is a direct attack -
> > >
> > > Nobody called you flippant. Fæ said "your comments are flippant"
> > >
> > > Please stop this, now.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
>
> --
> Philippe Beaudette
> phili...@beaudette.me
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-09-13 Thread Todd Allen
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
in public.

Todd

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Diane,
>
> If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the
> "harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole in
> her messages?
> I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new discussion
> with the community takes place.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
>
> Diane Ranville  escreveu no dia sexta,
> 13/09/2019 à(s) 14:20:
>
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will
> > soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not
> > being updated (I think they are not meant to be).
> > If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I
> suggest
> > using their mailing list : wg2030-divers...@wikimedia.org
> >
> > Best,
> > Diane
> > (community strategy liaison for the french speaking community)
> >
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> > >
> > Garanti
> > sans virus. www.avast.com
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail
> > >
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it?
> > >
> > > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett <
> > > a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke <
> geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the
> > > > > > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the
> > one
> > > > > > where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > > > community.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  That step is not mentioned at
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_steps_will_take_place_in_the_next_few_months_to_put_a_decision-making_process_in_place
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > But it is alluded to further down that page, albeit with an apparent
> > > > assumption that the recommendations will (all) be implemented:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Frequently_asked_questions#What_are_the_steps_that_will_take_place_between_recommendations_being_published_and_implementation
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > In the light of Nicole's recent - and reassuring - email:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
> > > >
> > > > perhaps that section could be updated to reflect that:
> > > >
> > > >"[recommendations not needing the legal authority of the board]
> will
> > > > then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and
> > > > structures for approval or further consultation."
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andy Mabbett
> > > > @pigsonthewing
> > > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Mabbett
> > > @pigsonthewing
> > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

2019-09-07 Thread Todd Allen
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.

Todd

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 2:06 PM David Gerard  wrote:

> I concur, it sounds sensible.
>
> (I'll note, I'm not actually against the name change proposal - but
> it's got to be presented to the community properly.)
>
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 20:50, Kiril Simeonovski
>  wrote:
> >
> > HI David,
> >
> > Yes, it stands to reason to announce on all wikis in a similar way as the
> > announcements about board or steward elections.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kiril
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > On all wikis?
> > >
> > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Right.
> > > >
> > > > I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
> > > > kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta
> about
> > > this,
> > > > > so we can safely move forward with it and close this thread.
> > > Otherwise, we
> > > > > will most likely keep up boggling our minds with the 20-per-cent
> > > metric and
> > > > > endlessly discuss how unfortunate is this for the global community
> > > when the
> > > > > only rational thing we can do is take action and save everyone's
> time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have any concluding remarks or comments regarding the RfC?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Kiril
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM Ferdinando Traversa <
> > > > > ferdi.trave...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I’m against and sincerly I don’t trust this datas (80% agrees?
> Are
> > > you
> > > > > > kidding me? I’ve seen the meta discussion). I think a Meta CLEAR
> > > VOTE as
> > > > > > suggested here is the best way. Imposing a change like this is a
> > > wrong
> > > > > > decision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Il giorno 6 set 2019, alle ore 05:49, Zack McCune <
> > > > > zmcc...@wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > ha scritto:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design
> > > process
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group,
> or
> > > watch
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > updates on Meta-Wiki.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
> > > > > affiliates,
> > > > > > > several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I
> am
> > > > > pleased
> > > > > > > to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement
> brand
> > > > > > strategy
> > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual
> > > contributors
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > 63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Reducing confusion
> > > > > > >   2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Protecting reputation
> > > > > > >   3.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Supporting sister projects
> > > > > > >   4.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Addressing (legal, governmental) risks
> > > > > > >   5.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Supporting movement growth
> > > > > > >   6.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   The process of change
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please visit our feedback summary page to learn more [2]. You
> will
> > > see
> > > > > > > examples of comments within each section, along with a rough
> > > indication
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > how many of the comments that we received were related to each
> > > theme.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The comments sometimes contradict one another, showing that
> across
> > > our
> > > > > > wide
> > > > > > > movement’s experience, different points of view are common
> (and a
> > > sign
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > health!). To visualize these tensions, we have created
> “polarity
> > > maps”
> > > > > > > which are used to help visualize how different arguments
> coexist in
> > > > > > tension
> > > > > > > with each other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ultimately, the comments provided from you all are very
> thoughtful
> > > and
> > > > > > > useful guidance on what is needed to make our movement’s
> branding
> > > > > > > successful. One can read the 6 themes above as “criteria” for
> > > assessing
> > > > > > > branding systems.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > == Thanks ==
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to thank the organizers of Iberoconf, Wikipedia
> > > Education
> > > > > > > Summit, and the Wikimedia Summit for inviting us to hold
> > > discussions
> > > > > > during
> > > > > > > their sessions. I would also like to thank my colleagues Elena
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-25 Thread Todd Allen
Payment "in kind" is still a form of payment. Now, if it's just talking
about expense reimbursement, I'm okay with that (so long as such
reimbursement is done uniformly rather than just for certain people), but
as far as I know that's already been done for a long time.

But it's still bothersome that, despite the fact that we have begged the
WMF for years to come up with a solution to the issue of paid editing, not
one of these recommendations addresses that. "Diversity", while certainly a
noble goal, cannot be the only goal. Our strategy should primarily focus on
the issues we have right now, today, and I do not see one single one of
these recommendations addressing paid editing, one of the primary scourges
we currently face, in any way whatsoever, and one that would at least
arguably make it worse.

Todd

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 4:09 AM Bence Damokos  wrote:

> The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision
> making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about ‘paid
> editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”.
>
> I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of
> 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,
> Bence
>
> Todd Allen  (időpont: 2019. aug. 25., V, 11:44) ezt
> írta:
>
> > Well then, why aren't you listening?
> >
> > We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid
> > editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get
> > paid edit requests removed  from sites like Upwork, since they will not
> > allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've
> been
> > completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we
> > get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to
> > deal with the fallout.
> >
> > In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow
> > paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact
> > opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no
> > paid editing from WMF!
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/C
> >
> > Why on Earth are 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 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
> > >>
> > >
> > > My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point
> that
> > a
> > > majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> > > organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in
> > the
> > > discussion).
> > >
> > > 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening
> to
> > > group.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > dj
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> -- Bence Damokos Sent from Gmail Mobile
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-25 Thread Todd Allen
Well then, why aren't you listening?

We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid
editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get
paid edit requests removed  from sites like Upwork, since they will not
allow requests that violate another site's terms of service. But we've been
completely unable to get WMF to do something unequivocal like that, so we
get left to deal with the spam and crapvertising. Wikipedia admins get to
deal with the fallout.

In the meantime, we get a WMF "working group" wanting to not only allow
paid editing, but have WMF do the paying. That is the direct, exact
opposite of what we've been asking for! No paid editing, and certainly no
paid editing from WMF!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Resource_Allocation/Recommendations/C

Why on Earth are 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 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
>>
>
> My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a
> majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the
> discussion).
>
> 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to
> group.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-24 Thread Todd Allen
Then, let me rephrase, I guess. Why's it seem those people are being
ignored?

When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia
functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF
backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly
backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone
regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.

I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do
something like that again". But then I can't see how that couldn't have
been learned 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
community again.

Has that lesson, at least, been learned?

Todd

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
>>
>
> My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a
> majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the
> discussion).
>
> 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to
> group.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-24 Thread Todd Allen
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
recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made."

And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of
thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than
a dozen people?

That's no way to run a project. It's no way to run anything. "Well, their
vote counts for a hundred of yours...".

That's not how we do things, at all. Either things are accepted or rejected
by Wikimedia members, but every single long-term, good-faith contributor
counts the same as any other. No one's voice is "more equal" than another.

Regards,

Todd

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 3:40 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Well, "the intention of building an encyclopedia based on a neutral point
> of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable
> independent sources and disseminated under a free licence" is close to many
> of us (me including). I think it is quite unlikely that recommendations
> challenging every single part of that intent, in the understanding of the
> majority of our community, will go through.
>
> It is my honest belief that the WMF Board of Trustees does not intend to
> radically reduce the number of volunteers involved.
>
> In any case, I suggest we wait and see how the recommendations shape up
> anyhow.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 5:22 PM Jeff Hawke  > wrote:
> Dariusz
>
> It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you
> mention are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on
> a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to
> reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence.  Since
> there are recommendations that would challenge every single part of that
> intent, it seems reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of
> the volunteer workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a
> project that has so dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> --
> 
> [http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]
>   prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies)
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl 
>
>
>
> Ostatnie artykuły:
>
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017)  Cultural Diversity of
> Quality of Information on Wikipedias<
> http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/cultures%20of%20wikipedias.pdf>
> Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:  10.
> 2460–2470.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Wikimedia Movement Governance: The Limits
> of A-Hierarchical Organization<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/wikimedia_governance.pdf> Journal
> of Organizational Change Management 29:  3.  361-378.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016)  Bridging the Gap Between
> Wikipedia and Academia<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/bridging.pdf> Journal of the
> Association for Information Science and Technology 67:  7.  1773-1776.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Breaking the Glass Ceiling on Wikipedia<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/glass-ceiling.pdf> Feminist
> Review 113:  1.  103-108.
>   *   Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)
> Inequalities in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s
> Commits in Apache Software Foundation Projects<
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0152976.PDF>,
> PLoS ONE 11:  4.  e0152976.
> ___
> 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] NC and ND content (was: Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations...)

2019-08-12 Thread Todd Allen
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
mechanisms for offline access, even if no profit is made from such an
endeavor and the "sale" only helps to defray part of the costs.

The decision to require open content licenses was not an arbitrary one.
When we say "The free encyclopedia", that means in terms of "libre", not
just "gratis". Sure, we can legally use "noncommercial" or "no derivatives"
or "for educational purposes only" licensed works--but our users cannot
reuse it, and that they can do that has always been part of what we have
promised them. Our current minimal acceptance of nonfree content already
makes that a bit of a morass for would-be reusers; doing so on a wide scale
would make it a hopeless minefield.

Todd

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:45 AM James Heilman  wrote:

> Yah I have mixed feelings about NC. There is a lot of great content under
> this license which would benefit our readers if we could use it. We for
> example have folks like Khan Academy and the World Health Organization who
> refuse to adopt open licenses. They tell us that we can use their content
> right now as we are a non commercial project but that they will not chance.
>
> Yet us allowing NC will keep us from forcing those who are currently using
> this horribly unclear license to adopt an actual open one. I have had those
> who create NC context explicitly say we CANNOT use it on
> "Internet-in-a-Box" as even though we are selling the devices at below the
> cost of making them in the developing world, they are still being sold.
> This makes me want to have nothing to do with NC.
>
> ND is even worse. This means we cannot translate content and I am not
> interested in seeing us adopt anything which we cannot translate.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:29 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > There was once a report in which I read: Wikimedia Commons should allow
> NC
> > and ND content because that is somehow good for "communities that are
> > historically prohibited from telling their stories".
> > Then I asked on the talk page for the reasoning behind this
> > demand/postulation.
> > The answer I got was not very substantial.
> > I am very open to discuss the pros and cons of e.g. opening Wikimedia
> > Commons to NC or ND. But sorry, I find it very difficult to have a
> > meaningful conversation on this basis.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Reports/March-April_Community_Conversations_Monthly_Report
> >
> >
> > Am Fr., 9. Aug. 2019 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber <
> > nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>:
> >
> > > Dear fellow Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of
> > > draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have
> > > been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine
> > > Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the
> > > future of our movement.
> > >
> > > Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to
> > > research the movement, analyze community input shared via community
> > > conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you
> > > to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
> > >
> > > The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our
> > > movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction.
> > > They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of
> > > future we want to create together.
> > >
> > > The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage,
> > > your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these
> > > changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do
> > > you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And
> > > of course, always critically question whether these recommendations
> > > support the strategic direction.
> > >
> > > There are a few ways to do this:
> > > * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
> > > directly on Meta. [2]
> > > * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
> > > * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
> > > * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
> > > or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
> > >
> > > Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive
> > > into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and
> > > use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape
> > > what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
> > >
> > > If you have any questions or feedback, please feel 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-12 Thread Todd Allen
"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
licensing scheme?"

We can't and no one can.

Knowledge, ideas, and concepts cannot be copyrighted to begin with. Now,
specific expressions of those ideas certainly can be, but the underlying
facts and ideas cannot. If the expression of those ideas is to be on
Wikimedia, they must be under an open content license, allowing reuse
without regard to purpose. If someone would prefer to put their work under
an NC license, then a free-content project is not the appropriate place for
it. Many other places are happy to accept NC-licensed material. But even
then, reuse of the concepts and facts cannot be prohibited no matter what
one does.

Todd

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:47 AM Philip Kopetzky 
wrote:

> Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list. You're
> the only one telling people to shut up here.
>
> 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
> licensing scheme?
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-11 Thread Todd Allen
(Response apparently wasn't sent to list previously.)

Yes, I think there ought to be a place to discuss the whole thing, as
several share a fatal flaw in that they advocate dictating to local
communities from above.

Is this getting announced anywhere other than on the mailing list? There is
a proposal in these to literally undermine Wikipedia's free content mission
by allowing nonfree licenses. (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9)
Do you think, maybe, we shouldn't attempt to slip that through unnoticed
and uncommented?

For example, here's the notice that was left on Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump=revision=360549650=360506118
.
It's totally anodyne, and gives absolutely no indication that such massive
changes, which would entirely strip the communities of autonomy, are
proposed there. For example, I suspect Commons might be just a bit
interested to know these proposals would force them to accept nonfree
content. If this is in any way an honest process, make sure the
announcements indicate how breathtakingly broad and destructive these
proposals are.

Todd

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 7:35 AM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> I believe there are related discussion pages, Todd. Do you think there
> should have been separate pages for discussion aside the talk pages?
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac.
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 2:29 PM Szymon Grabarczuk  wrote:
>
>> How about talk pages?
>>
>> Z poważaniem / Kind regards
>>
>> *Szymon Grabarczuk*
>> userpage: pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
>> <http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion>
>> <http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion>
>>
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 14:28, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>> > >
>> > > They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of
>> > > draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have
>> > > been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine
>> > > Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the
>> > > future of our movement.
>> > >
>> > > Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to
>> > > research the movement, analyze community input shared via community
>> > > conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you
>> > > to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
>> > >
>> > > The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our
>> > > movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction.
>> > > They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of
>> > > future we want to create together.
>> > >
>> > > The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage,
>> > > your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these
>> > > changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do
>> > > you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And
>> > > of course, always critically question whether these recommendations
>> > > support the strategic direction.
>> > >
>> > > There are a few ways to do this:
>> > > * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
>> > > directly on Meta. [2]
>> > > * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space.
>> [3]
>> > > * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
>> > > * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
>> > > or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
>> > >
>> > > Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive
>> > > into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and
>> > > use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape
>> > > what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
>> > >
>> > > If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in
>> touch.
>> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-10 Thread Todd Allen
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.

Todd

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the first round of
> draft recommendations for structural change within our movement have
> been published. The recommendations have been developed by the nine
> Wikimedia 2030 working groups and are a key tool to help us build the
> future of our movement.
>
> Working group members have been working tirelessly for a year to
> research the movement, analyze community input shared via community
> conversations, and gain insight into external trends. A huge thank you
> to each and every member for helping us reach this key milestone.
>
> The draft recommendations are a first look at ways we can adapt our
> movement’s structures to help us advance in our strategic direction.
> They are the starting point for conversations about what kind of
> future we want to create together.
>
> The recommendations are not final. In order to get them to that stage,
> your input is needed! We would like to hear from you all what these
> changes would mean for you in your local or thematic context, what do
> you like about them, and where you potentially see any red flags. And
> of course, always critically question whether these recommendations
> support the strategic direction.
>
> There are a few ways to do this:
> * Read through the recommendations online and provide your input
> directly on Meta. [2]
> * If you will be at Wikimania, join us in the Wikimedia 2030 space. [3]
> * Attend a Strategy Salon hosted by an affiliate where you live. [4]
> * Reach out to a Strategy Liaison in your language to share feedback,
> or lead a conversation of your own. [5]
>
> Over the next month, working groups will take the input they receive
> into the recommendations, alongside external advice and research, and
> use it to refine and finalize them. Share your views, and help shape
> what Wikimedia will look like in 2030 and beyond.
>
> If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to get in touch.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Nicole
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> [3] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Wikimedia_2030
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Strategy_Salons
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/People/Community_Strategy_Liaisons
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
> dabei! https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-07-05 Thread Todd Allen
I wish that it were. Unfortunately, it is actually the case.

Todd

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 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 with "populated places" and the like too.
> >
> > NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> > "article".
> >
> > As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> > editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> > sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> > ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> > article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> > show sourcing immediately.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> > werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
> > editing
> > > environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> > > historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads
> at
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
> > >
> > > On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
> we
> > > have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> > > sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the
> last
> > > year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private
> information,
> > > these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing
> arbs. I
> > > would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> > > these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
> ,
> > > z"
> > >
> > > Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> > > community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have
> argued
> > > for, among other things:
> > >
> > >
> > >1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so
> quickly
> > >to blocks.
> > >2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> > >creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> > find
> > >them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> > >3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> > edits.
> > >
> > >
> > > None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> > > environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> > example
> > > some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
> conflict
> > > understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> > where
> > > people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit
> one
> > > the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> > deletionists
> > > even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> > > deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> > >
> > > My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> > > ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> > people
> > > you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> > versions
> > > of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in
> their
> > > native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> > other
> > > Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> > might
> > > think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> > being
> > > nuanced and diplomatic.
> > >
> > > Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> > communicated
> > > before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> > > would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their
> problem
> > > wa

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banning real identities

2019-07-05 Thread Todd Allen
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?
>
> Thyge - Sir48
>
> Den fre. 5. jul. 2019 kl. 11.53 skrev Thomas Townsend <
> homesec1...@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Alphos
> >
> > You don;t explain why being "doxxed" was a bad thing for you, or
> > indeed what the downside is for anyone,  You simply assert that it is
> > a Bad Thing and must not happen.  Would you like to give your reasons
> > for those assertions?
> >
> > The Turnip
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 15:12, Alphos OGame 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was doxxed by someone in the movement a few years ago, and I cannot
> > stress this enough : WE MUST NOT DOXX PEOPLE.
> > > It doesn't matter how good our intentions are.
> > > It doesn't matter how bad these people are.
> > > We as a community choose to block, ban, lock, whether or not globally,
> > the accounts of people we deem unable to contribute.
> > > We must not disclose unilaterally after the fact the identity of a
> > contributor. And not only because we may well have no clue about it. It
> may
> > get them jailed for the wrong reasons. It may get them harmed for their
> > genuine contributions.
> > > That MUST NOT (rfc2119 [1]) be how we handle things.
> > > Once again, I cannot stress this enough.
> > >
> > > Do not do this. This is a bad idea on so many levels. Pretty much all
> of
> > them, really.
> > >
> > > Alphos
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > >
> > > Le 2 juil. 2019 à 08:17, Thomas Townsend  a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > >> Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you
> think
> > this
> > > >> will serve?
> > > >
> > > > A good question.  The stated object of global bans is "to help assure
> > > > the safety of users of the Wikimedia projects and/or assist in
> > > > preventing prohibited behavior that hinders dialogue, project
> > > > development and expansion".  Identifying those persons banned as
> fully
> > > > as possible helps to achieve that assurance and protect the
> community.
> > > >
> > > > The Turnip.
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-07-05 Thread Todd Allen
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 with "populated places" and the like too.

NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
"article".

As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
show sourcing immediately.

Todd

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing
> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples.
>
> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> z"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>to blocks.
>2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> > > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> > the
> > > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> > en.wp
> > > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and

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

2019-07-05 Thread Todd Allen
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
beer.

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
not to say it can't still be improved, but the proof is in the results. If
the English Wikipedia were badly broken, it wouldn't be a fixture of modern
life.

Todd

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 11:54 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling us
> that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What is
> thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped in
> the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo and keep
> others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess
> Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive
> arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a
> problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends
> and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution that
> involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider,
> in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was
> not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was threatened
> that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).
>
> English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people
> when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It
> is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently
> does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".
>
> Keeping things as they were is not an option.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > >  Also, I believe that the
> > > near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and
> > > that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument
> > can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a
> modern
> > Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and
> > humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering
> achievements,
> > it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released
> from
> > the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let
> that
> > toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including
> Wikipedia.
> > The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this
> > problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
> >
> > Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has
> survived
> > and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction.
> So
> > maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the
> forces
> > that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the community
> of
> > the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical
> realization
> > that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
> > ___
> > 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] Banning real identities

2019-07-01 Thread Todd Allen
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 any case. That seems a purely punitive measure. Certainly,
if the person's real identity is known, they might want to inform, for
example, site security staff at WMF events, as that's a "need to know" type
situation. But I see absolutely no reason to release it to the general
public. That's just doxing as a punishment, and I think that's absolutely
unethical and we're a lot better than that.

Even if we must ban someone from our communities, we should do everything
possible (and everything as far as they'll allow) to let them go in peace
and with dignity, and, again if they will, to make a clean break of it. We
shouldn't take the opportunity to kick them while they're down, even if the
ban was richly deserved.

Todd

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:10 PM Thomas Townsend 
wrote:

> All,
>
> In an attempt to move the discussion on from unprofitable and
> inappropriate speculations about information shared in confidence,
> let's look at one of the aspects that is made public.  When the WMF
> issues a WMF Global Ban in line with
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy it  has been in
> the habit of doing so by login identity or pseudonym as at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy/List
>
> This makes perfect sense in terms of blocking users from logging in,
> but the bans are not only issued against individuals personally rather
> than specific account names ("A Foundation global ban is placed
> against an individual instead of against a specific username") but
> applies to real-world activities such as events and meetings ("as well
> as any in-person events hosted, sponsored or funded by the
> Foundation") for which people tyoically register and pay under a real
> name.
>
> Has the time not come to for WMF Global Bans to name people under
> their real names, where known?  In answer to one likely objection:
> this is not outing, since that applies only to members of the
> Wikimedia community.  People subject to WMF Global Bans are no longer
> members of that community: the ban pernamentaly and irrevocably
> removes them from membership ("Foundation global bans are final; they
> are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible.").
>
> The Turnip
>
> ___
> 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] On wiki versus off wiki - it may not be that simple

2019-06-30 Thread Todd Allen
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 "Were the actions for which
this ban was imposed entirely on-wiki ones, or did any alleged harassment
which factored into the decision take place via other channels?" That
particular question could be given a clear up-or-down answer without any
privacy issues. Even if the answer is "Some of the conduct was off-wiki",
that tells us nothing about what it was or how WMF came to be aware of it.

Todd

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 9:20 AM Stephen Philbrick <
stephen.w.philbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please keep in mind the plausible scenario that one or more people
> contacted T & S, and asserted that editor X is extremely distressed about
> harassment arriving from on wiki edits. Fram can be literally telling the
> truth when they say that they are unaware of any off wiki commincations,
> while T Is in possession of information that cannot simply be summarized
> as on wiki or off wiki. It may well be off wiki real life observations but
> not related to any off wiki communications involving Fram.
>
> Phil
> ___
> 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-28 Thread Todd Allen
I think many Commons users would be flatly insulted by the idea that they
wouldn't take action against something done on Commons because an English
Wikipedia admin did it. Commons is as fiercely protective of its
independence as EN-WP is.

And this elides a crucial question: Were the deletion nominations largely
correct or incorrect? If someone nominates a bunch of entirely appropriate
files for deletion, that could certainly be construed as harassment or at
minimum poor judgment on the nominator's part, but if the complaint is "I
uploaded a bunch of inappropriate stuff and I got caught", that's
appropriate maintenance work. So, were those files mainly deleted, or kept?

Todd

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:22 AM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain
> stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story
> alone. Fram has penchant  for irritating  people he disagrees  with and
> it's possible they have crossed the line.
>
> Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama,  an English Wikipedia
> administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
> While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
> that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
> Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
> users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
> uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
> nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the
> English Wikipedia's admin hat.
>
> This incident is barely a month ago.
>
> I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
> enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And 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 here is even plausible,
> > > let 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 articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> > the
> > >> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is
> lying
> > or
> > >> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not
> challenging
> > >> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> > what
> > >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> > >>
> > >> Todd
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > >>> doing only what you describe?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, 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 articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> > >>> SOURCES
> > >>>> PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> > anyway.
> > >>>> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> > her
> > >>>> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > >>> "harassment"
> > >>>> rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> > policies.
> > >>>> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
> article
> > >>> only
> > >>>> after she has them in hand.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Todd
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
>

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 not until a solution
workable to all sides can be arrived at. (And while I shouldn't have to say
it--honor that.) If the WMF carries on the way that it is now, that loss of
trust may become irreparable. In 2006-2007, when the WMF was starting to
expand its role, some community members expressed a fear of this very type
of situation, that the WMF would consider itself "in charge" of the
project. They were, of course, ensured that, no, WMF's just here to handle
the clerical stuff and keep the servers ticking along, that'd never happen.
Some of us were around long enough to remember when those things were said,
and that makes it feel, not just like a power grab, but like a betrayal.
Don't say one thing and do something else.

From there, if you think there's a problem with the English Wikipedia,
discuss it with the community there. Not in carefully parsed and polished
corporatese, but in frank, direct language. If you think something's wrong,
say so. Be aware that "I want to see your source for that" is almost
second-nature on the project, as well it should be. Come prepared. If you
just kind of have a hazy guess based on a couple anecdotes, that's not
going to fly. (Note that this means a widely publicized discussion on ENWP.
NOT meta.)

From there, don't approach with the attitude of "Now, here is the solution
that we will be imposing." Instead, have an attitude of "What can we do to
fix this and make things work better?". Whatever "it" may be. If it's like
the points in the earlier email, that there are copyright violations, well,
the community doesn't want those either. If it's poor sourcing, we don't
want that. Errors? Don't want 'em. So, if those problems exist, of course
we'll want to fix them too. You will not get an argument over those
principles.

Once there actually is a consensus on a fix, then it can be proceeded with.
There, the software fiascos are instructive. The first time around on them,
WMF tried to use a "cram it down your throat" approach, with the
predictable results since the software was not yet fit for purpose. After
they withdrew it and fixed it, they came back and asked "Does this look
alright to you now?". The result was overwhelming support to go forward
with the deployments. Even those few people who still vehemently didn't
want them didn't try to start a fight against it, or disable it by editing
the MediaWiki namespace, because the community had come to a consensus on
the matter and they weren't going to defy that.

Basically, you cannot start shoving someone and then be amazed and
surprised when they fight back. Talk instead. It is utterly stupid and
counterproductive for the community and WMF to be in a fight. That should
absolutely never happen, and this situation was entirely preventable. But
the WMF must very clearly understand that the English Wikipedia community,
at least (and I suspect many others as well) will not willingly give up
their editorial independence to the Foundation. That portion, I'm afraid,
is never going to be negotiable. But without doing that, I think the
community and the WMF can collaborate to solve problems, if and only if
that relationship can be one based upon trust. But the community didn't
swing first on this one, and the Foundation has absolutely got to stop
picking these fights if it wants any credibility at all. You do not get
someone to trust you by trying to force them to do something they don't
want to.

Todd

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:21 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is not so much Wikipedia that is failing, it is the Wikipedia "business
> as usual" attitude that is failing. The challenge we face is now that we
> know and expect that things are to change, how do we introduce change and
> steer it in a way where people feel less threatened by the usual suspects.
>
> What I have noticed is that there has been no room for real arguments,
> arguments where points of view are floated and considered for their merits.
> So what does it take for people to consider the merits of proposals without
> immediately reverting to "but that is not how I/we do things"?
>
> Important when you want to consider points of view is the way in which we
> converse. There is a huge difference between calling a point of view
> bullshit and calling the person a bullshit artist. Even so, calling a POV
> bullshit is acceptable when arguments are provided WHY you consider
> something bullshit.
>
> Technically many things have progressed to a point where Wikipedia could
> take them seriously. This does not happen even when it is all too obvious
> how our public would benefit. As our intention is to share in the sum of
> all knowledge, we do not need to have it all 

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 anything, they're watched more closely than others.

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:36 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> Sadly, people with advanced permissions (admin, checkuser etc) on Wikimedia
> projects are almost immune to sanctions. You could imagine a behavior that
> would normally lead to a site ban for people with no permission will only
> result in a desysop for an administrator. Worst of it is Wikimedia Commons
> where there has to be two different RfC/votes to get an admin desysoped.
>
> Isaac
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:46 PM camelia boban  wrote:
>
> > I quote David and Isaac.
> > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
> wiki
> > behavior.
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Camelia
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Camelia Boban*
> >
> > *| Java EE Developer |*
> >
> > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> > Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> > Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
> >
> > *Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
> > WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
> >
> > M. +39 3383385545
> > camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> > *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
> >  *|* *LinkedIn
> > *
> > *Wikipedia  **|
> > **WikiDonne
> > UG * | *WikiDonne Project
> >  *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Fæ
> > >
> > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > Wikipedia
> > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the English
> > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > > suggests
> > > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen
> or
> > be
> > > productive.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> 
___
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] 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 arrived at,
via deliberation and over a period of millennia since at least Hammurabi,
to determine how to fairly handle a situation where one person says "You
have done something wrong", and they reply "No, I have not." We could do
worse than to examine how those systems operate, why they have the
procedural safeguards that they do, and what abuses led to those safeguards
being proposed to begin with.

Todd

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:55 PM Dennis During  wrote:

> It seems perfectly reasonable to use metaphors based on legal systems,
> including human rights, in discussing these matters, which do, after all,
> involve rules of human behavior and their adjudication by authorities.
> Fairness and justice are constantly invoked in all sorts of everyday
> matters, from sports to baking.
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:32 PM Dan Rosenthal 
> wrote:
>
> > I didn't put my words in your mouth -- I quoted your own words precisely,
> > and the implication you were trying to make is obvious; so respectfully,
> > please refrain from gaslighting here. I simply suggested dropping the
> > hyperbole of  "star chambers and kangaroo courts", "secret trials
> punishing
> > people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s]
> > of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website
> > over bad conduct issues.  You need not reply -- I'm done with this
> portion
> > of the conversation.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have never said that this is a human rights violation, so please
> don't
> > > put your words on my mouth.
> > >
> > > I have said that the general principles of equality, right to fair
> trial,
> > > not having ones honor damaged by baseless accusations, etc. which are
> > > present at the UDHR are being forgotten here.
> > >
> > > Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization,
> > they
> > > are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and
> > > kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is
> not
> > > if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they
> are
> > > now.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal <
> swatjes...@gmail.com>
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > > > There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be
> > free
> > > > from the presumption of guilt by others.  You may be confusing
> Article
> > 11
> > > > of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses."
> > > Unless
> > > > Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the
> > > absurd
> > > > hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dan Rosenthal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > People shouldn't be going with any random option, but rather
> presume
> > > the
> > > > > innocence of others unless guilt is proven by some legit process.
> > > > > It seems that this very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity
> > is
> > > > > being forgotten.
> > > > > There is not the least appearance of due process happening there,
> but
> > > > that
> > > > > has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of
> > > > > election, using their own bias to evaluate the case.
> > > > > Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that
> should
> > be
> > > > > acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
> > > offwiki
> > > > > harassment of their guilty part of choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Paulo
> > > > >
> > > > > geni  escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
> > > 17:15:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even
> > > plausible,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's
> > version
> > > > > > of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if
> you
> > > > > > remember that T arw trying to improve behaviour through threat
> of
> > > > > > blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  >let alone the story
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given that the other versions of "the story" are T's PR waffle
> or
> > > > > > conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
> > > with
> > > > > > the option that at least gives them something to work from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > geni
> 

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

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
You ought to read the entire paragraph. Such as the part where I explicitly
acknowledged that Fram's version of events may be inaccurate or incomplete.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:03 PM David Gerard  wrote:

> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> let 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 articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> the
> > maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
> or
> > omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
> > him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> what
> > they told him they sanctioned him for.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > > doing only what you describe?
> > >
> > > On Fri, 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 articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> > > SOURCES
> > > > PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> anyway.
> > > > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> her
> > > > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > > "harassment"
> > > > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> policies.
> > > > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> > > only
> > > > after she has them in hand.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > > > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban
> paedophiles,
> > > > > > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> > > death
> > > > > > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > > > > > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these
> attacks
> > > and
> > > > > > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > > criminal
> > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > > > > > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> > > goes
> > > > > > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not
> replace
> > > > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF
> employees
> > > > > > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> > > then
> > > > > > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators
> the
> > > > > > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > > > > > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for
> free
> > > > > > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > > > > > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > > > > > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or
> Wikipedia's
> > > > > > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they
> should
> > > > > > be raising that honestly and openly with A

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

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
Well, you'll get no argument from me that I wish people wouldn't be
gratuitously rude. (Or use that word; nothing good ever comes of that.)

I am certainly not endorsing that. At the same time, some of the most
disruptive editors I've seen were unfailingly polite.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 3:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
> people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
>
> It also insults the editors who have managed to do both.  I know an
> en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
> feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
>
> Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
> community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
> veterans of the community like 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 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, there
> > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I quote David and Isaac.
> > > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
> wiki
> > > behavior.
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Camelia
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Camelia Boban*
> > >
> > > *| Java EE Developer |*
> > >
> > > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> > > Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> > > Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
> > >
> > > *Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
> > > WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
> > >
> > > M. +39 3383385545
> > > camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> > > *Aissa Technologies* <http://aissatechnologies.eu/>* | *Twitter
> > > <https://twitter.com/cameliaboban> *|* *LinkedIn
> > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122>*
> > > *Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> **|
> > > **WikiDonne
> > > UG <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* | *WikiDonne Project
> > > <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne> *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Fæ
> > > >
> > > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If the English
> > > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > > > suggests
> > > > that the requisite discussion is now less, not m

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, there
absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
community, and the WMF has no right to override that.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban 
wrote:

> I quote David and Isaac.
> Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
> behavior.
> 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.
>
>
> Camelia
>
>
> --
> *Camelia Boban*
>
> *| Java EE Developer |*
>
> *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
>
> *Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
> WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
>
> M. +39 3383385545
> camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
>  *|* *LinkedIn
> *
> *Wikipedia  **|
> **WikiDonne
> UG * | *WikiDonne Project
>  *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Fæ
> >
> > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> Wikipedia
> > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> >
> >
> > > If the English
> > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> >
> >
> > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > suggests
> > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or
> be
> > productive.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> > ___
> > 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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what
they told him they sanctioned him for.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:

> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> doing only what you describe?
>
> On Fri, 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 articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> SOURCES
> > PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.
> > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> "harassment"
> > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> only
> > after she has them in hand.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > > >
> > > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > > > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> death
> > > > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > > > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> and
> > > > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> criminal
> > > > stuff.
> > > >
> > > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > > > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> goes
> > > > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > > > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> then
> > > > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> > > > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > > > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> > > > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > > > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> > > >
> > > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > > > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> > > > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> > > > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> > > > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> > > > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > > > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> > > > Wikimedia projects.
> > > >
> > > > Fae
> > > > --
> > > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > > > consequences.
> > > > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
> what? The
> > > > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> > > whatever
> > > > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
> ballistic
> > > > when
> > > > &g

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 anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as "harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article only
after she has them in hand.

Todd

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >
> > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> > stuff.
> >
> > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> >
> > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> > Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > consequences.
> > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> whatever
> > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
> > when
> > > consequences happen.
> > >
> > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
> > did
> > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
> > like
> > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
> > overly
> > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

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 happening and don't want to devote the time to
understanding it, or don't care. Given the WMF's actions, there may indeed
even be some who do not like what they've done, but are afraid to be seen
speaking against them--look what happened to the last guy! And of course
some people on both sides might be hesitant to enter a discussion that's
rather heated and very fast-moving, not to mention the sheer size of the
page to read just to catch up on what already happened.

So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to
participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people
to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't
get counted.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:10 PM Rebecca O'Neill 
wrote:

> Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against
> this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no
> interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There
> is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority
> appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would
> proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into
> account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to
> the number of regular contributors.
>
> On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter,  wrote:
>
> > Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> > majority of the en.wiki community:
> >
> > We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> > not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
> >
> > We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF
> (apart
> > of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> > typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> > fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
> >
> > This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to
> say
> > smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> > the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> > happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
> >
> > One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right
> and
> > whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> > all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> > communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> > surprises, they should start working towards building the community
> trust.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> > gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> > not
> > > > be controversial for anyone.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been
> following
> > > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=revision=901559520=901559137=source
> > > >).
> > > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> > past
> > > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what
> led
> > to
> > > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite
> similar
> > to
> > > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> > the
> > > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> > is
> > > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> > >
> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > > ___
> > > 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] 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 see everything,
> > but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend
> > themself.
>
> Do they, really?
>
> If your local restaurant or supermarket decides to ban you, do you
> have that right then?
>
> What about Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @Pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 than a bit hyperbolic.
> >
> > If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get
> reviewed privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation
> of anyone's privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they
> supposedly did. If they did in fact do it--they already know exactly what
> they did. If I send you some kind of harassing email, I already know I sent
> it to you, so telling me "You sent Robert an email saying he's a _
> and a _ and a _ while we're at it" is not news to me. I
> already know I did.
> >
> > On the other hand, if I didn't send that, knowing what was alleged
> allows me to say "I absolutely did not do that." If I did send something,
> but it were misinterpreted or misconstrued, I can offer an explanation of
> what was actually meant. It is not always necessary for everyone to see
> everything, but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right
> to defend themself.
> >
> > However, if the alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is
> already all public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves
> suppressed material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public
> and transparent, and that should be the default.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
> >> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
> >> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
> >> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
> >> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
> >> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
> >> the project cannot ethically demand transparency 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 victimization.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 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 respected, long-term members than those who just joined up
> yesterday. They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
> >> >
> >> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The
> WMF exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and
> rule them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly
> shouldn't be throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings,
> where apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
> against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
> of the project.
> >> >
> >> > Todd
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up,
> and find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and
> we
> >> >> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> >> >> belongs to everyone.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thrapostibongles,
> >> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up,
> and find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >> >> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit
> history under a previous

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

2019-06-12 Thread Todd Allen
I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic.

If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get reviewed
privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation of
anyone's privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they
supposedly did. If they did in fact do it--they already know exactly what
they did. If I send you some kind of harassing email, I already know I sent
it to you, so telling me "You sent Robert an email saying he's a _
and a _ and a _ while we're at it" is not news to me. I
already know I did.

On the other hand, if I didn't send that, knowing what was alleged allows
me to say "I absolutely did not do that." If I did send something, but it
were misinterpreted or misconstrued, I can offer an explanation of what was
actually meant. It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything,
but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend
themself.

However, if the alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is already
all public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves
suppressed material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public
and transparent, and that should be the default.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
> the project cannot ethically demand transparency 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 victimization.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > 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
> respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday.
> They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
> >
> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF
> exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule
> them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be
> throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where
> apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
> against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
> of the project.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and
> find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >>
> >> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
> >> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> >> belongs to everyone.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Thrapostibongles,
> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and
> find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit
> history under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder
> just how familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I
> freely agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an
> environment which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are,
> dysfunctionally surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our
> dysfunctional mores function as they do and evolve through surviving and
> occasional modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part
> in the process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere
> between an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting 

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
respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday.
They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.

However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF
exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule
them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be
throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where
apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
of the project.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>
> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> belongs to everyone.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thrapostibongles,
> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history
> under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how
> familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely
> agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment
> which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally
> surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores
> function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional
> modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the
> process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere between
> an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do
> those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> > This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone
> else. You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in
> this discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter Southwood
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> > Yaroslav,
> >
> > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and
> its
> > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes
> are
> > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> > others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a
> dysfunctional
> > community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any
> collegial
> > working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
> >
> > > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or
> should
> > > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed
> the
> > > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did
> sign
> > > the non-disclosure agreement.
> > >
> > > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF,
> since
> > > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open
> activity
> > > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > > activity is subject to the community policies.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported
> desysop
> > > on a number of occasions.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > People who 

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 it. They proved that they didn't have the relevant expertise, by
utilizing an opaque, closed-door process when that wasn't necessary. Anyone
with expertise in how the English Wikipedia operates would know that's a
major no-no.

It takes no money to evaluate an ANI complaint or file an ArbCom case. So,
while the WMF may have money, that's irrelevant.

The English Wikipedia community has far more people, in terms of Wikipedia
volunteers vs. WMF employees, than the Foundation could dream of.

The Foundation has the responsibility to support the community, yes. Never
to overrule it, except in cases of legal requirement, child protection, or
threats of harm to self or others. And in those cases, the WMF and
community are largely on the same page anyway--we don't want pedophiles
editing, copyright violations on our project, or editors threatening to
harm other editors, and the Foundation doesn't either. So in those
instances, we're partners, not antagonists.

If the job of the WMF is to support the community, it has failed
spectacularly and entirely to do so. It has done more damage to the
community than any number of mildly nasty comments about the ArbCom ever
could, with its ham-fisted, unexplained, unwarranted actions. It has also
done serious, perhaps irreparable, damage to that partnership between the
community and WMF, which was in none too great of shape to start with after
the Visual Editor and MediaViewer/Superprotect fiascos.

I thought that at that time, they had learned that the English Wikipedia
would not tolerate this type of action, having WMF actions crammed down our
throat. ENWP administrators have never, to my knowledge, even dreamed of
reversing an Office action before, because we trusted that they would be
taken rarely and only in extremis. Now, two have done so (so far), and both
have been enthusiastically supported in doing so. If that does not go to
show that the community's respect for WMF has been put right in the toilet,
I do not know what would.

Just look at what's happened there. I don't, to be frank, even like Fram
all that well, and I know I'm not the only one. But this is not about Fram.
It's about the community's editorial independence (and, from posts from
Chinese and German Wikipedia users, apparently the editorial independence
of their communities as well). And usurpation of that is not something we
will take lying down.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:46 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> George,
>
> There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers
> do not:  responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
> expertise, the money and the people to do so.  So that's ten assertions.
> You claim that some of those are unwarranted.  There are over a thousand
> possible interpretations of your claim.  In the interests of a productive
> discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you
> think might be incorrect, please?
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert 
> wrote:
>
> > I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
> > individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
> > that aren't warranted.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation
> has
> > > the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
> expertise,
> > > the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
> > > well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
> > > particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide
> the
> > > support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to
> do
> > > so, as you would expect.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > >
> > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> > weren't
> > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > >
> > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > communities
> > > > consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules
> but
> > > the
> > > > Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints on-wiki nor
> to
> > > > Arbcom privately.
> > > >
> > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> > Arbcom
> > > > noticeboards.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

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 it was routine for us to deal
with sensitive, private information.

Todd

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani  wrote:

> People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram has
> done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how fast
> people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally,
> don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As
> simple as that.
>
> So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community body
> can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
>  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
>  - They are trusted by the community
>
> I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not sure
> (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based on a
> > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm waiting
> for
> > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't surprise
> me
> > at all.
> > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind of
> > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia Movement.
> > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> 11/06/2019
> > à(s) 05:45:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for this.
> > >
> > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism and
> > > lack of transparency.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > >
> > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> > weren't
> > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > >
> > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > > communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own
> autonomous
> > > rules but the Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints
> > > on-wiki nor to Arbcom privately.
> > > >
> > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> > Arbcom
> > > noticeboards.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > >
> > > > Techman224
> > > >
> > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > >>
> > > >> From: George Herbert 
> > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > >> To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >>
> > > >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S blocked English
> > > Wikipedia
> > > >> user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified
> > > >> reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement here
> from
> > > >> Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal
> > policy
> > > and
> > > >> procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal
> > > >> circumstances preclude public comments.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >>
> > > >> Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making
> > private
> > > >> inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to
> > the
> > > >> oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action.
> > > >>
> > > >> There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO into
> "Ok,
> > > >> responsible people following up".
> > > >>
> > > >> I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under Office
> > actions,
> > > >> having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff myself
> at
> > > >> times in the past.  A high 

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 found to be copyvios and deleted), but I wouldn't even have the first
clue to what being a Commons admin would entail or what the expectations
are.

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia sysops
> are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
>
> If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins,
> they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the
> things that are Caesar's.
>
> Paulo
>
>
> Vi to  escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s)
> 21:13:
>
> > Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an
> > efficient way.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
> > has -
> > > and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills
> to
> > > deal with copyright.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to 
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
> images
> > > on
> > > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > > from
> > > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> > jmh...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
> > in
> > > > > having more admins?
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
> for
> > > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
> > see
> > > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
> > mass
> > > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
> image
> > > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
> Commons
> > > hat
> > > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
> > than
> > > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
> > suck
> > > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
> > that
> > > > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
> > short
> > > > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
> useful
> > > > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Links
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fae
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
> ladsgr...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
> > > support
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
> > ymb...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
> > the
> > > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing
> or
> > > > > capable
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > 

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, in which case the best thing to do would be an
on-wiki RfC.

Todd

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 3:32 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> I'm a big fan of the GDPR and why it had to be created. (I'm doing a lot of
> the bureaucratic work on the tech side at the day job and am getting very
> used to thinking of ways something could constitute Personally Identifying
> Information.)
>
> But I'm wondering how we'll approach it for the Wikimedia sites. Not just
> the log data - but the content.
>
> We already have problems with Right To Be Forgotten, and well-cited content
> being removed from the search engines.
>
> What do we have in place to deal with this when - not if - we get GDPR
> requests to remove information about a person from the site?
>
> I don't mean just the letter of the law, in the EU or the US - I mean also,
> how we can handle this *right*. Because there are multiple competing
> legitimate interests here, and the editing communities tend to take a lot
> more care than they're strictly required to by law, because we are here to
> get things right. (This is why our DMCA numbers are ridiculously low for a
> top 10 site, for example.)
>
> Is anyone keeping track of what the communities are doing, as well as WMF
> itself?
>
>
> - d.
> ___
> 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] 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 known--after all, our source already published the information!

It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry
about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or Vatican
City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US
actually does have jurisdiction.

Todd

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi  wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications
> here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm
> subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)
>
> ---
> Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia
> should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France
> passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how would
> we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, date
> of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United States
> banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?"
> ---
>
> Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure I
> got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the law
> in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more should be
> said...
>
> It is  legal in France to write an article about a notable person and
> mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information.
> What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add it to
> a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy regime
> with punchcards.  How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and sent off to
> concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating Freemasons during
> the war?). While there was certainly some collaboration with the National
> Statistics Service (SNS) established during the Occupation, the most recent
> research suggests that this collaboration was not as significant as was
> once commonly assumed.  The 1978 law was written before this research.
>
> The fact that -- today on en.wp -- these religious categories are being
> overwhelmingly applied to Jews (and to a lesser degree to Freemasons) is
> certainly striking.  (cf.  the 862 members of Category:French Jews & the 21
> members of the Category:French Christians).
>
> Regarding the hypothetical situations you evoke (the first of which, of
> course, being particularly relevant since people in France do have a right
> to refuse the publication of their image (*unless* they are for some reason
> newsworthy))...  I imagine that they will have to be dealt with on a case
> by case basis until national laws have been superseded by the
> new-wikiwiki-order of supranational arbitration.
>
> ---
> Todd commented: "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."
> ---
>
> First, the issue is privacy, not censorship.  Nobody has prosecuted or
> will prosecute a newspaper for mentioning, for example, that Vincent
> Bolloré is Catholic (since he is open about that fact and does not object
> to having it reported).  However, when the CRIF (a Jewish foundation)
> petitioned the CNIL for the right to compile a list of folks whose surnames
> were the same as the 150 most common donors to the foundation for the
> purposes of a survey they were told this would be a clear violation of the
> law. (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCnil.do?oldAction=rech
> ExpCnil=CNILTEXT17651919)
>
> What exists on en.wp is an ad-hoc categorization that does not guarantee
> the quality of sourcing.  Anyone can add the category "French Jews" to 100s
> of living people's biographies with hotcat in a matter of minutes (with or
> without a source).  Only the vigilance of the community is a safeguard
> against this sort of action.  The state of the database at the moment is,
> again, telling: there are not 40 times more Jews in France than Christians
> nor are Freemasons likely to be 7 times more numerous than Christians. Yet
> this is precisely the *deformed* picture that emerges from this ad-hoc
> categorization system.  As James and Yarsolav both observed, this is likely
> due to a problem of "bad editing" on en.wp.  (I didn't mention it in my OP,
> but just as there are no such categories on French Wikipedia, Wikidata also
> does not seem to have categories based on the religion of living French
> people. Based on my limited research into the question, the ontology at
> Wikidata does indeed seem more respectful of personal privacy.)
>
> Second, concerning legally 

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 render the English
> Wikipedia compliant with French privacy laws.  Currently, if a French
> high school student goes to a French library, reserves a computer, and
> types "List of French Jews" into Google, Duckduckgo, or Dogpile, an
> adhoc en.wikipedia list of over 850 people (approximately half of them
> living) appears in the #2 position (Category: French Jews). In the first
> position is the English Wikipedia page "List of French Jews" containing
> the following text, originally added in 2010, showing that the
> en.wikipedia community is aware that they are breaking French law:
>
> "The French nationality law itself, strongly secular, forbids any
> statistics or lists based on ethnic or religious membership."
>
> A French person tagging biographies of living people in en.wp with the
> category "French Jews" is a violation of French privacy law which would
> expose the Wikipedian to a penalty of €300,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment:
>
> "Le fait, hors les cas prévus par la loi, de mettre ou de conserver en
> mémoire informatisée, sans le consentement exprès de l’intéressé, des
> données à caractère personnel qui, directement ou indirectement, font
> apparaître les origines raciales ou ethniques, les opinions politiques,
> philosophiques ou religieuses, ou les appartenances syndicales des
> personnes, ou qui sont relatives à la santé ou à l’orientation ou à
> l'identité sexuelle de celles-ci, est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement
> et de 300 000 € d’amende." (source:
> https://www.cnil.fr/fr/les-sanctions-penales )
>
> There is, to the best of my knowledge, no such category on fr.wp, as
> people in France are well aware of the law.
>
> See also "List of West European Jews" / Category: French People of
> Jewish descent / Category: French People of Arab descent / Category:
> French Freemasons (167), Category: French Atheists (93 including a
> recent president), etc.
>
> I noticed in researching the question that the Category "French rapists"
> (2 BLP) is associated with the hidden category "No indexed", whereas the
> category "French Jews" (100s of BLP) is associated with the hidden
> category: "categories requiring diffusion".  As a temporary measure (to
> avoid actively feeding this info into search engines), perhaps
> categories related to racial/ethnic origins, religious & philosophical
> opinions could be tagged "No indexed" rather than "requiring diffusion"?
>
> The WMF hosts their servers in the US, the Netherlands and will soon
> also be hosting off-shore in Singapore, which probably leads WMF legal
> to believe that this grants them immunity from French privacy laws.
> Nevertheless, I thought I would mention that this is a potentially
> significant problem going forward.  Discussion leading to action
> correcting this potential avenue of abuse might help the WMF to avoid
> litigation, given that the current policies on English Wikipedia
> actively facilitate violation of French laws.
>
> (data from petscan.wmflabs.org): French Christians (21 members), French
> Hindus (17 members), French Buddhists (9 members), French Muslims (0
> members), French Jews (862 members).
>
> Thank you for your time considering how best to address this problem.
>
> sashi
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

2018-05-12 Thread Todd Allen
If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.

However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
factual.

Todd

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
>
> > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have
> > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > verifiable?
> > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> sources
> > produced by the subject?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> primary
> > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
> as
> > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
> in
> > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > articles.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> >
> > > Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
> > traditions
> > > come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an
> > > encyclopedia using such sources.
> > >
> > > Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
> use
> > > primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are
> > > generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an
> > > encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically
> > > sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
> > >
> > > Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and
> > > traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My
> > > personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and
> > > notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
> include
> > > far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
> > >
> > > - Cameron C.
> > > Cameron11598
> > >
> > >  On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > wrote 
> > >
> > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > 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
> > >
> > > You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
> > > sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
> consider
> > > sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
> > > written.
> > >
> > > JP
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Abandoning notability and 

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
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.

Todd

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without
> any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail.
> Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I
> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do
> that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when
> we opened editing to anybody.
>
> JP
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things
> > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> and
> > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> the
> > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > record and proof of identity.
> > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable
> > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > credibility we have.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and language
> > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture manage
> > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> styles
> > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> do
> > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not
> > the only.
> >
> > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from
> > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is
> do
> > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> all
> > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> >
> > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but
> > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > knowledge streams
> >
> >
> > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> member
> > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > >
> > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > movement
> > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > personally
> > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > impressions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers!
> > >
> > > El 

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
> wikitext on Commons image pages.
> 2. As part of a Commons discussion on copyright, for the first time in
> a couple of years created a flowchart, and experienced the same
> pleasure in setting out logic in this old fashioned way as I used to
> experience in the 1980s. ... Do kids learn about von Neumann these
> days?
>
> Links
> * https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clipboard-history-2/
> ajiejmhbejpdgkkigpddefnjmgcbkenk
> * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Commons_
> flowchart_for_old_public_domain_images.svg
> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
>
> On 11 March 2018 at 05:08, Pine W  wrote:
> > What's making me happy this week:
> >
> > 1. A recent entry in the Mozilla Blog discussed the possible value of
> > anonymity in decreasing bias in code review processes:
> > https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/03/08/gender-bias-code-reviews/
> >
> > 2. The opt-in "pingback" telemetry from MediaWiki installations, which is
> > available since March 2017, suggests that there are more than 40,000
> unique
> > installations. See:
> > https://pingback.wmflabs.org,
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgPingback and
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Pingback_
> Privacy_Statement.
> >
> > There is also some news which is a little older and I am now getting
> around
> > to sharing here:
> >
> > 3. A research project has been started which aims to test whether vandal
> > activity can be detected in (near) real time, which may open
> opportunities
> > for interventions earlier in the process of publishing edits. See
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/ai/2018-January/000221.html.
> >
> > What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to write in any
> language.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
>
> ___
> 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] 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 considering all sides and getting rocks thrown at me no matter what I
do? Is that not valuable to the project as well?

If you want to pay anyone, you better start paying me. I'm okay with the
idea of being a volunteer as long as everyone is a volunteer. But if you
start paying some people and not me, we're going to have a problem.

Todd

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Those who pay get to select what is translated.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> Sent: 24 February 2018 16:55
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid translation
>
> I think the request for such projects should come from the concerned
> language projects, same for the list of articles. If not, in my simple
> opinion, it is a form of coloniasm again.
>
> Jean-Philippe Béland
> Vice President, Wikimedia Canada
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 9:40 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > Should have added that the remaining points are somewhat less
> > interesting in this context. Preloading a set of articles is a bad
> > idea, the translators should be able to chose for themselves. Articles
> > should also be pretty broad, not very narrow technical or medical, ie
> > vertical articles, as the number of editors that can handle those will
> be pretty small.
> >
> > In particular: Do not believe you can turn a teanslator into a new
> editor!
> > You can although turn an existing editor into a translator.
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 3:34 PM, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 1) You must start with high quality content and thus all articles
> > > are
> > >> extensively improved before being proposed for translation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Note that to much pressure on "quality" can easily kill the project.
> > >
> > > 3) The "Content Translation" tool developed by the WMF made efforts
> > > more
> > >> efficient than handing around word documents. Would love to see
> > >> that
> > tool
> > >> improved further such as having it support specific lists of
> > >> articles
> > that
> > >> are deemed ready for translation by certain groups. Would also love
> > >> the tool to have tracking metrics for these types of projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > Didn't mention ContentTranslation, but it should be pretty obvious.
> > >
> > > 4) We used volunteer translators mostly associated with our partner
> > >> Translators Without Borders. One issue we found was that languages
> > >> in which their are lots of translators such as French, Spanish, and
> > >> Italian there is often already at least some content on many of the
> > >> topics in question.
> > The
> > >> issue than becomes integration which needs an expert Wikipedia. And
> > >> for languages in which we have little content there are often few
> > >> avaliable volunteers.
> > >
> > >
> > > I used projects below 65k articles as an example, as the chance of
> > > competing articles are pretty low.
> > >
> > > 5) With respect to "paying per word" the problem is this would
> > > require
> > >> significant checks and balances to make sure people are taking the
> > >> work seriously and not simple using Google translate for the 70 or
> > >> so
> > languages
> > >> in which it claims to work. We often had translations undergo a
> > >> second review and the volunteers at TWB have to pass certain tests
> > >> to be accepted.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'n my original email I wrote "verified good translators". It is as
> > > simple as "Has the editor contributed other articles at the project?"
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 2:26 PM, James Heilman 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> We learned a few things during the medical translation project
> > >> which started back in 2011:
> > >>
> > >> 1) You must start with high quality content and thus all articles
> > >> are extensively improved before being proposed for translation.
> > >>
> > >> 2) A lot of languages want "less" content than is present on EN WP.
> > >> Thus we moved to just improving and suggesting for translation the
> > >> leads of the English articles.
> > >>
> > >> 3) The "Content Translation" tool developed by the WMF made efforts
> > >> more efficient than handing around word documents. Would love to
> > >> see that
> > tool
> > >> improved further such as having it support specific lists of
> > >> articles
> > that
> > >> are deemed ready for translation by certain groups. Would also love
> > >> the tool to have tracking metrics for these types of projects.
> > >>
> > >> 4) We used volunteer translators mostly associated with 

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
wrong.

Todd

On Nov 26, 2017 2:49 AM, "Vi to"  wrote:

> I have to rely upon my knowledge of plans in EU, I may be wrong with other
> "rich Countries", if so please make me aware of.
>
> Time-based tariffs are in "rich countries" are almost out of business. Also
> data, cheaper data plans currently includes enough data to make surfing WMF
> sites impact very few upon overall consumption. How can you tell "who" is
> eligible for WP0? By "who" I mean which countries/places, telco users, etc.
> A line between "rich" and "poor" countries is "easy" to draw, others
> aren't.
>
> Making zero-carrier a default for all of the World would make me drop my
> objections. But we firstly need to find a safe and cheap (in terms of
> efforts) way to stop abuses, though most of abuses come from Countries
> where data traffic is really expensive.
>
> Finally a question: do we have reports about WP0? I mean, traffic, number
> of users served, pages delivered, costs?
>
> Vito
>
> 2017-11-26 4:32 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
>
> > Hoi,
> > While the USA is considered a developed country, the people in the USA
> who
> > have least to spend are probably as deserving of zero rated Wikimedia
> > service as many of the people who do get Wikipedia Zero elsewhere. The
> > article indicates that our mission is to bring information to people and
> > that is no different in the USA.  With Wikipedia and its sister projects
> > considered as a way to bring quality, neutral point of view information,
> it
> > would even serve as a means to combat the misinformation that will
> benefit
> > from zero rating of information.
> >
> > Zero rating is bad in so many ways but your argument does only say that
> it
> > was originally intended for developed countries. When there is a benefit
> to
> > our readers I only see upsides in promoting the use of Wikimedia content
> in
> > this way and no reason not to have Wikimedia Zero in the USA.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 November 2017 at 03:56, Mz7  wrote:
> >
> > > The relationship between net neutrality and the Wikimedia Foundation
> has
> > > been described as “complicated” – see [1]. Considering the that the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation has a zero-rating program of its own (see [2][3]),
> > I’m
> > > not exactly sure how much this would affect Wikimedia, whether
> positively
> > > or negatively. On the one hand, we could take advantage of the change
> by
> > > expanding Wikipedia Zero into the United States. On the other hand,
> > that’s
> > > probably not a good idea because the program is designed to promote
> > access
> > > to free knowledge in developing countries, where access to the Internet
> > may
> > > be prohibitively expensive. In a developed country such as the United
> > > States, that’s not really a prioritized issue.
> > >
> > > Mz7
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/
> > > 11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> > > [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> > >
> > > --
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mz7
> > >
> > > > On Nov 24, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > With the demise of net neutrality in the USA, have their been
> > > consideration
> > > > for the impact it may have for the services provided by the Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation?
> > > >
> > > > We are reliant on servers in the USA, as the quality of the service
> in
> > > the
> > > > USA is no longer a given, what are the risks?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > > ___
> > > > 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-16 Thread Todd Allen
Are those applications published anywhere? I'd be curious to see it. I'm
not really familiar with the grant process.

Todd

On Oct 16, 2017 12:47 PM, "Jean-Philippe Béland" <jpbel...@wikimedia.ca>
wrote:

> My opinion is that such projects should be supported, we should encourage
> 'be bold'. That being said, people planning projects at a large scale
> should communicate with the concerned communities first. As such, the
> concerns raised in this thread for example would have been raised during
> the planning phase of that project and hopefully addressed. There is a
> place in the application forms for grants for projects that asks to list
> "Community Notification". The Grant Committee should look more closely at
> that section and ensure that the communities have been notified before
> granting any fund.
>
> JP
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I understand from the original email that the venue was chosen based on
> the
> > fact that it was WMF-funded as a project. I am guessing he's trying to
> pull
> > that leverage.
> >
> > The topic is more generic though: should we support projects that are
> > considered by some to be a little rough on the edges, or should we only
> > pick 'safe' projects that will land well with the community. And how much
> > of 'be bold' can be applied to projects that operate at a somewhat larger
> > scale.
> >
> > While this particular topic seems enwp specific, its theme isn't.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland <
> > jpbel...@wikimedia.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > There is so many threads on this list that are only about English
> > Wikipedia
> > > like it is the centre of the world... Why other communities are able to
> > > keep their internal discussions internal and not this community?
> > >
> > > Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > Vice President, Wikimedia Canada
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
> > > list-wikime...@funcrunch.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The people whose opinion should most matter in determining whether a
> > > > comment is sexist are women. Not men, and not non-binary
> transmasculine
> > > > people like myself.
> > > >
> > > > I support and echo Emily and Molly's earlier comments on this thread:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's
> > > >> message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
> > > >>
> > > >> I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns
> that
> > > this
> > > >> will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for in
> > the
> > > >> document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this
> > project
> > > >> will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including not
> > > >> mass-producing poor-quality content).
> > > >>
> > > >> As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between
> > > >> describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a
> sexist.
> > I
> > > >> believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's said
> > can
> > > >> be
> > > >> described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism of
> > > poor
> > > >> wording.
> > > >>
> > > >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare
> > > <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
> > > >> gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to
> > > this
> > > >> list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue
> with
> > > her
> > > >> email address.
> > > >>
> > > >> "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?
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about
> women
> > > to a
> > > >> higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia isn't
> &g

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 because of them.

But I'm unsure how asking the question "Is it wise to offer money in
exchange for creating large numbers of articles without consideration of
quality?" or "Will this effort have the intended result?" is sexist. The
same question would apply if the proposed articles were about Russian
literature or asteroids. It is not sexist to ask the question just because
of what the subject happens to be.

I think that needs to be discussed, not sidetracked by calling people
sexists. If people really were making sexist statements, I'd be all for
shutting that crap down. But I've seen not one such statement in this
thread.

Todd

On Oct 16, 2017 10:28 AM, "Robert Fernandez"  wrote:

> So those who call out sexism are the real sexists, amirite?
>
> I am fed up with this double standard in the way we talk about these
> issues.  Some people are allowed to make broad, unsupported, sweeping
> generalizations about the motives and actions of others and that's
> considered just fine, but if you call them out in even the gentlest tones
> it's treated as some horrific personal attack, and censure and apologies
> are demanded.  We've culturally internalized sexism so much that even the
> way we talk about sexism is sexist.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Vi to  wrote:
> >
> >
> > But just a note: using the same behavior of phenomena you're trying to
> > contast is, per se, a clear defeat.
> > To be more clear, blind -because you obviously don't know *nothing* about
> > their backgrounds- vilification of other's opinions is, incidentally, one
> > the of the main instruments of "cultural" sexism.
> ___
> 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] 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, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118
> > editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which
> is
> > generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach
> that
> > goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need
> to
> > review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not
> > realistic numbers.
> >
>
> Come on. Did you even read the page you are talking about? Clearly you are
> confusing it with the 100,000 Challange [1] which starts at the same time
> but is a much larger project (the project page mentions a two-year
> timeframe).
>
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_
> in_Red/The_100,000_Challenge
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 tone.
> ​
>

I care if someone's right or wrong, not their tone. If we want to talk
about that, we certainly could discuss calling someone "sexist" when
they're calling attention to a potential problem, but I really don't care
much about that either. The point is whether this is a good, well-conceived
idea.


>
> > 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.
> >
>
> ​Yes, the horrible place bots like User:Rambot on the English Wikipedia.
> The bot started almost every place stub in the United States, and almost
> every one of those seeds has generated a more fully formed article.
> ​
>

And would've anyway. It's not like editing them would have been forbidden
if they'd been redlinked until someone was ready to work on it. Every
article started out as a redlink. But we're probably a bit off topic with
that here.


>
> >
> > This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118
> > editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which
> is
> > generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach
> that
> > goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need
> to
> > review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not
> > realistic numbers.
> >
> > Add into that financial incentives for being the most prolific, and we're
> > setting up for a very foreseeable disaster.
> >
>
> ​Risk management is one thing. A foreseeable disaster is quite another.
> Overblown hyperbole.
> ​
>

Call it "risk management" or whatever you want, but those numbers are
unrealistic by orders of magnitude. Now, that in itself wouldn't be a
substantial concern, but then you've got the issue of offering money to hit
them. That's absolutely a recipe for disaster, and many years of experience
both on Wikipedia and otherwise would tell me that. Offering money for just
being prolific, quantity over quality, is absolutely a bad idea.


>
> >
> > I have no problems with editing initiatives focused on underrepresented
> > areas. But they need to have realistic goals, numbers actually run during
> > planning, and most importantly, no financial rewards. This project is
> not a
> > good idea.
> >
>
> ​Mmmhmm, and who should be the ones to set the goals? The ones that "know
> better"?
>

People can set whatever goals they want. But what they're proposing to do
affects the entire project, not just their corner of it, so everyone on the
project should be involved in that. That absolutely includes people who
have been around the block more than a few times. There's a reason we shut
down the "reward board" type systems,


>
> I'd advise you all who'd like to tell people what they're doing wrong,
> instead focus on helping people to do things right.
>
> Otherwise, this is just patronizing.​
>

You start toward fixing a problem by saying it is a problem. After that,
you decide what should be done about it. And I did offer suggestions, thank
you, that being, choose realistic numbers and keep money out of the
equation. Money, like it or not, is a powerful motivator, and to some it's
a motivator to cut corners, like using poor sources or plagiarizing. I'm
not saying any individual editor would do that, mind you, but I'm saying it
is part of what we know about human behavior. Even relatively trivial
amounts of money can have substantial impacts on people's behavior; I'd be
happy to find you the sources for that if you'd like to see them.

Todd
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which is
generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach that
goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need to
review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not
realistic numbers.

Add into that financial incentives for being the most prolific, and we're
setting up for a very foreseeable disaster.

I have no problems with editing initiatives focused on underrepresented
areas. But they need to have realistic goals, numbers actually run during
planning, and most importantly, no financial rewards. This project is not a
good idea.

Todd

On Oct 15, 2017 11:53 AM, "Keegan Peterzell"  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > I cant believe this
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_
> > in_Red/The_World_Contest
> > has
> > got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on
> > english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the
> > community.
> >
> > I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current
> > contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors.  If a new editor
> > was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for
> Creation
> > process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the
> > competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
> >
> > While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is
> > no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for
> > notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000
> > the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be
> created.
> >
> > ​we are 15 days from this disaster commencing​
> >
>
> ​Here's another unsolicited thought:
>
> Instead of complaining and writing seemingly sexist screeds about attempts
> to broaden the breadth of knowledge within Wikipedia, why don't you help?
>
> I'm sure copyediting, referencing, infoboxes, and all the other general
> wiki work will need some assistance.​ You have years of experience editing
> the wikis. Seems like a win/win.
>
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> 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] 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 not a free (as in speech at least) content
platform. I'd rather question the choice there.

On Oct 9, 2017 1:09 PM, "Maria Cruz"  wrote:

> Hi all,
> As a reminder of this event, and a follow up, please note the presentation
> tomorrow is at 9 am PST (1600 UTC), not 10 am, as it says in the email
> body.
>
> Hope to see many of you there!
>
> Best,
>
> María
>
> On Oct 4, 2017 15:42, "Maria Cruz"  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In 2016, the Wikimedia Foundation initiated a new project, called
> > Community Engagement Insights, under which we designed a Wikimedia
> > Contributors and Communities survey, that aims to improve the alignment
> > between the Wikimedia Foundation and the communities it serves.
> >
> > In this project, Foundation staff designed hundreds of questions that
> were
> > organized into a single, comprehensive, online survey. The Foundation
> sent
> > the survey to many different types of Wikimedians, including editors,
> > affiliates, program leaders, and technical contributors.
> >
> > After completing the basic analysis, we now want to share some of what we
> > learned and what's next. On Tuesday, October 10, at 10 am PST, we will
> hold
> > a public meeting, where we will present some of the data we found and how
> > different teams might use it, offer guidance on how to navigate the
> report,
> > and open the space for questions. Join in the conversation! You can watch
> > the livestream here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoXpL-OUdNU , and
> > ask question via IRC on #wikimedia-office.
> >
> >
> > We look forward to seeing many of you you at the presentation!
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> > *María Cruz * \\  Communications and outreach manager, L Team \\
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation, Inc.
> > mc...@wikimedia.org  |  Twitter:  @marianarra_
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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] 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/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. This project was wish #7 on the 2016 Community
> Wishlist Survey [1].
>
> Here’s how it works:
>
> If someone tries and fails to log in to your account from a device or an IP
> address that hasn’t logged into your account recently, then you’ll get an
> on-wiki notification at the first attempt. For a familiar device or IP
> address, you’ll get an on-wiki notification after 5 failed logins. This is
> on by default, but you can turn it off in your preferences; you can also
> turn on email notifications.
>
> It’s also possible to turn on email notifications when there’s a successful
> login from a new device or IP address. This is turned off by default, but
> it might be useful for admins or other functionaries who are concerned that
> their user rights could be misused. This means that you’ll get a
> notification every time you log in from a new device or IP address.
>
> We want to take this opportunity to thank Brian Wolff for all his work in
> writing the underlying extension for this feature.
>
> There’s more information on the feature on the Community Tech project page
> on Meta, and please feel free to post questions on the talk page:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/LoginNotify
>
> PS: If you’re wondering what happened to the Syntax Highlighting beta
> feature that we deployed a couple weeks ago and then had to roll back:
> it’ll be back soon!
>
> [1]: 2016 Community Wishlist Survey:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results
> ___
> 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] 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 served by some of the rules that make sense for projects
with thousands of active editors and millions of articles.

That being said, having some baseline stuff as a point of reference isn't a
bad idea, but individual projects should be free to modify or reject any
parts that don't make sense for them.

Todd

On Aug 2, 2017 4:24 PM, "Jean-Philippe Béland" 
wrote:

> I oppose to that. Like that communities with bigger number, i.e. English,
> will impose their rules to other communities. It's a basic fundamental
> principle of Wikimedia projects since the beginning that every community is
> independant,
>
> JP
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:19 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned.
> > That view is probably not very popular.
> >
> > Jeblad
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway
> > > when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though
> > > probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator
> > > stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big
> leap
> > > forward and the community that develops the project can develop these
> > > policies as they grow.   It also means that as part of the jump these
> > pages
> > > will need to have been translated as well.
> > >
> > > note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
> > 24
> > > > communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment,
> please
> > > > see:
> > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_
> > > > Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf
> > > > There are three types of issues:
> > > > a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but
> localizing
> > > > keeping a project in mind)
> > > > b) Enforce them
> > > > c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Tito Dutta
> > > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> > > remind
> > > > me over email or phone call.
> > > >
> > > > On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > > policies,
> > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
> the
> > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
> policies.
> > It
> > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > > something
> > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> > simply
> > > be
> > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > localized if necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > > baseline
> > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > > Perhaps
> > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> > research"
> > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
> about
> > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
> projects
> > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
> point
> > of
> > > > > view"…
> > > > >
> > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > > policies
> > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > > pages,
> > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
> would
> > > have
> > > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeblad
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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] 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 that, we have problems far deeper than Tor.

Todd

On Jun 5, 2017 1:48 PM, "Yongmin H."  wrote:

> Nope.
>
> Tor users needs `ip block exempt` or `global ip block exempt` to edit.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption seem to say so
> too. ("In highly exceptional circumstances, an editor may be permitted to
> edit anonymously, via Tor or another anonymizing proxy.")
>
> --
> Yongmin
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> https://wp.revi.blog
> Please note that this address is list-only address and any non-mailing
> list mails will be treated as spam.
> Please use https://encrypt.to/0x947f156f16250de39788c3c35b625da5beff197a.
>
> 2017. 6. 6. 03:53 Gabriel Thullen  작성:
>
> > I imagine registered users could edit through TOR. That is how it works
> > with my school IP: anonymous edits are blocked, account creation as well,
> > but you can sign in an edit.
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:47 PM, John  wrote:
> >>
> >> enabling read access via Tor shouldn't be an issue, however editing
> should
> >> not be allowed due to high volume of known abuse from that vector.
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:43 PM, David Gerard 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Editing may be a tricky one, particularly on en:wp, which has found
> >>> Tor exit points to overwhelmingly be fountains of garbage, and
> >>> automatically blocks them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - d.
> >>>
> >>>
>  On 5 June 2017 at 18:30, David Cuenca Tudela 
> wrote:
>  I think that's an excellent idea and very much aligned with our
> >>> commitment
>  to provide free information also for those who are living under
> >>> unfavorable
>  conditions.
> 
>  I personally endorse it.
> 
>  Thanks Cristian for suggesting it.
> 
>  Regards,
>  Micru
> 
> > On Jun 5, 2017 19:11, "Cristian Consonni" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have written a proposal about setting up an onion (hidden) service
> >> to
> > serve Wikipedia over Tor:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/A_Tor_
> > Onion_Service_for_Wikipedia
> >
> > I was thinking about this and I also discovered that the Internet
> > Archive is experimenting with a very similar idea:
> > www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/750-
> > Freedom-of-Information.html
> >
> > I would like to have some feedback on this, I am also in contact with
> > the author of the aforementioned proxy which could be able to give
> >> some
> > help in setting it up.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Cristian
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> >>> 
> >>>
> >> ___
> >> 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: 

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 illegal copy and a portion of
something used for criticism and commentary.

Todd

Todd

On Mar 30, 2017 5:50 PM, "James Heilman"  wrote:

> Youtube does pay the music industry though? From what I understand torrents
> were doing in the music on CD industry and that Youtube saved them in part
> as they get a cut of the advertising on the videos.
>
> J
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:26 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > A study claiming that YouTube costs them ONE BLION DOLLARS a year,
> > by having DMCA safe harbours!
> >
> > writeup: https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-helps-youtube-avoid-up-to-1bn-
> > in-royalties-per-year-study-claims-170330/
> > study: http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB41Final.pdf
> >
> > The conceit here is the music industry claiming that YouTube should
> > pay them money that they literally know YouTube isn't taking in, on an
> > assured basis as they do with Spotify.
> >
> > They have been smart enough to explicitly name Wikipedia as the sort
> > of organisation they don't want to hurt. Wikimedians, of course, know
> > better than to trust the IP industry with anything. This "study" is
> > getting hyped in the industry press today; if it comes to anything, it
> > *may* be worth Wikimedia commenting.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> ___
> 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] 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 to offsite nonfree content when, for example, we cite such a source as
a reference. It only becomes a major issue when it's presented as part of
an article.

My more major concern is, would this be a privacy issue? That concern has
been brought up before, I think for quite valid reasons, with for example
social media "Share this" buttons. Would this allow Apple to gather data on
what a reader is reading?

Todd

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
gladjona...@outlook.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I'm not one who usually writes on these lists, but since it seems like a
> good way to get others opinions (and ince I've already formed my own), I
> thought it was a good way to see what others had to say and think.
>
>
> The mobile team for the iOS app (who are all awesome!)  has recently
> released (in beta) a version of the app which incorporates Apple Maps a one
> of it's main feature, to find articles nearby.
>
>
> "The Wikipedia iOS app has released a beta version (5.4.0 1081) which uses
> Apple maps as its map data source. This is not an easy decision and has
> already sparked some discussion of whether this is acceptable given our
> project's values."
>
>
> These maps are not free (non-libre) and is in my strong opinion against
> our values. We only create and publish things which are freely licensed
> (with fair use imagery being the only exception, after a board resolution
> regarding EDP's).
>
>
> Some reasons why this was done can be read here:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Maps_service
>
>
> I was asked if we could use non-free elements as long as we said it was
> non-free and you may not be allowed to re-ue it, and I responded with "If
> we can't find enough editors for Wikipedia, would it ever be alright if we
> copied text from Britannica, as long as we said it was from Britannica, and
> that reusers can not use it" i.e. just because we can't make something,
> doesn't mean we should use something else (non-free thing) to reach our
> 'wants', if it causes us to  loose what is... 'us'.
>
>
> I'm seeking imput and opinions from you all whether this i allowed or not
> our according to values, which states:
>
>
> "An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging
> the development of free-content educational resources that may be created,
> used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this
> mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to
> allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use,
> and reuse.
>
> At the creation level, we want to provide the editing community with
> freely-licensed tools for participation and collaboration. Our community
> should also have the freedom to fork thanks to freely available dumps.
>
> The community will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be
> distributed freely throughout the world, viewable or playable by free
> software tools."
> ___
> 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] 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 of hassle, and hinder bad faith ones from setting traps. I see that
as good for everyone.

On Mar 7, 2017 6:35 AM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:

> Well, that would technically violate the terms as stated in the template.
> The result of those buttons would be:
> "By Taxiarchos228 (Own work) [FAL], via Wikimedia Commons"
>
> According to the detailed description it has to be (I think):
> "By Wladyslaw Sojka, www.sojka.photo"
> (from the description it's not even 100% clear to me whether the license
> has to be mentioned).
>
> I'm not sure whether this kind of 'trapping' is part of the bad practices,
> but given the stories I read so far, I wouldn't be surprised.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
> 2017-03-07 13:16 GMT+01:00 Jonatan Svensson Glad  >:
>
> > Also, the MediaViewer offers HTML and plain text attribution, if you
> press
> > the right icons.
> >
> > Jonatan Svensson Glad
> > Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons
> >
> > > On 7 Mar 2017, at 13:01, "wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
> > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Re: a second commons,prevent cease and desist business
> >
> > ___
> > 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] 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 brought up before,
a direct link would always lack the attribution contained on an
accompanying page.

The simple fact that it's legal doesn't change anything. It would be legal
for me to create a website that doxxes editors. But I still would likely be
banned if I did that. If the best defense you can offer for your actions is
"It's not actually illegal!", that's a pretty lame defense.

I don't know if either de.wp or Commons have the idea of "bringing the
project into disrepute" being a reason to exclude someone from the project.
But if they do, using legal demands rather than polite requests as a first
resort and a trap to make a buck seem to qualify.

I have no issue with editors asserting their legal rights if someone fails
or refuses to accede to a request to bring material into license
compliance, or if someone is acting in bad faith and their noncompliance is
clearly deliberate. But the request should always be the first step, and if
they do what was asked, that should be the end of it. That's especially
true for those who made a good faith effort to comply and simply made a
mistake in doing so.

Todd

On Mar 5, 2017 5:36 AM, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:

> Hoi,
>  this is neither Commons nor German Wikipedia   We know that
> each subset of the Wikimedia Community may have its own arguments and its
> own consensus. By allowing for such a discussion new arguments may arise.
> That is useful.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 5 March 2017 at 13:33, Steinsplitter Wiki 
> wrote:
>
> > This has been discussed multiple times on Wikimedia Commons and dewp,
> thus
> > i see no need to discuss it here again.
> >
> > The RFC on dewp [1] to ban such photos from being used failed, which
> > speaks for itself.
> >
> > --Steinsplitter
> >
> > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> >
> >
> > 
> > Von: Wikimedia-l  im Auftrag
> von
> > rupert THURNER 
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. März 2017 10:22
> > An: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] a second commons, prevent cease and desist
> > business
> >
> > case 1:
> > 
> > to name a couple of other persons if you want to google for
> > "abmahnfalle wikipedia" (cease and desist trap wikipedia):
> > 
> >
> > personally i favor a technical solution, as i find it pointless to put
> > people on some pillory for doing what the law allows them to do. like
> > separating into two commons - one save for reuse, one to be used if
> > you know a lawyer. or to built into wikipedias infrastructure to
> > include the license and author within the picture, fix wordpress,
> > etcetc. besides of course fixing the CC license in case it still is
> > not ready for proper online usage.
> >
> > rupert
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Lodewijk 
> > wrote:
> > > I've run into one or two people on OTRS that were reusing the materials
> > in
> > > good faith, but that got a letter from such a photographer that wanted
> to
> > > see money (and that is just spillover from Germany to the Netherlands).
> > > Examples linked in the discussion include this warning and bill
> > >  > aus-der-wikipedia-2013-01-12>
> > > of
> > > hundreds of euros for a foundation that did not specify the author name
> > or this
> > > website that was asked 
> to
> > > pay over a thousand euro. The discussion on the German WIkipedia may
> > > contain more links, and the linked blogs are insightful on how this
> > > behaviour is being perceived. Just google for "abmahnung bild
> wikipedia"
> > to
> > > find more examples and stories.
> > >
> > > Hope that clarifies. German Wikipedians may have better examples.
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > 2017-03-04 12:47 GMT+01:00 David Gerard :
> > >
> > >> This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
> > >> and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
> > >> uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
> > >> what we're actually talking about here?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> - d.
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> 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: 

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

2017-03-02 Thread Todd Allen
 Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

I certainly think we should treat differently people who don't even try to
attribute the photographer or comply with the license (like the ones James
mentioned), and those who are clearly making the effort but don't get it
quite right.

If someone is using arcane license terms that 99% of people wouldn't know
about or understand as a booby trap for people who are making a good faith
effort to comply with the license, that is not a practice I'd find
acceptable.

Todd

On Mar 2, 2017 8:19 AM, "Lodewijk" <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> Hi Todd,
>
> as I understand the discussion (but Rupert, please correct me if I'm
> wrong), the issue is primarily with bad faith uploaders (if that is indeed
> what they are). These people would upload material under a free license
> (presumably with as complicated as descriptions as possible) in the hope
> that people make an error in the attribution according to the letter of the
> license. In that case, they declare that the license no longer applies to
> that use, and they send them a bill.
>
> If someone were to follow your advise and only add 'Photo by " to the
> caption, according to the letter of the license that would sometimes still
> be a violation because you don't mention the license. With some licenses,
> you're even required to add the full text of the license (i.e. GFDL) which
> is especially bothersome with photos in a print publication.
>
> The question is not whether people should be permitted to ask publishers to
> attribute correctly, the question is whether we should accept and use
> images by bad faith uploaders that seem to have the primary intention of
> using 'abuse' of their 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 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 why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
> > things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
> > material.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER" <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> > > send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> > > wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> > > improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> > > "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> > > better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> > > who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> > > number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> > > administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
> > >
> > > but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> > > discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> > > years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> > > mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> > > as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> > > reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> > > work.
> > >
> > > as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> > > two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> > > like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> > > better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> > > user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> > > sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> > > desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> > > technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> > > sides.
> > >
> > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> > > keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> > > [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_
> Wolf_im_Wald
> > > [3] https://commons.w

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 why people are a bit put out when someone won't do these very minimal
things in exchange for a rich library of free (as in speech and beer)
material.

Todd

On Mar 1, 2017 10:44 PM, "rupert THURNER"  wrote:

> on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
> send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
> wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
> improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
> "improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
> better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
> who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
> number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
> administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
>
> but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
> discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
> years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
> mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
> as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
> reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
> work.
>
> as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
> two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
> like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
> better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
> user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
> sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
> desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
> technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
> sides.
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/
> keine_Bilder_in_Artikelnamensraum_von_direkt_abmahnenden_Fotografen
> [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
> [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
> [4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-
> interview-mit-simplicius/
>
> best
> rupert
>
> ___
> 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] 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 W"  wrote:

> >now reneged on previous agreements to hold a final vote
>
> Has that actually happened? I'm hoping that no statement like "the total
> document isn't subject to an RfC" was actually made. That would add
> needless disagreement to a process that is challenging enough even in the
> best of circumstances, and in any case would likely be overridden by the
> community.
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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] 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 can we address those issues?"

On Feb 24, 2017 2:15 PM, "Pine W"  wrote:

> Well, WMF will have to deal with this policy too. (:
>
> I'm cautious about using a plurality of comments on this list as a proxy
> for an RfC, but if I was WMF and I was looking at the comments on this
> thread, I would be giving a lot of thought to fallbacks in case the RfC
> either fails to achieve consensus or if there is a consensus against it.
>
> I'm going to do something bold here and ping Maggie. I met her long before
> she was promoted to her current exalted position, and I like how she thinks
> about problems. I'm not promising to agree with her on this issue, but I'd
> be really interested in hearing her thoughts about options if the TCoC does
> not achieve consensus. I'm asking for opinions and options,rather than
> decisions.While I have mixed feelings about TCoC and the process for its
> creation, I also don't want anarchy in Phabricator and MediaWiki, so it
> seems prudent to explore alternatives.
>
> A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
> good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less
> WMF involvement with the draft, but in principle I tend to think that there
> should be some kind of baseline expectation for civil conduct, some
> explanations of what that means, and some ways for the community (i.e. not
> WMF) to address behavior problems in places like Phabricator and MediaWiki.
> Even if this iteration of the TCoC is not adopted, perhaps with some
> modifications or revisions and with community leadership, some kind of TCoC
> will be adopted at a future date.
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-21 Thread Todd Allen
No. The community I am referring to is all WMF project participants who
might be interested in presenting their opinion on the subject, regardless
of whether or not they currently participate in any given specific area.
That is always the case.

Todd

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Erik 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 already
> > involved in technical areas or mailing lists.
> >
> > "The community", when we're talking about something that will affect
> > everyone, means, well, everyone who cares to participate in the
> discussion.
> > The final version should be advertised as widely as possible, and the
> > community (not a subset of it) should decide if it's acceptable.
> >
> > Again this hasn't defined what the community is.  The opening statement
> of
> the draft says
>
> This is a *code of conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces*. It applies both
> > within physical spaces, such as Wikimedia technical events and Wikimedia
> > technical presentations in other events, and virtual spaces
> (MediaWiki.org,
> > wikitech.wikimedia.org <https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/>,
> Phabricator
> > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Phabricator>, Gerrit
> > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Gerrit>, technical
> > mailing lists
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview#
> MediaWiki_and_technical>
> > , technical IRC channels
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Channels#MediaWiki_and_technical>,
> > and Etherpad <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Etherpad
> >
> > ).
>
>
> Is this the community you are referring to?
>
>
> > The fact that some people have participated on specific parts does not
> > negate the need for ratification of the full and final version. Work on
> > individual sections hammers out what you're going to present to the
> > community. It does not bypass the need to actually do that.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
> > ebernhard...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This code has been under discussion at
> > > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the
> > > summer
> > > > of 2015, and is finally nearing completion.  The original consensus
> in
> > > 2015
> > > > had been that the completed code would be submitted to the community
> > for
> > > > ratification and adoption.  However, since the end of 2015 the
> drafting
> > > of
> > > > the code has largely been in the hands of a small group of WMF staff,
> > and
> > > > they have taken it on themselves to change that consensus and stated
> > that
> > > > the code will come into effect as soon as the last section is agreed,
> > > which
> > > > will be quite soon.
> > > >
> > > > Do the WMF and the wider Community wish to adhere to the initial
> > > consensus,
> > > > and put the draft code out to the comunity for adoption?  Or will the
> > WMF
> > > > choose to enact it on their own authority irrespective of any
> community
> > > > views on the subject?
> > > >
> > > > It's not particularly clear hear, which community? The developers of
> > > mediawiki-core? extension developers? people who attend hackathons and
> > > such? It seems all of these groups have been bombarded with calls to
> > > participate in the process over the last year and have had plenty of
> > > opportunity to be heard. That only a small group of WMF staff have
> > decided
> > > to participate, almost entirely in their free time as volunteers and
> not
> > > paid employees, doesn't seem to change that.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the code is to be voted on by the Community, what would be the
> > > > appropriate venue for the vote, and where should the vote be
> > publicised?
> > > >
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, gui

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 cares to participate in the discussion.
The final version should be advertised as widely as possible, and the
community (not a subset of it) should decide if it's acceptable.

The fact that some people have participated on specific parts does not
negate the need for ratification of the full and final version. Work on
individual sections hammers out what you're going to present to the
community. It does not bypass the need to actually do that.

Todd

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
ebernhard...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > This code has been under discussion at
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the
> summer
> > of 2015, and is finally nearing completion.  The original consensus in
> 2015
> > had been that the completed code would be submitted to the community for
> > ratification and adoption.  However, since the end of 2015 the drafting
> of
> > the code has largely been in the hands of a small group of WMF staff, and
> > they have taken it on themselves to change that consensus and stated that
> > the code will come into effect as soon as the last section is agreed,
> which
> > will be quite soon.
> >
> > Do the WMF and the wider Community wish to adhere to the initial
> consensus,
> > and put the draft code out to the comunity for adoption?  Or will the WMF
> > choose to enact it on their own authority irrespective of any community
> > views on the subject?
> >
> > It's not particularly clear hear, which community? The developers of
> mediawiki-core? extension developers? people who attend hackathons and
> such? It seems all of these groups have been bombarded with calls to
> participate in the process over the last year and have had plenty of
> opportunity to be heard. That only a small group of WMF staff have decided
> to participate, almost entirely in their free time as volunteers and not
> paid employees, doesn't seem to change that.
>
>
> > If the code is to be voted on by the Community, what would be the
> > appropriate venue for the vote, and where should the vote be publicised?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> > ___
> > 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] 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:
> >
> > I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to
> > see such proposals from others.
>
> I propose: http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim Salsman
>
> ___
> 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] 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
___
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, 


  1   2   3   >