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

2020-09-11 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Natacha,

I am not opposed to UCoC but I am afraid you have unrealistic expectations.

We do have serious behavioral problems in the big communities. One of them,
for example, is that the general tone of discussions is very aggressive and
prevents some categories of users, for example, women, from participating.
A completely different one is a proliferation of POV pushers in all
possible topics. However, UCoC will not solve these problems. It will not
solve any problems of the French Wikipedia.

The point is that big projects  had twenty years to solve behavioral
issues, and have developed an extensive system of policies and guidelines
to deal with them. In some cases, policies are missing because the
communities were not able to come up with a good solution, acceptable for
everyone, and it is very naive to think that a small dedicated group will
be able to develop something better in two months. I see that it does not
even pretend doing this, which is a good thing, but even if they were
thinking they know better than the communities such UCoC were impossible to
enforce. Another reason sometimes is that policies already exist but are
not fully enforced - and here UCoC will not help either, the projects must
look themselves and figure out why the policies are not enforced.

Where UCoC can potentially help are small projects without well-developed
conduct policies. A few year ago, a user was blocked on the Acehnese
Wikipedia for something that the admin thought is an insult to Islam (I
believe posting non-offensive images of people but I muight be wrong). On
the Chechen Wikipedia, a user was blocked for stating that Chechnya is part
of Russia. A couple of years ago, a user was blocked on the Amcharic
Wikipedia, and the admin said openly gay users are not allowed to edit
because this is contrary to Ethiopian tradition. The Croatian Wikipedia is
essentially governed by a clique blocking everybody who disagrees, and
nobody can do anything about it. These are the showcases where UCoC may be
(or even might be) instrumental, and only if one thinks very well what the
instruments could be. Not on the big projects.

Best
Yaroslav

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 8:55 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 asked to send a person
> > specifically for the strategy process, and  WMF also invited some other
> > community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control over what
> > topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not run by
> the
> > WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
> program
> > went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus. Trust
> > and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as necessary
> > to the future development of the movement. This process has been open for
> > ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the process but
> > every choice has been made by community members without any duress or
> > reward as to where each step lead.
> >
> > As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to bring in
> new
> > contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving advantages
> > to those who have been around longer but that is not something that will
> be
> > unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
> person
> > is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between
> > them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand  wrote:
> >>
> >> The UCoC is obviously a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

2020-08-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I just want to comment on one particular point made by Pete.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 8:27 PM Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Institutional memory is important BOTH to staff of WMF, AND to the
> volunteer community.
>
> I think both you and I, Michael, have blurred these two issues to some
> degree. It would be possible for (a) WMF to fully and privately document
> the relevant history (which could be a function of top-down leadership
> and/or staff culture), and for (b) volunteers to fully and publicly
> document relevant history (growing out of volunteer culture, presumably
> with some input from staff).
>
> Whereas this is correct as a general statement, in practice, volunteers
can not document the institutional history. This documentation can not be a
bottom-up process similar to writing a Wikipedia article. For a very simple
reason: There are many viewpoints at every particular event, and the
documentation of volunteers will inevitably reflect one of the points.
Sure, one person can write an analysis of a particular incident from their
point of view, or even a book on the history of Wikipedia. This person can
be a knowledgeable volunteer having general trust of the community or it
could be a user under a site ban. However, a collective product will
inevitably face the necessity of choice. In writing a Wikipedia article, we
use reliable sources to select material (and when reliable sources clash,
we usually face a disaster). Here, we are talking about the events which no
reliable sources describe in detail. An organization can document them on a
basis of performed investigation. A single person can document them on the
basis of their memory and experience. But I do not see how any grassroot
collaboration could be possible here. Any attempt to document these things
from the volunteer side would lead to projects similar to V-ocracy (which
already happened in some languages).

Best regards
Yaroslav



>

___
> 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

2020-08-25 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
In addition, (English Wikipedia) ANI can reasonably well deal with one or
several highly problematic diffs, but very often we have a long pattern
which can result in a long series of diffs, so that each one is
unproblematic or slightly problematic, but all together thay may constitute
a harassment pattern and make the victim feel very unpleasant. ANI is
absolutely not capable of dealing with this situation, and usually ArbCom
can not handle it either. In my situation, I overreacted a couple of times,
and then every time I would try to raise the question at best it would be
called "keeping old grudges" and I was advised to "grow thick skin", but
more often that it was told it was my fault and in fact it was harassment
from my side. ArbCom was not capable of performing any better. To be
honest, I do not see how T can perform better either. An investigation of
such situation would require wading through thousands of diffs and
reconstructing the whole episodes, and I just do not see how this can be
done.

Best
Yaroslav

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:57 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> The whole purpose of harassing someone is to put them under pressure, to
> make the victim upset and force them away from editing. Creating a clear
> list
> of problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events is
> impossible during the incident, when all thats desired is to have the
> immediate abuse stopped.  Emotive language is a call for help, seasoned
> abusers know how to play the game AN/I and the community knows them so when
> they boo the community accepts their version. At AN/I and as Vermont
> explain its the victim that has to be restrain their language, its the
> victim that  has to be calm, its the victim that has to clearly lay out all
> the diffs, its the victim that has to recount/relive the whole of the
> abuse.  The victim is not at fault but until the system supports the victim
> the problems of in grained abuse and hostility by old hands is going to
> remain.
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 17:51, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > I see.
> >
> > The English Wikipedia, and most projects in general (from my experience),
> > are not perfect at handling problems with established editors.
> >
> > This is to be expected. However, there’s some element of draconian secret
> > policing present in having a brigade of T employees handling any and
> all
> > conduct issues. We ha e local communities, and in most cases they are
> > successful in handling issues, but when an editor’s social clout is
> > involved, and/or when there’s incivility/harassment from multiple
> parties,
> > it quickly becomes a larger issue that often ends with little to no
> action.
> >
> > With this issue specifically, it’s minor and local community functions
> > would very likely have been able to manage it properly had the
> discussions
> > continued. The formation of the messages also help determine the
> outcome; a
> > message saying they were told to report there with no links but one to
> the
> > editor’s userpage is not very helpful for people viewing it. A list of
> > problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events is
> > quite helpful for those viewing it. The latter is much likely to result
> > successfully than the former.
> >
> > Also, T actions are not quick and easy either. Their investigations are
> > usually quite extensive and take equally extensive periods of time.
> > Communities act quicker, and though the volunteers may be affected more
> by
> > personal prejudice than employees of the WMF, we are a collaborative
> > project that relies on community input.
> >
> > Hopefully the UCoC is successful with setting reasonable definitions and
> > expectations for community enforcement of conduct policies, though in my
> > view larger projects are not the most pressing issue to be addressed by
> the
> > UCoC. This instance of sexual harassment is minor when viewed in
> > perspective. It’s clearly uncivil and a problem, and we don’t know how
> the
> > ANI section would have ended up if continued (though I would have
> supported
> > a strong warning and block if it continued, perhaps an IBAN), but it
> could
> > have been handled locally. Take a look at most projects with under 30
> > admins. Small community, usually tightly knit, with entrenched
> hierarchies
> > of social clout. Those projects are where extreme incivility, blatant
> > bigotry, and clearly biased administrative actions occur most often. Not
> to
> > mention non-harassment/incivility issues like copyright violations,
> > backwards policies, and historical revisionism, completely ignored by
> local
> > administrators, which hopefully at some point can be mitigated as well.
> >
> > Regarding Fæ’s email, it would be interesting and useful to see a study
> on
> > boomerangs at ANI. It does seem prevalent for newer editors, experiencing
> > biting from more established editors, to be unable to seek 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: Briefing postponement

2020-08-05 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Thank you Zack for the update, much appreciated.

Best regards
Yaroslav

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:14 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Heather Walls and I met with much of the Board of Trustees on July 28 to
> provide an informational briefing on the strategy, history, and process of
> the Brand Project. We shared milestones up until recent events including
> the RfC, the open letter, and the survey (but not survey results). We also
> answered preliminary questions and committed to resolving other questions
> that come up.
>
> The brand project team is preparing for our upcoming Board meeting where we
> will decide next steps. The 2-day in-person Board of Trustees meeting
> originally scheduled to coincide with Wikimania in early August, has now
> been moved to a series of virtual meetings over the last two weeks of
> September.
>
> For reference, the Brand Project team has added the materials that were
> shared with the Board of Trustees to our project page. [1]
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Zack
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#See_also
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:43 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > 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,
> > > > >  ?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,
> > > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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: 

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

2020-07-31 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
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 
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:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia coediting spaces?

2020-07-29 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Teemu,

do you mean a cafe run by the WMF or an affiliate? How is this compatible
with the non-profit status? Or is there smth I misunderstand?

Best
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 2:15 PM Leinonen Teemu 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Have there ever been a serious discussion on the idea of having a network
> of Wikipedia branded (co)editing spaces / coffee shops / tea rooms around
> the world?
>
> They could work so that a chapter may apply from the WMF a license to run
> a Wikipedia coediting coffee shop. The WMF could provide some basic things
> such as Wikipedia branded coffee cups, barista aprons and specification of
> the tables, chairs, menu etc. Each Wikipedia coediting space could also
> offer some local delicacies.
>
> The coediting space could seek for profit (shared between the chapter and
> the WMF?), but the primary aim would be to be self-sustainable.
>
> I am sure there are some cons, but I made a quick list of pros:
>
> * Outreach and education
> * Community building
> * Jobs for Wikipedians
> * Fun places for all Wikipedians to visit when in town
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> - Teemu
>
> ---
> http://www.teemuleinonen.fi
> + 358 50 351 6796
> ___
> 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] Local partnerships and funding sources towards multilingual Wiki-Smart Humanity

2020-07-06 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Thank you.

This actually worries me a lot. If I read it correctly, we will get a kind
of Wiki-Resident, but not with a cultural and educational institution but
with the local government of one of the most populous and influential
subjects of the Russian Federation. I do not think we previously had a
similar situation. In a distant past, we had a user who was hired by the
tourist office (not the government) of Gibraltar, and this is usually
regarded as a complete disaster. We also usually have serious opposition to
the intervention of governments to the editing of Wikipedia, the last
example was in May when the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry was running an
editing contest. I think at the very least the projects must be informed,
and I would not be surprised if for example the community of the English
Wikipedia strongly opposes the initiative.

Best
Yaroslav

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:06 AM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin <
f...@yandex.com> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> This is
>
> 1 to introduce a reworked concept for Wiki-Smart Humanity ([[m:WISH]],
> https://w.wiki/QGD ) project page
>
> 2 to update you on the groundwork in Tatarstan and around Russia for
> growing local and regional public support for Wikimedia community projects,
> as well as discussions about funding Outreach and other local activities
> (since my previous report back in early April https://w.wiki/MFm )
>
> 3 to inform you of the upcoming pilot regional procurement tender
> initiated by one of our partners as the easiest way for them to incentivize
> multilingual article creation and improvement regarding important regional
> phenomena of Tatarstan.
>
> Below you will find detailed description of for each point above. Comments
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> regards,
> farhad
>
> P.S. I am in an uncharted territory, so very grateful to all Russia and
> international colleagues that help me with listening, advice and ideas.
> Tatar is a  non-dominant language community, though in a much better shape
> than many others around the world - this opens my eyes to the reality that
> long-term preservation of currently living human languages (over 7000) and
> their inherent riches of cultural knowledge would require significantly
> more effort, funding and attention than needed to have enWP, ruWP, trWP and
> all others in official state languages of UN member countries (about 50) to
> describe everything that's currently missing. We are talking about amounts
> that no fundraising will ever bring - something that can only be achieved
> by staying true to the powerful Wikimedia Vision and aspiring to win the
> hearts of our existing and potential volunteers for them to be ready and
> willing to help us with something much more precious than money.
> --
> Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / Wikidata:Q34036417
>
>
> 1) [[m:WISH]] (https://w.wiki/QGD) is community-supported (myself so far)
> undertaking to collect and chart initiatives that bring us closer to
> Wikimedia vision:
> - various initiatives that help making all forms, types and categories of
> knowledge equally well described in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects,
> - as well as those that help make everyone a Wikimedian.
>
> No individual or even a group can give equal attention and priority to
> everything in the world, but we can chart initiatives that help us to move
> towards the world where things are more equal. This started as a Meta-page
> for the project around regions, languages, and different topic-specific
> initiatives I started in Wikimedia Russia wiki, but Meta offered a great
> chance to bring together similar initiatives that exist elsewhere.
>
>
> 2) I am in Kazan (Republic of Tatarstan / Russian Federation), so that's
> where I start with regarding the Russia-regions' specific part of m:WISH -
> https://w.wiki/WDk My first priority is to make editing Wikipedia and
> other Wikimedia projects something widely respected, so I'm working with
> institutional partners.
>
> Locally I am still in touch with or contacted since last update:
> * Tatarstan Presidential Administration (description https://w.wiki/WDz )
> * Municipality of Kazan (description https://w.wiki/MFH / stats by
> Wikimedia projects https://w.wiki/JZh in Russian)
> * Tatarstan Tourism board (description https://w.wiki/WDD / lists
> https://w.wiki/WDC )
> * Tatarstan Investment Promotion Agency (description https://w.wiki/MFL /
> articles for creation list https://w.wiki/PSU ) and
> * Tatarstan Ministry for Culture (proposal in Russian https://w.wiki/R7g)
>
> Russia's Wikimedians helped me in reaching out to Moscow Trade and
> Industry Chamber Committee on cross-regional and international cooperation,
> as well as National Tourism Union - I spoke about Wikimedia opportunities
> for growing international awareness about regional realities (
> https://w.wiki/Qht in Russian) at their joint Online meeting on "Tourism
> post 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
That one first, and second that it does not even matter. We should
appreciate that Nat came up with this statement, which is written in her
name, not even as a Board resolution, perfectly knowing that it would not
be fully accepted by the active part of the community, and she woull be a
target of attacks. I fully agree that the attacks are absolutely uncalled
for, even if many of us find the statement insufficient.

We are clearly in the middle of a pretty deep crisis (which was, to be
honest, fully predictable) and we must welcome all efforts to deal with the
crisis. It is unfortunate that these crises come all over and over again,
and I believe this is a structural problem (there is some helpful
discussion at the Meta talk page, which will probably not follow up as
similar discussions have never been followed up previously). This is not a
situation created by the current Board members, and whereas they are
partially responsible for not solving it (in the same sense they are
responsible for everything happening in the WikiVerse), there is no reason
they should resign over it.

Best regards
Yaroslav

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:56 AM revi  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > 2020. 6. 23. 14:13, Gnangarra  작성:
> >
> > Nat insulted an ESEAP
> > affiliate because she wanted a European affiliate to endorse her
> > nomination.
>
> Fact check: that was Shani Evanstein.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Nominations/Shani_Evenstein
> ___
> 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] An encyclopedia must be conservative (?)

2020-05-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Ziko,

there is a long-standing problem of recentism. There are a lot of Wikipedia
articles which are only based on new sources (though reliable) and not on
serious academic literature. There are some which contain zero encyclopedic
information because they basically only retell the news stories. There are
twe whole classes of articles which are not even written in prose, such as
all COVID-19 article (with a couple of exceptions). I have just given up at
some point, I think we are beyond the point of no return. As soon as we are
working on really notable topics and their quality is improving and not
degrading I can live with this.

This is just one aspect of what you mention but I think an important one.

Best
Yaroslav

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:36 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Dear fellows,
>
> Some time ago, Joseph Reagle wrote that an encyclopedia must be
> progressive. In my personal view, something "progressive" sounds to me
> intuitively more sympathetic than something "conservative". But of course,
> these are only two words loaden with meaning, and reality is always more
> complex.
>
> It seems to me that many Wikipedians or Wikimedians think of themselves as
> being progressive and modern. Our wikis are a tribute to science and
> enlightenment. Spontaneity and a laissez-faire-attitude are held in high
> regard; "productive chaos" and "anarchy" are typical for wikis.
>
> When I had a closer look at our values and ideas, I got the impression that
> the opposite is true. Many attitudes and ideals sound to me more like
> bureaucracy and traditionalism:
> * being thorough, with regard to content and writing about it
> * community spirit
> * treating everyone equally without regard of the person (the highest ideal
> of the Prussian civil servant)
> * individual initiative
> * reliability
>
> What do you think? Is this just my personal or national background, or has
> Wikipedia been build up on a different basis than we usually tell ourselves
> and others?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> ___
> 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] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

2020-05-26 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
We of course do not have as many problematic uploads as FB does (and to be
honest having a personal experience I am not really impressed with the
quality of their moderators), but we still get several hundreds of obvious
copyright violations per day uploaded to Commons, and several hundreds junk
articles started and not passed the new page patrol barrier in the English
Wikipedia (deleted or draftified forever). I am sure we have a similar
situation in other big projects. All these things are cleaned up by a very
few people who are on top of the time lost for these tasks also subject to
constant abuse. Note that I am not saying that WMF must pay admins
compensation (still stronger, I will likely leave WMF projects if it starts
doing so), but the problem of emotional drain of those who are dealing with
this shit on a daily basis is real. I am afraid though it has no solution,
because we know that the obvious solution - get more people - does not work.

I am not even talking about off-wiki harassment - which in my experience is
more rare but much stronger because you do not know how real are the
threats. Last time I had to report to the police. This one has no solution
either.

Best
Yaroslav

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:08 PM Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> With regard to the issue Facebook is having, if that were to become an
> issue on Wikimedia projects something likely would have happened already.
> The majority of disturbing content is handled by volunteers, and that which
> T handles is often sent to them by volunteers.
>
> Also, given the relatively complicated upload process (compared to
> Facebook), we simply don’t get nearly as many problematic uploads as they
> do.
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:19 Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > Is  anyone not already aware of the recent issue facing Facebook over
> > compensation for moderators
> > https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/12/facebook-moderators-ptsd-settlement/
> >  To
> > me there appears to be potential risk that the Board and the WMF must
> > consider in relation to any role that involves any form of moderation;
> >
> >1. is there a problem with setting standards against harassment, toxic
> >behavior, and incivility that is at a minimum equal, understandable,
> and
> >respected on all projects, committees, affiliates, events and
> everything
> >else we do
> >2. is there concern about being asked to contribute at these standards
> >3. is the concern how much the WMF needs to be part of the process, or
> >4. how long it should be allowed to go unaddressed before its
> escalated.
> >
> > I go back way to far back I remember a group targeted stalking of female
> > admins,  I was part of a group of admins that were willing to take action
> > against this group. We lost some very good people during that,
>  Harassment
> > has been an on going issue for all my 15 years, we had some the worst
> > people become tool holders, others have just created 1,000's of socks.
> > There are still people contributing today that are trolls, and harassers
> > contributing today, we know that our failures to deal with it effectively
> > and quickly are legendary.   What ever we do we need to keep improving
> our
> > response and our ability to respond across projects, the alternative is
> > going to be that the Board & WMF are going to have to step in and take
> > responsibility out of the communities hands.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 18:58, Philip Kopetzky  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What Martin mentions should be covered in the recommendations for the
> > 2030
> > > strategy, the measures mentioned here being "fast-tracked" to provide a
> > > starting point for improving Community Health.
> > > Conflict resolution needs to happen on the lowest possible level so
> that
> > we
> > > don't run into situations we've encountered in the past. Of course it's
> > > difficult for one aspect to work without the other, so the overall goal
> > > won't be achieved until every part is in place.
> > >
> > > On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 17:46, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> > >
> > > > > A former steward fellow and I
> > > > > discussed this topic at the Safety Space at Wikimania. Due to the
> > > nature
> > > > of
> > > > > the space, the discussion have not been documented but you can find
> > the
> > > > > presentation with backgrounds of the situation and open questions
> on
> > > > > Commons
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2019_%E2%80%93_Do_we_need_a_global_dispute_resolution_committee%3F.pdf
> > > > > >.
> > > > > Maybe it can give some ideas how to proceed with this.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes -- I was just thinking of your discussions of this while reading
> > the
> > > > thread. I hope these steward reflections are considered as people
> move
> > > > forward.
> > > >
> > > > The case of disputes that embroil an entire community and their
> admins
> > > > should 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally
unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am
pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files
mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and
once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both
cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of
course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can
imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting,
which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if
one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally
should be ok.

(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum
and I am not planning to increase the activity level).

Best
Yaroslav



On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello Alessandro,
> Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I
> only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time. Also I
> would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
>
>
> Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
> schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
>
> > In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring
> > about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people
> > acting the way they do.
>
>
> This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the
> on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you want
> to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
> They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
> > unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or
> > description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
> >
>
> > About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of
> > course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
> >
> > A.
> > Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers <
> > robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
> >
> >  Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
> contributors
> > and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly
> > lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
> >
> > I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
> Admin
> > deletes (
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Rachel_Priest_after_the_Sydney_Thunder_vs_Adelaide_Strikers_WBBL_game_at_Robertson_Oval.jpg
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Abandoned_farm_house_in_Hillgrove_01.jpg
> > ).
> > These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I
> > have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the
> project,
> > it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something
> > that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
> >
> > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > > Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> > > broader than that of Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> people
> > > don't contribute more broadly?
> > >
> > > ~Benjamin
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Robert Myers
> > Secretary - Wikimedia Australia
> > M: +61 400 670 288
> > robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au
> > http://www.wikimedia.org.au
> >
> > Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which
> > supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome
> > your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission
> > alive.
> > ___
> > 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] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
earlier this year:

https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866

However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
blocked on other projects, does not help either

Best
Yaroslav

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta  wrote:

> This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
> when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
> of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
> However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there.
> Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
> alternative version of Commons).
> 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
> gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
> spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
> working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity"
> problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
> initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
> 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
> seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
> 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
> Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
> major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> star) is good for motivation as well.
>
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
>
> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
> > Commons.
> > >
> > > -
> > >  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
> > had to
> > > increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> > > itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
> > > ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
> > Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the
> > Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
> for
> > the movement.
> > >
> > > see:
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> > > -
> > >  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
> > the question why to
> > > publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
> Pinterest?
> > >
> > > -
> > >  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
> Some
> > Wikipedians are
> > > living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> > > sisters.
> > > - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
> > projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
> user
> > interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in
> > the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
> > >
> > > I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
> > problems are known already now.
> > >
> > > I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
> > Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an
> > officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products
> > freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
> > >
> > > Roland
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Benjamin Ikuta  05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > Commons because they don't realize 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF political activism

2020-04-24 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
We have this article as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day_Live

Best
Yaroslav

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:31 PM Michael Peel  wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day is not the same as
> https://www.earthdaylive2020.org/ - but the link was to the latter.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 24 Apr 2020, at 21:26, 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,
> 
___
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] คุณมีความสุขกับอะไรในสัปดาห์นี้? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 19 April 2020)

2020-04-23 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I actually also had a train identified this week, by User:Altona
  with whom I never
interacted as far as I know.

My train is from Canada, uploaded a week ago.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:West_Coast_Railway_Heritage_Park_08.jpg

Best
Yaroslav

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:35 PM Michael Peel  wrote:

>
> > On 23 Apr 2020, at 20:21, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > What’s making you happy this week? You are welcome to write in any
> > language. You are also welcome to start a WMYHTW thread next week.
>
> A few years ago, I took some photos of some abandoned and heavily-decayed
> trains in Paranapiacaba, an old railway town in southern Brazil, and
> uploaded them to Commons. This week, User:Sorocabano_32 came along and
> identified several of them!
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Siemens-Schuckert_B-B_(RFFSA)
> These seem to be the only photos we have of this locomotive class, as it’s
> the last of its kind.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:TUE_S%C3%A9rie_100_(EFCB)
> 
> It turns out these were built in the UK!
>
> (There are still many more still to be identified in
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vila_Ferrovi%C3%A1ria_de_Paranapiacaba
> !)
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> 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] Comment Open on U.S. Open Access Policy

2020-04-20 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
As an actively publishing researcher, I just know that mandating open
access publishing would mean that the author pays the (huge) publication
fee rather than the library pays the subscription. In an ideal world, the
universities would refund the fees, and will get subsidy from the
governments, In our real world, the researchers will have to pay everything
out of their own pocket, with some of them losing all possibilities to
publish, for the lack of funds. I tried to raise this before, and the
universal reply was that this is my problem, not the problem of the
society. I do not expect anything else this time.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:34 PM Shani Evenstein 
wrote:

> Jake, well written and nicely put.
> Is this online somewhere, where we can share it further?
>
> Best,
> Shani.
>
>
> ---
> *Shani Evenstein Sigalov*
>
> * Lecturer, Tel Aviv University.
> * EdTech Innovation Strategist, NY/American Medical Program, Sackler School
> of Medicine, Tel Aviv University.
>
> * PhD Candidate, School of Education, Tel Aviv University.
> * Azrieli Foundation Research Fellow.
> * OER & Emerging Technologies Coordinator, UNESCO Chair
>  on Technology,
> Internationalization
> and Education, School of Education, Tel Aviv University
> .
>
> * Member of the Board of Trustees
> ,
> Wikimedia
> Foundation .
> * Chairperson, The Hebrew Literature Digitization Society
> .
> * Chief Editor, Project Ben-Yehuda .
>
> +972-525640648
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:27 PM Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Jake,
> >
> > How can we most effectively support your excellent effort with this?
> >
> > -Pete
> > --
> > Pete Forsyth
> > User:Peteforsyth on Meta, English Wikisource, English Wikipedia, etc.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:22 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > Very well-written and well-supported by statistics. Thanks for sharing.
> > > Regards.
> > > User:Titodutta
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:41 AM Jake Orlowitz 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My Letter to the U.S. Office for Science and Technology Policy
> > regarding
> > > a
> > > > proposal for federally mandate open access to publicly-funded
> > research...
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia is one of the ten most popular websites in the world. Each
> > > month
> > > > 200,000 editors improve over 6 million articles. This vital public
> > > > information is viewed on 1 billion unique devices as our pages are
> > loaded
> > > > by people around the globe 7,000 times per second.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia", both in its open CC-BY-SA
> > licensing
> > > > as well as the unpaid contributions of its volunteer editors. Yet
> > > > Wikipedia's hundreds of thousands of editors struggle to access
> > scholarly
> > > > research. And, if they are able to read and cite it, then hundreds of
> > > > millions of readers cannot verify or explore it for deeper research.
> > > >
> > > > Citations are the bridge between Wikipedia articles and a broader
> > > landscape
> > > > of reliable, secondary sources. Citations not only allow readers to
> > > verify
> > > > the reliability of the facts they find in Wikipedia; through
> citations
> > > > readers can also deep-dive into any given topic by exploring the
> books,
> > > > scholarly publications, and news stories referenced in an article.
> > > >
> > > > A recently released dataset of all citations with identifiers in
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > found that less than half of the official versions of scholarly
> > > > publications cited with an identifier in Wikipedia are freely
> available
> > > on
> > > > the web. This chasm of for editors and for readers is a tragedy of
> > public
> > > > education and digital literacy.
> > > >
> > > > Just look at the most recent global catastrophe with Coronavirus. By
> > > April
> > > > 2020 the main articles on COVID-19 had received 50 million views.
> > > > Wikipedia's medical content--made up of more than 155,000 articles
> and
> > 1
> > > > billion bytes of text across more than 255 languages--has been ranked
> > as
> > > > one of the top-3 most viewed sources for medical information on the
> > > entire
> > > > internet.
> > > >
> > > > References are essential to the public's trust in Wikipedia. Indeed,
> > > > Wikipedia's medical content is supported by 757,855 references in
> > English
> > > > and 1,596,528 in other languages, for a total of 2,354,383 across all
> > > > languages. In English 168,985 have a PMID while 261,850 do in other
> > > > languages. This means at least 430,835 references are journal
> articles.
> > > >
> > > > What happens when those journal articles lie behind a paywall? The
> > public
> > > > suffers from a dearth of good 

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

2020-04-10 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
In all honesty, this should not have been directed at Samir. I do not think
he has the authority to stop the process. And whoever has probably spends
more time in Twitter that in Wikimedia projects.

Best
Yaroslav

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Tito Dutta  wrote:

> There is something called [[WP:IDHT,]] i.e. I didn't hear that.
> No matter how many times, how many people (90% in the RFC) speak, I just
> didn't hear that.
> Kind regards,
> (Comment in personal capacity)
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 00:15, Samir Elsharbaty 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We wanted to follow up with a brief update on the project timeline and
> > share an invitation to join an event this month.
> >
> > We know there continues to be so much uncertainty in the world, so we are
> > slowing down the process of the project. Big changes are happening to all
> > of us these days. We want to make sure that we respect the time and
> > priorities of the project collaborators. This means updating the project
> > timeline approach to have more flexibility for participants and smaller
> > time commitments [1], revising the project schedule month by month and
> > keeping the Brand Network [2] and other participants informed on a more
> > regular basis with any updates and changes. The naming discussions
> planned
> > for April are now pushed to May, at the earliest. Design proposals are
> > likewise shifted +4 weeks.
> >
> > But we do have things to share:
> >
> > *This month: live brand concept presentation!*
> >
> > To honor, celebrate, and conclude the work around the concepts referred
> to
> > in Essie’s email above [3], Snohetta and the Brand Project team will
> > present the Unified Concept LIVE on 16 April, 15:00 - 16:00 GMT. Snøhetta
> > will explain how they used the ideas, feedback and conceptual models from
> > the workshops and online exercises to arrive at a final, unified concept.
> > This unified concept  will be the foundation for the upcoming work around
> > the naming conventions, visual decisions, and the overall design system.
> > The session will also be recorded and made available for viewing after.
> You
> > can join us using these links. [4] Note: this is not a presentation of a
> > proposal for a naming convention or design.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Samir and the brand project team
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline
> >
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Brand_Network
> >
> > [3] https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/
> >
> > [4] Join via Zoom:
> >
> > https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/769565325
> >
> > Steam via Youtube Live:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS72O6Si94Q
> >
> > Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
> >
> > Community Brand and Marketing coordinator
> >
> > Wikimedia Foundation 
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:32 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > The article itself is spammy brochure-style nonsense, and this is even
> > > after some cleanup. Editorial eyes welcomed.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sn%C3%B8hetta_(company)
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 23:16, 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
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiProject COVID-19 (English Wikipedia) is started

2020-03-15 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Just to remark that I went today to a supermarket to take a picture of
empty shelves and eventually to upload it to Commons. Which I did (and
eventually I added one of the photographs to an English Wikipedia article),
just to discover that several people had the same idea before me, including
one in my city. Still, the number of relevant pictures is laughably small,
and now it is good time to take pictures for example of places which are
normally overcrowded by tourists and now are empty. Or queues at the
airports due to cancellations, We need to document the event (obviously not
compromising on the safety), and anybody with a cell phone can easily
contribute.

Best
Yaroslav

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empty_chips_shelves_in_AH_Delft_02.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empty_butter_shelves_in_AH_Delft_01.jpg

On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 10:12 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> May I suggest that the discussion regarding the name take place
> somewhere other than Wikimedia-l? I think that a talk page of one of
> the relevant articles on English Wikipedia, a WikiProject Medicine
> talk page, or the WikiProject Medicine Mailing List, would all be
> reasonable venues.
>
> 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?

2020-03-13 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
We just had an RfC on Meta which gave 90% opposes. I do not see how any
serious rebranding discussions could still be happening after this result
has become apparent. For me personally, the question is closed at least for
several years.

Best
Yaroslav

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 8:48 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Although Mike and I have differences of opinion about centralizing on
> the "Wikipedia" brand, one way in which I agree with Mike is that
> there are ways to have branding discussions that are not themselves
> controversial. Even if consensus was not reached, I for one would be
> more accepting of the process.
>
> Some departments in WMF seem to be more on board with regards to
> process than others. In particular, I think that Audiences these days
> generally does a good job, and also I like Tech News.
>
> Outside of WMF, the Wikidata team at WMDE produces very informative
> newsletters each week. They seem to do good work without spending
> money on outside consultants.
>
> So, why all of these issues in WMF Communications? I don't get it.
>
> 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] Practical implications of Coronavirus

2020-03-10 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
For a setting with a lot of presentations and questions Zoom should work
fine

https://zoom.us/?zcid=2314=359453254254=%2Bzoom%20online%20%2Bmeeting=b=g=c=EAIaIQobChMIsI2o0JaQ6AIVBc13Ch0VxwqZEAAYASAAEgJs0_D_BwE

but of course it would not provide any interaction between participants.

Best
Yaroslav

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:59 PM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At last Sunday's London Meetup we discussed the situation and while not
> wanting to seem over cautious (we were of course the dozen who'd decided to
> attend). We realised that there was a good chance that the April and even
> May meetings might need to go virtual.
>
> Is there a recommended software solution for video/audio conferencing a
> dozen to twenty people?
>
> I took part in some not the wikipedia Weekly podcasts almost a decade ago,
> but i'm assuming the technology has progressed since then.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_The_Wikipedia_Weekly
>
> Regards
>
> WSC
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 13:27, 
> wrote:
>
> > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >1. Re: 2020 Wikimania Scholarships now open (Dariusz Jemielniak)
> >2. Re: 2020 Wikimania Scholarships now open (Gnangarra)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 08:48:48 -0400
> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2020 Wikimania Scholarships now open
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > cadespguuq96jzaylkajfipv-isfmqvcul8nhm+scbjxagfd...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I believe it likely is too early to make a decision. We have a
> professional
> > team at the WMF monitoring the situation, but the date is still 5 months
> in
> > the future.
> >
> > It is reasonable to expect that we may need to make adjustments to the
> > situation as it develops and in 2-3 months it will be much clearer where
> we
> > stand.
> >
> > For now, I think it is already fair to say that the WMF leadership is not
> > shying away from difficult decisions (the summit cancellation, closing
> down
> > the office, canceling international travel for staff) and clearly
> > prioritizes our safety.
> >
> > I trust the judgment of our staff when they communicate clearly that they
> > are considering all options and will.make a decision in due time.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dj "pundit"
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 00:45 Rehman Abubakr 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I too have cancelled all personal/work/wiki travel plans. The risks are
> > > far too great.
> > >
> > > A single infection at the conference, depending on who/where, has the
> > > potential to cause significant damage to the Movement.
> > >
> > > I understand the sheer effort that has already been put, but I strongly
> > > hope the Foundation will postpone the conference or cancel this year's
> > > conference for the safety of the volunteers, and to prevent the risk of
> > > spreading it to more parts of the world.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yours truly,
> > >
> > > Rehman
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> of
> > > James Heilman 
> > > Sent: 09 March 2020 22:51
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2020 Wikimania Scholarships now open
> > >
> > > From a personal perspective, I have cancelled all future travel plans
> and
> > > have requested that everyone I work with do the same. I am of course in
> > > healthcare. Please note that this is not official advise.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:48 AM Toni Ristovski  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > *
> >
> ___
> 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: 

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

2020-02-19 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:31 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

>
> Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work just
> fine.
>

Apparently not if people go there en masse instead of using on-wiki
channels.

Yaroslav


>
> 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
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> &g

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

2020-02-19 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
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 important
> > goal, based on lessons learned through the Space prototype, the
> Foundation
> > has decided to close Discuss Space. The Space blog, which continues to
> fill
> > a need to share news for the movement by the movement, will continue in a
> > new home. Please continue to submit community-focused stories [1], so
> that
> > we may share them with the movement.
> >
> > To learn more about the next steps, check the full announcement at
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations released, join the conversation

2020-01-21 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
We will be again talking to the wall. (Would be, I am not going to react
this time).

Best
Yaroslav

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:06 AM Todd Allen  wrote:

> 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]
> >
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: New roles for working group members, synthesis underway, and more

2019-11-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
The recommendations must be first presented to the movement (and,
specifically, to the project communities) for approval, and only them
whatever will be approved, can be presented to the Board,

The reverse sequence will likely result in outright rejection of
recommendations by the editing communities and further alienation WMF from
the communities.

Best
Yaroslav

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:20 PM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I’m happy to share an overview of what’s been happening in movement
> strategy lately.
>
> == New roles and bringing the recommendations together ==
> From now until the end of the year, the focus will be on identifying
> the overlaps in the 89 recommendations produced by the nine thematic
> area working groups. The goal here is to create one synthesized set of
> recommendations and an accessible, digestible Movement Strategy
> document to be shared publicly in January.
>
> To do this, we asked working group members in October to let us know
> if they’d be interested in continuing to contribute to the Wikimedia
> 2030 Movement Strategy in one of the following roles: Writer,
> connector, or reviewer.[1]
>
> 15 have signed up to be writers, 10 as connectors, and 17 as
> reviewers. Writers will look for overlaps and similarities in the
> existing content to see where multiple recommendations could be merged
> and unified. Connectors will work closely with writers to help them
> improve and expand the content and assess how and where to best
> integrate phase 1 material, research, and community input. Reviewers
> will go through the synthesized recommendations and provide specific
> additional perspectives, expertise, contexts, and advice as needed.
>
> The writers are currently in a high period of activity, which began in
> early November and will run through December, with ongoing support
> from the connectors. Alongside bringing together the existing
> recommendations, they are also defining principles that underpin and
> guide the content of these recommendations. The writers will come
> together in Berlin in the first week of December to work intensively
> on consolidating the recommendations and finalize the work.
>
> == Next steps ==
> When the synthesized recommendations are ready and published in early
> 2020, a final round of movement conversations will take place.
> Movement stakeholders will have a chance to understand the path
> towards these recommendations and to review the semi-final document.
> The final recommendations will be presented to the Board of Trustees
> in March and subsequently to the movement for approval. The first step
> towards implementation will be discussing prioritization and
> sequencing of the recommendations, as well as agreeing upon
> responsibilities for bringing each recommendation to life.[2]
>
> We’ll keep you posted on future developments and more concrete steps
> towards approval here and on Wikimedia Space, so stay tuned!
>
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Synthesis_Groups
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Overview/Timeline#Detailed_timeline_October_2019_to_June_2020
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Leiterin Internationale Beziehungen
> 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] Brief request for advice about "What's making you happy this week?"

2019-11-25 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I posted once a reply which was reasonably concise and had just one point -
and it generated very little response. My conclusion was that people here
are mainly not interested in what is going on on the projects contentwise.
I will not do it again.

Yaroslav

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:16 AM Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> I have similar thoughts.
>
> I find the "What makes you happy" emails generally nice and useful and
> occasionally I reply. But the opening emails are often too long, and have
> too many sections and links, which make it hard to read.
>
> The title "What makes you happy" implies something that is unique for every
> week, so it should have fewer repetitive sections.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ב׳, 25 בנוב׳ 2019 ב-10:33 מאת ‪Diane Ranville‬‏ <‪
> dranville-...@wikimedia.org‬‏>:‬
>
> > Hi Pine,
> >
> > Personally, the reason I don't answer to WMYHTW? is that - to be honest
> - I
> > actually find it too long and visually unappealing (too many links, looks
> > very technical) so I read the first few lines, then I skip and go to the
> > next email. I really like the idea though, and when I have time, I click
> a
> > few links, but indeed it doesn't prompts me to answer because, well... it
> > looks more like a newsletter than an actual call for conversation.
> >
> > Maybe this would have more success with a shorter format, maybe including
> > images directly inside text. You could also try cross-posting it to
> > Wikimedia Space, where engagement is less intimidating because it looks
> > more like social media (you can "like", comment, etc). It makes me think
> > about this post
> > <
> >
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/what-was-your-first-commons-contribution/2021
> > >,
> > which triggered quite a few answers.
> >
> > Hope this helps!
> > Best,
> > Diane
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:36 AM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello colleagues,
> > >
> > > I would like to ask for your advice about one issue with the "What's
> > making
> > > you happy this week?" emails.
> > >
> > > I was hoping that people would frequently comment in the email threads
> > > and/or on the talk pages of WMYHTW publications in *The Signpost* to
> > share
> > > what is making them happy, in the Wikiverse or elsewhere. However,
> > comments
> > > are somewhat rare.
> > >
> > > I am concerned that some people may feel too intimidated to comment.
> > >
> > > I understand that communicating in public requires courage, but I
> believe
> > > that people who try to be respectful will have their comments received
> > well
> > > by the community if they comment in these threads. Perfection is not a
> > > requirement for WMYHTW.
> > >
> > > Also, I think that public communication becomes easier with practice,
> and
> > > these threads would be good places for people who want to become more
> > > experienced with public communication on Wikimedia-l to practice.
> > >
> > > Is there something else that you think could be done to facilitate
> > > participation in WMYHTW? I would appreciate your advice and input.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > 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,
> 
___
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] Ի՞նչն է Ձեզ երջանկացնում այս շաբաթ: / What’s making you happy this week? (Week of 22 September 2019)

2019-10-06 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Thanks Gerard.

I think concerning Wikidata, we should be fine, since all these articles
existed on the Russian Wikipedia before Wikidata was even created, and bots
must have moved there relevant information, but I will sample it.

Concerning the Africa project, I added quite some information to about a
half of the articles on districts in Mozambique several years ago, when
DrBlofield organized a writing competition on African topics at the English
Wikipedia. Since that, I never could find time to work on the other half.
May be now there is time. However, again, all these articles existed
already at the time, in the English, Spanish, and Portuguese Wikipedias,
and I assume that basic data is already on Wikidata. The coverage of
African physical geography is generally very poor as well, but, in contrast
to human geography, improving coverage probably requires a visit to a
library.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 3:25 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Wonderful work congratulations .. I do appreciate your work, in my "Africa
> project" I have a record for all the known administrative administrative
> entities. It truly is a work in progress and it serves a few purposes.
>
>- In Wikidata the links for the administrative entities exist and they
>are linked to the one level higher up
>- when the data is used in Listeria lists, the same list may be used for
>multiple Wikipedias, serving multiple languages.
>- it shows the known articles, the difference is straight or italic. It
>is easiest to add names for the higher levels, they will then show in
> the
>local language properly
>
> The problem with topics that are used a lot but have few devotees is that
> it helps when lists like these are available. When you care to, I am happy
> to help you set this up for Russia and have the info on more Wikipedias.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> PS there is a similar project for India
>
> On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 13:53, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Now, what is making me happy this week is that yesterday I completed the
> > first step of my long-term project at the English Wikipedia. I finished
> > creating articles on all district centers in Russia. Districts are the
> > second level administration divisions in Russia (the first level are
> > federal subjects), there are slightly less than two thousands of them.
> > District centers could be cities, urban-type settlements (urban
> localities
> > toughly equivalent to towns in the UK), and rural localities. When I
> > started, all articles on Russian towns were already there, but less than
> a
> > half of urban-type settlements and rural localities which are district
> > centers were redlinks. I started creating all of them more than a year
> ago,
> > and yesterday I finished the last one remaining. The articles I created
> are
> > mainly stubs, with some minimal necessary geographical information,
> > including population and coordinates, categories, templates etc.
> >
> > Now I am back to the second step — filling these articles with
> information.
> > This is also something I already started (in fact, I started it the first
> > day I edited the English Wikipedia from my new account in 2011), and for
> > the time being I have completed writing articles on districts, district
> > centers, and urban localities in six (out of 83) federal subjects. This
> is
> > something I am more proud of, a random example of such an article is
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezhetsky_District . The second step will
> be
> > to bring the remaining articles to a comparable level. Since this is not
> > the only thing I am doing on the English Wikipedia, I can easily imagine
> it
> > could take ten years or more. So far nobody else was interested in doing
> > this work along with me — which is not very surprising, because the
> > information exists mainly in Russian, and knowledge of Russian beyond the
> > Google Translate abilities is essential.
> >
> > A spin-off project I came across and which had to be shelved for a year
> was
> > to create articles about all Ukrainian urban localities — I am almost
> done
> > there, but last time I checked there were still several dozen articles to
> > create. I will probably resume it now if there are still some left.
> >
> > (And another thing I found recently is completely unrelated to the above
> —
> > I just discovered that a lot of metro stations do not have articles on
> the
> > English Wikipedia, and a lot of those which have do not cite any
> sources. I
> > had some fun a couple of weeks ago creating articles on stations of
> Panama
> > Metro, and this wee

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ի՞նչն է Ձեզ երջանկացնում այս շաբաթ: / What’s making you happy this week? (Week of 22 September 2019)

2019-10-06 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Now, what is making me happy this week is that yesterday I completed the
first step of my long-term project at the English Wikipedia. I finished
creating articles on all district centers in Russia. Districts are the
second level administration divisions in Russia (the first level are
federal subjects), there are slightly less than two thousands of them.
District centers could be cities, urban-type settlements (urban localities
toughly equivalent to towns in the UK), and rural localities. When I
started, all articles on Russian towns were already there, but less than a
half of urban-type settlements and rural localities which are district
centers were redlinks. I started creating all of them more than a year ago,
and yesterday I finished the last one remaining. The articles I created are
mainly stubs, with some minimal necessary geographical information,
including population and coordinates, categories, templates etc.

Now I am back to the second step — filling these articles with information.
This is also something I already started (in fact, I started it the first
day I edited the English Wikipedia from my new account in 2011), and for
the time being I have completed writing articles on districts, district
centers, and urban localities in six (out of 83) federal subjects. This is
something I am more proud of, a random example of such an article is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezhetsky_District . The second step will be
to bring the remaining articles to a comparable level. Since this is not
the only thing I am doing on the English Wikipedia, I can easily imagine it
could take ten years or more. So far nobody else was interested in doing
this work along with me — which is not very surprising, because the
information exists mainly in Russian, and knowledge of Russian beyond the
Google Translate abilities is essential.

A spin-off project I came across and which had to be shelved for a year was
to create articles about all Ukrainian urban localities — I am almost done
there, but last time I checked there were still several dozen articles to
create. I will probably resume it now if there are still some left.

(And another thing I found recently is completely unrelated to the above —
I just discovered that a lot of metro stations do not have articles on the
English Wikipedia, and a lot of those which have do not cite any sources. I
had some fun a couple of weeks ago creating articles on stations of Panama
Metro, and this week I added sources to the articles on Prague Metro, most
of which had zero sources previously).

I realize that many people on the list do not edit projects but edit them
occasionally, and probably do not care much about this obscure type of the
articles, but I still think it is good not to forget why we are here.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:44 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Pictures from Armenia
>
>
>-
>
>This image
><
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Ararat_and_the_Araratian_plain_(cropped).jpg
> >,
>which was the Picture of the Day for English Wikipedia on 17 September,
>shows Mount Ararat and the Araratian plain seen early morning from near
> the
>city of Artashat in Armenia. On the center left can be seen the historic
>Khor Virap monastery. The photo was taken by User:Սէրուժ
><
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:%D5%8D%D5%A7%D6%80%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%AA
> >
>.
>- Closer view
><
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monasterio_Khor_Virap,_Armenia,_2016-10-01,_DD_25.jpg
> >
>of Khor Virap monastery
><
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monasterio_Khor_Virap,_Armenia,_2016-10-01,_DD_25.jpg
> >,
>in a photo by User:Poco a poco
>.
>
>
> Other recent pictures of the day on English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons
>
>
>-
>
>Schönbühel Castle (Schloss Schönbühel)
><
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schloss_Sch%C3%B6nb%C3%BChel_20180919.jpg
> >
>in Schönbühel-Aggsbach, Lower Austria, in a photo by User:Uoaei1
>
>-
>
>The Kiss (Der Kuß)
><
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Kiss_-_Gustav_Klimt_-_Google_Cultural_Institute.jpg
> >,
>a painting by Austrian artist Gustav Klimt. The scan of the painting was
>made by the Google Art Project, and it was uploaded to Wikimedia
> Commons by User:Crisco
>1492 .
>-
>
>Elizabeth L. Remba Gardner
><
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elizabeth_L._Remba_Gardner,_Women%27s_Airforce_Service_Pilots,_NARA-542191.jpg
> >,
>a member of the United States Women's Airforce Service Pilots
> (“WASPs”), in
>a photo that was probably taken during World War II. The image was
> uploaded
>by User:Junkyardsparkle
>, and edited by
>User:Hohum  and User:Bammesk
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Community Tech: New Format for 2020 Wishlist Survey

2019-10-06 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
The wishlist of course accepts wishes in any language, but in order to make
it to the accepted zone a wish must have several dozens supporters, which
is only realistically possible for English language wishes. (Supports can
also be in any language).

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:51 AM Chris Keating 
wrote:

> >
> > > the wishlist only reflects
> > > the needs and perceptions of highly active contributors [at present I
> > think
> > > it only accepts submissions in English ,which is another obstacle, but
> > that
> > > could be addressed].
> >
> > The wishlist has explicitly accepted wishes in any language.
>
>
> Thanks for confirming - and glad to hear it!
>
> Chris
> ___
> 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

2019-09-23 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
This probably goes too far of this thread, but judging from another thread
where attendance complain that no C-level WMF executive attended the French
language conference, people expect from Wikimania not so much the talks
(which I guess by now are available online anyway), but a chance of meeting
some people and discussing issues which can not be discussed online - this
is what Dutch call "wandelgangcultuur". In this sense, the live attendance
is not at all the same as the online attendance.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:36 PM Fæ  wrote:

> We used to regularly raise the issue of a lack of active
> videoconferencing at Wikimania. Though we (Wikimedians) are highly
> technically literate, we still do not host virtual attendees, such as
> 3D virtual conferencing and claim it a win if we release video streams
> of some of the presentations.
>
> Both to reduce our community's carbon footprint, and to encourage
> access for those that find air travel challenging or impossible, it
> would be great to see the Wikimedia Foundation being active in
> trialing and funding virtual environments for our events. 25 years ago
> I worked for a global bank and had regular virtual meetings in a video
> room where you physically sat at a conference table where the other
> half telemagically was in other headquarters in other cities with
> shared (physical) whiteboards to help workshopping. These days it's
> relatively easy to videoconference, but we should do more to
> experiment with whether booking video suites in different cities might
> also be a good way of encouraging Wikimedians to default to local
> travel and still be active in our multi-national or global events and
> workshops. At the end of the day, paying a few hundred dollars for
> several conference suites or higher end conference kit hire hosted by
> local Wikimedia Chapters, is a fraction the cost of paying for a far
> smaller number of lucky applicants to get their flights and
> accommodation paid for.
>
> This type of high quality conferencing initiative would perfectly fit
> the non-specific high level aims mentioned in the WMF sustainability
> documents. It's weird to me that this is still a debate, and folks are
> defending continued air travel at the current consumption levels,
> rather than even trialling all the virtual alternatives.
>
> Fae
>
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 12:14, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
> >
> > Anyways this is perceived by the community.
> >
> > In Wikimedia CH we cannot give scholarships for Wikimania because people
> > would not do long trips.
> >
> > IMHO the problem is these big events.
> >
> > For this reason we prefer to give more scholarships for regional wikicon
> > than to Wikimania.
> >
> > This is the reason why you dont see more Swiss people at Wikimania.
> >
> > Kind regards
>
> ___
> 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

2019-09-20 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
If we are discussing such things, why do not we are discussing whether WMF
employees are driving to the work or taking public transportation? Or
chapter employees? Or volunteers? Or whether volunteers switch off the
light when they leave a room (I actually do)?

I really do not think this is a reasonable avenue to proceed.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 7:53 PM Fæ  wrote:

> Sure, but it seems more realistic than calculating the CO2
> contributions from the management team compared to all the other
> employees.
>
> At the end of the day, how many flights the executive team take as
> part of their jobs, and working out whether they are flying less or
> more in 2019 compared to 2018, is an very simple and useful fact to be
> open and transparent about. Doing so gives everyone a great incentive
> to do better.
>
> Considering the WMF is getting ethical gold stars by putting a Climate
> Change banner over the entirety of its website landing page, it is
> reasonable to expect that the organization starts by changing itself
> and turn the non-committal statements in the WMF presentation from "we
> will consider" and "we will seek" in to a meaningful and measurable
> "we will act".
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 17:58, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
> >
> > Because # of flights is not a useful metric for assessing environmental
> > impact.
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 3:23 PM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > Those publications are where my numbers came from. There is no useful
> > > transparency to explain how many actual flights are taken, why or by
> whom.
> > >
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, 15:17 Lucas Werkmeister, <
> m...@lucaswerkmeister.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Did you see the sustainability report that was published yesterday
> [1]
> > > > [2]? Page 30 of the PDF has some numbers on business travel by air –
> > > > some 5.6 million km in total, by the looks of it. Page 32 also shows
> > > > that the carbon footprint of air travel is about half that of the
> > > > electricity used by the Foundation’s data centers.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Lucas
> > > >
> > > > [1]:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/19/how-the-wikimedia-foundation-is-making-efforts-to-go-green
> > > > [2]:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Sustainability_Assessment_and_Carbon_Footprint.pdf
> > > >
> > > > On 20.09.19 15:23, Fæ wrote:
> > > > > Nice to see that https://wikimediafoundation.org has a banner
> linking
> > > > > to the global climate strike today.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can anyone produce some verifiable metrics that the WMF has taken
> > > > > significant action to reduce the total number of aircraft flights
> the
> > > > > WMF uses?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am asking as though there are no transparently published figures
> for
> > > > > how much the WMF spends on air travel, I recall that the Katherine
> > > > > Mahler was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, where is was
> part
> > > > > of her impressive executive profile to be "on the road" for 200
> days
> > > > > of the year. This probably puts Katherine in the very top numbers
> for
> > > > > CEOs with damaging carbon footprints resulting from travelling so
> > > > > often by flying.[1] If the WMF wants to be seen as an ethical
> company
> > > > > when it comes to reducing their organizational impact on climate
> > > > > change, perhaps this could start with publishing travel figures for
> > > > > the CEO and the rest of the management team, so that everyone can
> see
> > > > > whether there is year on year improvement, or none.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again for the banner, it does help increase the sense of
> > > urgency.
> > > > >
> > > > > Links:
> > > > > 1.
> > > >
> > >
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-35-year-old-executive-director-of-wikimedia-travels-1529588701
> > > > >
> > > > > Fae
> > > > >
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

2019-09-07 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
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 Lappen,
> > > Samir Elsharbaty, and Blanca Flores who conducted extensive parts of
> this
> > > consultation. To the hundreds of people, and dozens of affiliates
> > > commenting, thank you for reviewing the proposal and offering your
> > > perspectives and insights.
> > >
> > >
> > > == Next steps and staying involved ==
> > >
> > > There is considerable support for the brand proposal and general
> appetite
> > > to improve our movement’s branding system. Further, we believe that
> > > critical feedback on the proposal offers direct guidance for precisely
> > what
> > > branding must do to be successful for our movement. We have shared
> these
> > > insights and our proposed continuance with the Board of Trustees, who
> > > approved continuing these efforts.
> > >
> > > Acting on community insights, we will be collaborating on formal brand
> > > naming, visual identity, and brand system design that will use
> > “Wikipedia”
> > > as the central reference point. The resulting system will be OPT-IN for
> > > affiliates.
> > >
> > > This design process will be guided by a “brand network” – a group of
> > > volunteers who would like to continue advising on brand during this
> > > consultation. Dozens of people have already volunteered, and we invite
> > you
> > > to join the group. We will use a group on Wikimedia Space to host this
> > > discussion and the group will be closed to allow candid discussions and
> > > room for iterations. EVERYONE IS INVITED TO JOIN [3]. If you do not
> want
> > to
> > > commit to the in-depth, longer term discussions that will be happening
> > > within the brand network group, we will still be tracking comments left
> > on
> > > the project’s Meta-Wiki page [4]. Furthermore, all important ideas and
> > > updates originating from the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

2019-09-06 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to
assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ  wrote:

> If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
>
> Something along the lines of:
> "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
> and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
> Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
>
> With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
> on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There
> is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
> than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> spent money had impact and "value".
>
> P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when
> communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
> and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators
> rather than holding open collegial discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree with Pine.
> > There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> > proposition.
> > I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that it
> is
> > difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is
> > sometimes necessary).
> > Have other options even been considered?
> >
> > -speaking in my own name here-
> >
> > Diane
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Zack,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the report on Meta.
> > >
> > > I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
> considerable
> > > support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
> > > movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is
> that,
> > > according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition
> to
> > > the rebranding proposal.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
> "considerable
> > > support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be
> > > considerable opposition?
> > >
> > >
> > > Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
> > > measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
> > > rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of
> the
> > > three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
> > > measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the
> RfC,
> > > I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune  wrote:
> > >
> > > > *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 

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

2019-08-24 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
ion,
> > > > >>> instead
> > > > >>>> of
> > > > >>>>>> rushing to a quick fix.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> INTEGRATION
> > > > >>>>>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at
> > > Wikimania
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>>> via
> > > > >>>>>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
> > > > >>>> iteration
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a
> > basis
> > > > >> for
> > > > >>>>>> harmonization across working groups.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels.
> > Some
> > > > >> of
> > > > >>>> it
> > > > >>>>>> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific
> > principles
> > > > >> or
> > > > >>>>>> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side
> or
> > > > >>>> already
> > > > >>>>>> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to
> be
> > > > >>>>> considered
> > > > >>>>>> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic
> > > > >> input
> > > > >>>> will
> > > > >>>>>> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> TIMELINE
> > > > >>>>>> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible
> and
> > > the
> > > > >>>>>> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania
> participants
> > > > >> could
> > > > >>>>> read
> > > > >>>>>> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we
> > will
> > > > >> do
> > > > >>>>>> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in
> > > multiple
> > > > >>>>>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
> > > > >> direction
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are
> > already
> > > > >>>> working
> > > > >>>>>> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare
> > for
> > > > >>>>>> harmonization.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we
> will
> > > > >>> bring
> > > > >>>> 3
> > > > >>>>>> representatives from each Working Group together to work to
> > > > >> develop a
> > > > >>>>> more
> > > > >>>>>> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported
> by
> > > > >>>>>> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We
> > > have
> > > > >>>> also
> > > > >>>>>> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie
> > > > >>> D’Costa
> > > > >>>>>> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia
> > > > >> Deutschland)
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from
> their
> > > > >> work
> > > > >>>> and
> > > > >>>>>> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active
> > > > >> listeners
> > > > >>>> and
> > > > >>>>>> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and
> > > > >> consequences
> > > > >>> on
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>> organizational and movement level. They also participate as
> the
> > > > >>>>>> represent

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

2019-08-21 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed
out by multiple people from the very beginning)

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> Andy
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke 
> 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
> ?
>
> Jeff
> ___
> 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!

2019-08-12 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept
decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in
the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will
listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be
accepted. We have had enough recent examples to illustrate this.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:51 PM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for
> Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts.
> They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine
> thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified
> important for our movement’s future. They are the product of conversations
> over many months with a variety of stakeholders, and the working groups are
> eager to hear from you. The draft recommendations are neither final nor
> complete, but a continuation of an ongoing conversation happening across
> wikis, platforms, surveys, meetings, and meet-ups. As such, constructive
> feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. The draft
> recommendations are based on contexts that deserve due review and
> reflection, and are the result of the efforts of many, rather than single
> individuals.
>
> Many of the draft recommendations underline structural changes needed for
> the growth and expansion of a movement like ours. Many are representative
> of wider societal, historical and global dynamics around us. Please take
> the time to review the draft recommendations in their entirety, pose
> questions, hear from others, and in the spirit of collegial collaboration,
> offer suggestions that you think can address the issues at hand. This is a
> process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep
> engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:49, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > "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 <
> philip.kopet...@gmail.com
> > >
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal forced HTTPS backdoor in Kazakhstan

2019-07-23 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I do not think Kazakhstan has a chapter. In the past, some Kazakh
Wikimedians enjoyed close collaboration with the government (for example,
the Kazakhstani Encyclopedia has been released under a free license and
verbatim copied to the Kazakh Wikipedia, so that I do not expect much.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:45 PM Thomas Townsend 
wrote:

> Yury
>
> What is the position of the Kazakhstan chapter on this?
>
> The Turnip
>
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 11:36, Yury Bulka
>  wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure many have heard about this:
> >
> https://thehackernews.com/2019/07/kazakhstan-https-security-certificate.html
> >
> > Essentially, the government in Kazakhstan started forcing citizens into
> > installing a root TLS certificate on their devices that would allow the
> > government to intercept, decrypt and manipulate all HTTPS traffic.
> >
> > Without the centificate, it seems, citizens can't access HTTPS pages (at
> > least on some ISPs).
> >
> > I think this has serious implications for Wikipedia & Wikimedia, as not
> > only they would be easily able to see which articles people read, but
> > also steal login credentials, depseudonymize people and even hijack
> > admin accounts.
> >
> > Another danger is that if this effort by Kazakhstan will succeed, other
> > governments may start doing the same.
> >
> > I wonder if WMF has any position on this yet?
> >
> > Best,
> > Yury.
> >
> > ___
> > 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

2019-06-29 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I agree that it is completely counterproductive to discuss issues like who
filed the complaint.

What is however important to understand, especially for those who are not
English Wikipedia insiders, is that the reaction which this event caused in
unprecedent. For example, by now 19 active admins resigned the tools over
the incident in two weeks. Depending on the point of view, one can call
this mass protest, or mass madness, or whatever, but this is clearly not an
ordinary run-of-the-mill event. It already lead to a lot of troubles and at
this point is actually dangerous for stability of the Wikimedia universe.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:27 PM Dennis During  wrote:

>  On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 14:48 Thomas Townsend 
> wrote:
>
>
> Considering that nobody posting  has any information about the
> facts of the case, would it not be better to cease from speculation
> which can have no positive aspects but will certainly be offensive or
> even defamatory to named individuals.
>
> What you recommend is against human nature.  It is natural for one to try
> to anticipate what others might do, especially if it might have
> consequences for oneself.
>
> I'm not looking forward to a wikiworld where judgment and punishment
> rendered in camera by folks whose questionable interpretations of
> platitudinous Missions and Codes is apparently shaped by the values of an
> increasingly intolerant subculture.
> ___
> 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] Copyright issues

2019-06-17 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Actually, I am afraid, for CCI at some point we will have to remove all
added text by bot. I do not see any other scalable solution.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:36 PM Stephen Philbrick <
stephen.w.philbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have seen a couple comments on copyright issues in the last couple days
> so I thought I'd share some information that I think may be not well-known
> by everyone.
>
> Very roughly, copyright issues (text) can be viewed in three categories:
> 1. Addition of copyrighted material to articles in years past, not yet
> removed (one-off)
> 2. Same as above, except by a serial violator
> 3. Close to real-time edits which may include copyrighted material
>
> The reason for distinguishing these three categories is that our approach
> and success rates are very different.
>
> In case 1, an editor identifies what they believe to be a copyright issue
> in an existing article. They can report it to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems.
> In the case of a single issue or a very small handful of issues, those
> items are identified and taken care of by volunteers. (I think this aspect
> is handled adequately — I used to be active there but haven't been
> recently)
>
> The second case arises when a potential violation is identified. An
> examination of the editors contributions reveals many examples (typically
> five or more). If this occurs, it is referred to Wikipedia:Contributor
> copyright investigations. A CCI is opened, and the intent is to examine
> every single edit by that editor. This aspect is extremely backlogged. I've
> spent many hours working on CCI's, but it isn't easy, it isn't rewarding,
> and it is discouraging because I think the backlog is increasing rather
> than decreasing. (This isn't due to newly created copyright issues but
> newly found ones.)
>
> The third case is handled by Copy Patrol, a  foundation created tool that
> examines all new edits in close to real time and generates a report, which
> is handled by volunteers.
>
> I want to emphasize this third aspect for multiple reasons. I think it is
> one of the least known tools. Some of the prior emails on the subject leave
> the impression that the authors are unaware of the existence of this tool.
> On the one hand, it works very well, as almost all of the several hundred
> reports each week are reviewed, most within 24 hours.
>
> Good news:
> * Copy Patrol is working, so my guess is that the growth in true copyright
> issues is close to nonexistent.
>
> Bad news:
> * Copy Patrol is adequately staffed but just barely. One editor is
> responsible for the handling of far more than half of all of these reports
> (major kudos to Diannaa), but that much reliance on a single volunteer is
> not good for the long-term health of the project.
>
> * The copy patrol tool is pretty good, and was being improved for a while,
> but I've identified some desirable improvements and my sense is that it's a
> very back burner project in terms of additional enhancements.
>
> * CCI clearance is going to take many years
>
> Phil (Sphilbrick)
> ___
> 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 Health, Roles & Responsibilities

2019-06-17 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I went ahead and offered my time to participate in the strategy process. My
offer was rejected.. I do not think I will ever do it again.

I an afraid WMF is up to some surprises when they publish the 2030 Strategy
which was not in any way coordinated with the communities, and then see
that the communities, for whatever reason, are not interested in
enthusiastically embracing it.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 11:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:

> We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim
> to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.
>
> Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an
> user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some
> are vocal.
>
> Some people comment on a more general level than this specific case. That
> can be separated from the case. There is an ongoing strategy discussion on
> meta and elsewhere about Wikimedia 2030.
>
> There are working groups for Community Health. There are working groups for
> Roles and Responsibilities in the movement. They do ask for input. People
> who want to influence the roles and responsibilities of project communities
> versus for example the Wikimedia Foundation board and paid staff, go ahead,
> and find your way to participate.[1] Or just fill out the survey.[2]
>
> Previously a strategic direction has been agreed. Something with diversity,
> inclusion and something about underrepresented voices, and communities that
> have been left out by structures of power and privilege. It goes as far as
> "We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers
> preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge."
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They
> have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
>
> The Community Health group guiding questions inter alia are "How can we
> ensure that our communities are places that people want to be part of and
> participate in, and how can we make people stay? How do we engage and
> support people that have been left out by structures of power and
> privilege?"
>
> Those last two questions are interesting questions. I'ḿ curious to learn
> answers from people who strongly oppose interventions by WMF staff. and
> from others as well.
>
> I'm looking forward to have conversations about the recommendations of the
> working groups in the Wikimedia 2030 process at Wikimania Stockholm. I hope
> to see a lot of you there.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ad Huikeshoven
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Participate
> [2] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d718KRfJ5W3OVYV
> ___
> 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

2019-06-12 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I think it would. I see many people in the discussions, myself included,
who would not have any objections to a ban by ArbCom but who oppose the WMF
ban. Having a PhD in math and physics, I can not theoretically exclude that
there are active community members who are happy now and would object the
ArbCom ban, but, to be honest, I still would like to see one.

The amount of shit could indeed be approximately the same.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:31 PM GorillaWarfare <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yaroslav,
>
> I understand the difference. I'm simply raising an objection to the claim
> that this would've gone over much better had it been the ArbCom and not the
> WMF who placed a ban.
>
> – Molly White (GorillaWarfare)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM 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,
> > > <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.wikim

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

2019-06-12 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
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,
> 
___
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

2019-06-11 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
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 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.
> > > >>
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Be the change you want to see (was: WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive)

2019-05-15 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi James,

thank you for the answer, appreciated.

Specifically about on-wiki communication, I possibly misunderstand the
situation, but out of 900+ projects you mention, some are dead (no regular
editors), and a vast majority is still in the regime when a few active
users can follow the recent edit list. (I am admin on the Russian
Wikivoyage and I have checked every single edit there since its transfer to
WMF in 2012 - we currently have about a hundred per day). All these
projects only have one noticeboards (typically accessible from the panel on
the left as Community Portal, or, of not, it can be easily located). Again,
at the Russian Wikivoyage, except for the very first cuple of months, when
we were coordinating transfer from the Wikitravel, I can not recollect any
WMF-related person who was interested in discussing anything. We get useful
announcements (typically related to software), but the only time we had
something else (the beginning of the current strategy cycle), we did not
get an impression anybody was interested in listening to us.

Now, bigger projects - there are may be 30 or so of them where one can not
follow the recent changes (the vast majority being Wikipedias, plus
Commons, Wikidata, and possibly English and German Wikivoyages and a couple
of more projects). The absolute majority of these also have one central
place (typically, again linked to Community portal), where things should be
discussed. I would think that a WMF representative trying to discuss smth
at a particular article talk page - it is not impossible, but as a
community member I would find this odd - at the very least, it should be a
pointer to that discussion.

Finally, there are some really big projects, where one can several village
pumps without an obvious choice. I am obviously more familiar with the
English Wikipedia, and indeed RfCs can proliferate anywhere (even though
there is a central place one cal locate all of them), and it might be a bit
tricky to find a correct one, but in all cases I have seen if the topic is
even remotely connected to WMF business (and sometimes even when it is not
connected to it at all) somebody would ping one, or two, or five WMF
employees - who could come and engage ina discussion, or come and say they
are not interested, or not come at all - which is fine, obviously
reasonable people do not expect A-level employees to react to every ping
anywhere in the Wikimedia universe - but at least I think these discussion
places are reasonably well localized and are easy to follow if anybody is
interested in. I am, again, not saying that WMF employees should follow all
discussion on all projects - or even that they should check several
selected pages every day - but some communication channel much exist. In my
experience, most of the reasonable questions just simply get ignored -
which obviously creates an impression that nobody is listening to the
community.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:31 PM James Hare  wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:26 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to
> participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have
> any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project?
>
> I am a product manager at the Wikimedia Foundation. What this means, in the
> broadest of terms, is that I need to know what people want/need in order to
> do my job “correctly,” for some definition of “correct.” Of course, what
> constitutes a “correct” decision on my part is something not everyone will
> agree on and that’s fine. But I need to gather information as part of this
> work.
>
> The problem is that there is no “one” place to go. To give you an idea of
> the magnitude of the problem, there are over 900 wikis.  Hundreds of those
> wikis comprise Wikipedia, a project with a cumulative total of 50,000,000
> articles. Each one of those articles either has a talk page or could
> theoretically get one as soon as someone makes the first post. So, just
> starting with Wikipedia articles, we have over 50,000,000 potential or
> existing discussion venues, with very little coordination or
> cross-organization between these venues, and this doesn’t even include
> individual user talk pages or really, really specific talk pages like
> “Wikipedia talk:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents” which is... very
> precisely, a venue to discuss the administration of that specific
> noticeboard (but not to, itself, host noticeboard-like posts).[0]
>
> It is very convenient and easy to create a talk page because talk pages are
> a very central paradigm to the MediaWiki software (going back to 2002?
> 2003?) and so they are built into the overall website experience in a way
> that things that were tacked on way later, simply are not. But it is a poor
> interface that doesn’t scale across more than several 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Be the change you want to see (was: WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive)

2019-05-15 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to
participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have
any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project? They often
say so, but in practice I do not see any. This list used to be the one, but
it does not carry out this function. The corresponding part of Meta is
dead, questions never get answered. Some (very few, as far as I can tell),
WMF staff members are also active as volunteers, but they do not serve as
liasons between WMF and communities, at least I do not see any indication
that they would welcome these questions asked as their talk pages. Every
time I see a WMF staffer on one of the projects I am active in, this is a
one-way communication mode, not a dialogue.

Well, may be WMF does not need these channels, but then I do not understand
why they continue claiming they are listening to the community. In my
experience, this is not the case.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:16 PM Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> I do not think we should assign blame to those who left this list during
> and because of the periods of toxicity, and who are disinclined to
> participate here because of the memories of that and a continued perceived
> unhealthiness in the tone. Their decision to leave was a valid one.
>
> Not respecting that choice I suspect would just reaffirm their suspicions
> and reinforces the lack of desire to commit here. A significantly more
> positive tone needs to be made and a much more conciliatory stance taken.
> Otherwise we all might as well pack our bags.
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:17 AM Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>
> > Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is
> > carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list
> > co-administrator:
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good
> > > suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound
> > > mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and
> > > movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And
> yet
> > > it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile
> > > constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because
> > this
> > > list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are
> > > written with such overt passive aggression.
> > >
> > > I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list,
> the
> > > unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most
> active
> > > participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not
> get
> > > acknowledged or answered.
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.
> It's
> > true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the
> > past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have
> > left the list in protest.  Personally, I think that was a mistake on
> their
> > part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself,
> and
> > you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call
> out
> > bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and
> my
> > co-moderators have been doing since we took over).
> >
> > By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to
> be
> > on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial
> to
> > listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF
> responses
> > to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful*
> > chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here.
> > Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on
> > Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of
> > accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability,
> > access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)
> >
> > Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions
> may
> > have been inconvenient or troublesome to address.  Yet I think the
> > accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to
> > prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list --
> and,
> > I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers.  Even a
> > response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not
> > to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence
> that
> > has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.
> >
> > As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my
> volunteer
> > capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list).  While I
> > have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion
> been
> > scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the
> best
> > of my 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Be the change you want to see (was: WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive)

2019-05-15 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Yes, Asaf is absolutely spot on. Though I am afraid it is a small part of a
bigger problem.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:54 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Asaf thank you very much. This response of yours helps build bridges.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 03:17, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>
> > Speaking as a (very) longtime member of this mailing list, and one who is
> > carefully observing it for a few years now as a volunteer list
> > co-administrator:
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:56 AM Joseph Seddon 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I, like many others, wish to see this list become a crucible of good
> > > suggestions, healthy and critical debate about ideas and as a sound
> > > mechanism for oversight and account . A huge amount of staff time and
> > > movement resources is taken up by the consumption of its content. And
> yet
> > > it remains the greatest shame that much of the best most worthwhile
> > > constructive discussions have moved to platforms like Facebook because
> > this
> > > list is viewed as hosting such an unhealthy atmosphere when emails are
> > > written with such overt passive aggression.
> > >
> > > I call it out because if we want people to participate on this list,
> the
> > > unhealthy way in which this list gets treated by some of its most
> active
> > > participants needs to be dealt with. Otherwise valid points will not
> get
> > > acknowledged or answered.
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure the causality here runs in the direction you describe.
> It's
> > true that this list had some aggressive, even vulgar participants in the
> > past, and that some senior staff members, as well as board members, have
> > left the list in protest.  Personally, I think that was a mistake on
> their
> > part: to improve the list atmosphere, you model good behavior yourself,
> and
> > you call upon the rest of the list -- the "silent majority" -- to call
> out
> > bad behavior and enforce some participation standards (as, indeed, I and
> my
> > co-moderators have been doing since we took over).
> >
> > By senior people's departing this list, and no longer requiring staff to
> be
> > on this list, a strong signal was sent that this is not a venue crucial
> to
> > listen to, and that, coupled with the decreasing frequency of WMF
> responses
> > to legitimate volunteer inquiries and suggestions, had a *powerful*
> > chilling effect on the willingness of most volunteers to engage here.
> > Especially when, as you say, they were able to get better engagement on
> > Facebook and other channels, despite the serious shortcomings of
> > accountability on those channels (immutable archiving, searchability,
> > access to anonymous volunteers, etc.)
> >
> > Yes, this list has also seen some pseudonymous critics whose questions
> may
> > have been inconvenient or troublesome to address.  Yet I think the
> > accountable thing to do would have been to respond, however briefly, to
> > prevent the sealioning and sanctimonious posts that filled the list --
> and,
> > I am sure, greatly annoyed and demotivated many subscribers.  Even a
> > response stating WMF chooses not to respond to a certain question, or not
> > to dig up certain data, would have been better than the stony silence
> that
> > has become the all-too-common stance for WMF on this list.
> >
> > As you know, I also work for WMF (though I am writing this in my
> volunteer
> > capacity, and out of my care for the well-being of this list).  While I
> > have never shied away from responding on this list, I have on occasion
> been
> > scolded (internally) for attempting to answer volunteer queries to the
> best
> > of my knowledge, for "outstepping my remit" or interfering in someone
> > else's remit.  I have taken this to heart, and accordingly no longer try
> to
> > respond to queries such as Fae's (which in this case I find a perfectly
> > reasonable question, meriting an answer).  Several past attempts by me to
> > ping appropriate senior staff on questions on this list (or on talk
> pages)
> > have also met with rebuke, so I have ceased those as well.
> >
> > For these reasons I do not accept this wholesale blaming of this list's
> > subscribers on the difficulty having meaningful conversations here:
> >
> > But if we want to see staff members more actively
> > > participating here then those long standing individuals need to really
> > > thing about the tone in which they engage here, particularly those who
> do
> > > so most often. If that does not change, this list will continue to
> > languish
> > > and those few staff members who continue to engage here will slowly
> > > disappear. This now increasingly perennial topic keeps coming up and my
> > > fear is that it will on go away through the increasing abandonment this
> > > list faces.
> > >
> >
> > It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here.  And it is within
> > WMF's power to change it.  C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF
> > could all decide to 

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

2019-05-12 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
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 
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?
>
>
>
> On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>
> > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> >
> > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related
> > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
> is
> > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> >
> > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> >
> > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you project
> > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> similar.
> >
> > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
> other
> > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating files a
> > day:
> >
> > See the list from just one day:
> >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> >
> > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
> > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other issue
> > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> >
> > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening uploads
> > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> >
> >
> > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> components
> >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> >> Newsletter
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> >>
> >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
> and
> >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> remarks
> >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> copyrighted
> >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care."
> >> and
> >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> >>
> >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> >>
> >> 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,
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > ___
> > 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Ziko,

you could then argue that Commons is also not a collaborative project -
only one person takes a picture (determines the story, the position, light
etc), and others can at best perform some editing or add/remove categories.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello Philippe,
>
> Thank you for your points to which I generally can agree. Because this
> is an important matter to my, allow me to explain what I exactly mean.
>
> Of course, there are several tasks or layers where people can (and do)
> collaborate when working on journalistic content. But there is an
> aspect where the collaboration cannot be a collaboration of equals
> (which is necessary for the definition of what a wiki is).
>
> Imagine that reporter-editor P. has witnessed a speech of the mayor
> and reports about it, calling it e.g. "enthusiast".
> Stay-at-home-editor Z. reads this report and changes the word to
> "euphoric". P. then protests and changes it back, claiming that he has
> been there and knows better. So P. and Z. didn't have the same access
> to the world that has to be described.
>
> That would be different in the case that P. and Z. only work on
> material such as press releases and content from news agencies. I
> believe that Andrew meant this kind of work when he wrote that we
> don't need (another) website offering this.
>
> Another example for content unsuitable for
> wiki-collaboration-among-equals is an autobiography. An autobiography
> by definition is a personal account of what someone has experienced in
> her life. No other person has the same world access. Other people in a
> wiki can check the text for inconsistencies, orthography, structure
> etc. (Great.) But the person of the autobiography has always a veto
> right - otherwise, it wouldn't be an autobiography.
>
> An interesting question is whether fiction is suitable for
> collaboration (and what kind of collaboration), but that would go to
> far here.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> :
> >
> > Respectfully Disagree. They can formulate questions, coordinate and fact
> > check answers... and that’s off the top of my head.
> >
> > That said I think wikinews is fundamentally not one is our success
> stories,
> > but I don’t agree with what my friend Ziko said there. There are many
> roles
> > for community there.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:15 AM Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > One of the central problems of Wikinews is that the content is not
> > > suitable for collaboration.
> > >
> > > Content suitable for collaboration is related to a reality to which
> > > the collaborators equally have access. Think if an encyclopedia based
> > > on scholarly literature that (potentially) everybody can find in a
> > > library.
> > >
> > > When a journalist has spoken to her 'sources' (relevant people), she
> > > is the one who had a special access to theses sources. The editors in
> > > the wiki did not have this access. They can correct typos but do
> > > little more.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > > :
> > > >
> > > > The very smart Mr. Lih sayeth:
> > > >
> > > > I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews with
> > > > notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a
> direct
> > > > news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
> > > >
> > > > Me too.  In fact, I think this is something that Wikinews has always
> done
> > > > very well.  It also strikes me as an excellent, and quite
> functional, use
> > > > for a Wiki.  A wikivoices or wiki-interviews type project would be a
> fine
> > > > addition to the ecosystem, imho.  And it is very reasonable to think
> that
> > > > given its success in this area, Wikinews could very easily pivot to
> fill
> > > > that spot.
> > > >
> > > > But a news competitor to traditional news outlets?  Nope, that it
> isn't.
> > > >
> > > > Philippe
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:05 PM Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrew
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the
> policies
> > > > > that
> > > > > > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH)
> > > are a
> > > > > > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand,
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem
> inconsistent to
> > > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As Wikimedians we are secondary source news summarizers rather than
> > > primary
> > > > > source news gatherers. That’s where the difference lies primarily.
> > > > >
> > > > > I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-17 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
My understanding is that this is exactly what we are discussing now. In the
scenario proposed by Asaf there is a vote (RfC) in which keep votes of the
Wikinews community would go against delete votes by Wikimedia users not
interested in keeping Wikinews.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:17 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:41, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
> > project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
> > against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
> > perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
> > myself  whether Wikivoyage (I am active in the Russian Wikivoyage, where
> we
> > have a couple of dozen active users) could also be shut down one day
> > against the will of the community, just because we are not successful
> > competing with the brands like Lonely Planet, DK, or Michelin, for
> example.
> >
>
> I've not seen any proposals involving shutting down projects without
> community involvement, so hopefully you shouldn't need to worry about this.
>
> 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

2019-04-17 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
myself  whether Wikivoyage (I am active in the Russian Wikivoyage, where we
have a couple of dozen active users) could also be shut down one day
against the will of the community, just because we are not successful
competing with the brands like Lonely Planet, DK, or Michelin, for example.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:32 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> Hello,
> Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
> not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> from time to time.
> But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
>
> > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> and
> > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> issue
> > ;)
> > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> topical
> > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> major
> > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> >
> > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> >  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> date
> > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> exactly
> > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> > with them...
> >
> > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > functional tools of alignment.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> > that
> > > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> > > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand,
> Wikipedia
> > is
> > > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to
> me.
> > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward
> is
> > to
> > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > >
> > > JPS
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> Wikipedia
> > > > seems
> > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> > its
> > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> > should
> > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer,
> > > >
> > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the
> vast
> > > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that
> Wikinews
> > > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> > properties.
> > > >
> > > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-16 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis
of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that
all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are
incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come
back in a week and continue. A new item for Wikinews should be written
quickly - one day old news are not really news - and published in a form
which is digestable from the very beginning. It is not incremental, and
there is very little room for collaborative writing.

And competition for news items is of course way stronger than for wikipedia
articles.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
>
> Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
> WMF do to revive it?  Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> on the principle of reinforcing success instead.  These are the big
> questions it should be asking itself.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
To be honest, Wikidata does have serious vandalism issues which have not
yet been solved. It is unlikely the English Wikipedia will have a more
close integration with Wikidata until they have been solved. For the
record, I am administrator on both projects.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:31 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When I worked on Ottoman history in Wikidata (I will get back to it again)
> Catalan was one of the best resources. Thank you :) If you want me to I can
> share my work/your work on your wikipedia.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM#Ottoman_Turkey
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 20:21, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, that Wikidata problem happens on English Wikipedia. Some Wikipedias
> > (Basque, Catalan, even French) are embracing Wikidata extensively.
> >
> > And there's the branding issue. Maybe Wikipedia is not THE future.
> > ___
> > 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] [strategy process] Fwd: I decided to leave the working group

2019-03-28 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hello Itzik,

thanks for sharing this.

I actually did not want to react, because I presumably sound too critical
on this list in the last couple of years. However, 24h passed, and nobody
reacted, and It would be unfortunate if we let this go.

My own experience brought me to the same conclusions, even though I have a
very different background. I am a project contributor, highly active on
several WMF projects and having some advanced permissions there. I belong
to the category which became common to refer to as "unorganized volunteers"
(which we actually read as a derogatory name). I participated in the 2010
strategy consultation, which was pretty much community driven, and I liked
that one. My name is on the final document. However, I did not like the
current process from the very beginning. In the first stage, facilitators
were hired, and some of them genuinely wanted to do things but did not know
how to activate the communities, and others did not even make an effort. As
I already shared on this list, on one of the projects I am active in we
took the challenge seriously and formulated quite a few of strategic
directions - just to be told by the facilitator that this is not what we
were expected to do. The final document had no trace of our suggestions. I
was one of those who opposed the final document and signed for this on Meta
- about 70 people signed and were duly ignored. I was not looking forward
to the second round, but when I saw a call, I though "ok, I was criticizing
the process a lot, but did I do enough to fix it", and I applied. My
application was rejected, and a couple of days later there was a second
call stating that the first one did not get enough applicants. Then I was
sure I am happy that whatever final document would be there in the end is
no way my name could be associated with it. Whatever else would happen
around the strategy discussion this round, I am not going to be available
to help. The strategy discussion is smth that happens in a different
galaxy. The process is hopelessly broken and should have been killed at an
earlier stage. I know that a lot of people I respect (and quite a few I do
not) were and still are involved, but apparently the process design was not
appropriate from the very beginning.

I am generally very disappointed by an inability of many people at WMF and
thematic organizations to realize what "strategy" actually means.
Apparently, they really think that they are the movement, and volunteers at
the projects ("unorganized volunteers") would do what they decide for them.
We had already enough calls showing that the communities are not going to
do what they are told if they do not think it is reasonable. And if
somebody has forgotten the Wikitravel story, which tells us what happened
if you push volunteers too much, it could be useful to read it again. I
have an impression that some people really forget where their salary is
coming from, that other people are working for free, and if they stop
working for free, there is not going to be any salary any more. And if you
can not understand what communities want, then you need to ask again, and
not just write a few generic sentences and take it to another level. There
are enough real challenges before the movement which, if inappropriately
handled or not responded to, can just kill the whole Wikimedia universe. To
write a text in which a lot of money and a lot of time is invested but
which is not even specific about anything is not one of them.

And if you ask me I would say that the strategy can not be determined
solely by people who are not working in projects on a daily basis.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:06 PM Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Two weeks ago I sent this email to my strategy working group (resource
> allocation). I didn't plan to send a public email, just to share with the
> rest of the group my reason to leave and just to disappear.
> I receive feedbacks with many of the group members and also requesting
> permissions to transfer it with others outside of the group, which leads to
> more conversations that I had around it.
>
> Last week we had our weekly phone call, during which we discussed our
> feelings and opinions about the process so far. From our long conversation
> and the conversations with the others, I learned that many of these
> feelings exist among the other members, as well some ideas on how to make
> it easier and less demanding and at the same time publishing the
> conclusions sooner.
> Yesterday, following a good conversation with one of the WMF's board
> members about it, I was asked to share these thoughts with the movement's
> list, so that it may also involve the community's feedback as well.
>
>
>
> *Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson (volunteer)
> it...@wikimedia.org.il
> +972-54-5878078
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Itzik - Wikimedia Israel 
> Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:08 PM
> Subject: I decided to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

2019-03-11 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Peter,

I am also writing about what I am (sometimes mildly) interested in, and I
am sure there will be enough materials for me to edit until I die, but you
would be surprised to learn how many people have no idea on what they
could/should edit, and are happy to take suggestions.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:31 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Vito,
> I do not agree with you, but that may be because we edit differently. I
> write about what I am interested in, and know enough about to be reasonably
> efficient. There is enough of it to keep me busy indefinitely. I read the
> topics that interest me and I don't know enough about to write. I copyedit
> anywhere I see a need while I am reading. I fix what I see to be broken if
> I can. I do not think I am unique, or even unusual. What do you write
> about? Is it greatly affected by what other people choose to read?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Vi to
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:07 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
>
> That's an unstable process on a long-term, with popular topics
> cannibalizing resources. Top read articles are already about two or three
> sports, some TV series and three or four music topics.
> These are also the most popular topics among editors but if you'll start
> focusing energies on these already popular topics you'll end up having no
> resources to be spent on "female combatants during Russian civil war",
> "near to extinction languages in Brazil", "computational chemestry in late
> XX century".
>
> The way we self-identify as a project  deeply affects our results:
> promoting the idea of Wikipedia as "the pop encyclopedia" (instead of "the
> free encyclopedia embedding pop topics") will weaken our commitment to
> diversity and quality.
>
> Also, topic popularity is mutable on a daily basis and it's driven by a
> very narrow number of media (basically Google/YouTube and Facebook) which
> will gain a complete influence over us.
>
> To me the mission of an encyclopedia is providing the *knowledge* (not
> *information*) which is worth collecting and preserving. The information
> people need/want is likely to be a subset of this.
>
> If Wikipedia is also an educational medium we should find a way to ask the
> ordes of people looking for new mr. Trump's bizarreness "hey, do you know
> the background of India-Pakistan conflicts?"
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 06:19 David Goodman 
> ha scritto:
>
> > The idea of an encyclopedia is to provide the information people need or
> > want  that's appropriate to the format. It would be useful to see what
> they
> > want that is appropriate but we do not have -- and also useful to see
> what
> > they look for that isn't appropriate for us. Within what's appropriate, I
> > see no reason why selection of topics should not be driven by reader
> > interests as much as by editor interests. Our purpose is not to practice
> > our writing skills for our own benefit.
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:58 PM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > The idea of a popularity-driven encyclopaedia scares 
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 10 mar 2019 alle ore 22:26 Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I have been thinking about it.. There is a place for research but
> > really
> > > > why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people
> are
> > > > actually looking for and do not find.. Why can we not promote what
> > proves
> > > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-marketing-approach-to-what-it-is-that.html
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 22:13, Leila Zia  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > As I mentioned in an earlier thread [1], we will be running reader
> > > > > surveys across a number of Wikipedia languages to learn about the
> > > > > reader needs and motivations in these languages as well as some of
> > > > > their demographic information (and perhaps the correlations between
> > > > > demographics and user motivations and characteristics).
> > > > >
> > > > > If your language community is interested to have statistics on the
> > > > > distribution of reader gender, age, education, native language, and
> > > > > geographic region (rural/urban) in your language (and depending on
> > how
> > > > > much data we collect in your language, perhaps more insights), this
> > is
> > > > > your chance to indicate interest at:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages
> > > > >
> > > > > I initially communicated 2019-02-15 as the deadline to sign up.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [wikicite-discuss] Leaving the Wikimedia Foundation, staying on the wikis

2019-02-13 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Dario, thanks for your effort. It was a pleasure working with you, and I am
also happy that you will stay around as a volunteer. My congratulations to
Leila. Whereas at this point I am rather skeptical and sometimes vocal
about WMF in general, I have a tremendous respect for both of you.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:05 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Dario -- what news!  And how close that seems to your recent pushing of us
> all.
> How lucky the projects have been to have you building a research
> constellation, for these many years.
>
> Leila, congrats + warm wishes in your new role.
>
> With wikilove and taxonometrics,
> SJ
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:56 PM Dario Taraborelli <
> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I've got some personal news to share.
> >
> > After 8 years with Wikimedia, I have decided to leave the Foundation to
> > take up a new role focused on open science. This has been a difficult
> > decision but an opportunity arose and I am excited to be moving on to an
> > area that’s been so close to my heart for years.
> >
> > Serving the movement as part of the Research team at WMF has been, and
> > will definitely be, the most important gig in my life. I leave a team of
> > ridiculously talented and fun people that I can’t possibly imagine not
> > spending all of my days with, as well many collaborators and friends in
> the
> > community who have I worked alongside. I am proud and thankful to have
> been
> > part of this journey with you all. With my departure, Leila Zia is taking
> > the lead of Research at WMF, and you all couldn't be in better hands.
> >
> > In March, I’ll be joining CZI Science—a philanthropy based in the Bay
> > Area—to help build their portfolio of open science programs and
> technology.
> > I'll continue to be an ally on the same fights in my new role.
> >
> > Other than that, I look forward to returning to full volunteer mode. I
> > started editing English Wikipedia in 2004, working on bloody chapters in
> > the history of London ;
> hypothetical
> > astronomy ; unsung heroes
> > among women in science ; and
> > of course natural
> > , technical
> >  and
> political
> > disasters
> > <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
> >.
> > I’ve also developed an embarrassing addiction to Wikidata, and you’ll
> > continue seeing me around hacking those instances of Q16521
> >  for a little while.
> >
> > I hope our paths cross once again in the future.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dario
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *Dario Taraborelli  *Director, Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
> > research.wikimedia.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
> > 
> >
> > --
> > Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite
> > Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite
> > ---
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "wikicite-discuss" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscr...@wikimedia.org.
> >
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> 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] Bounties…

2019-01-25 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Whatever the reasoning is, I think we should accept that at the moment paid
editing is universally regarded very negatively in virtually all projects.
Non-monetary prizes for competitions may or may not be ok, everything else
is most likely not considered to be ok even if does not explicitly
contradict to any policies.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 5:07 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> I was thinking about actually bounties, like in bug bounties from
> larger software vendors. We have some "bugs", like spellchecking,
> which is pretty easy to quantify, and that can be done as part of
> bounties with cash. Yes, the ugly word, paid editing! OMG!
>
> But quite frankly, why should we not? ¢1 per fixed single word typo
> that leads to one-less spelling error? Perhaps even $1 per
> spellchecked page? Delayed one week to see if anyone reverts the
> edits?
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 4:17 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>  wrote:
> >
> > In the Basque wikipedia we are doing monthly contests on different
> topics, and some of them are focused on quality (i.e. adding references and
> images). There are some prices every month, usually books or thing related
> to technology. And people usually like to participate for the fun, and for
> the prize.
> > 
> > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> of Benjamin Lees 
> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:14 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bounties…
> >
> > It's interesting that you chose spellchecking as your example.  On the
> > English Wikipedia, I tend to see that as an activity that some people
> > actually do find fun (or relaxing).  Plus, spelling errors (or perceived
> > spelling errors[1]) are something that unregistered users really like
> > fixing.  But maybe that varies significantly across language editions.
> >
> > In any event, spelling errors are probably the case where eventualism is
> > most appropriate.  It is rare that someone will be misinformed because of
> > spelling mistakes, and they serve a useful signaling function in making
> it
> > clear that a given piece of content has probably not undergone peer
> > review.  And rather than driving people away, they tend to draw them
> > in—Cunningham's law[2] never fails.
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGVAR
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:55 PM John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Both in Wikipedia and other parts of the Wikimedia-universe there are
> > > a lot of jobs that should be done, but are not so popular. Because
> > > they are not done, people get tired and backs away from whatever they
> > > are doing.
> > >
> > > I could give several examples, but lets say spellchecking. It is not
> > > fun doing spellchecking, even if you are spellchecking something
> > > written by a professor. Instead of doing spellchecking you do
> > > something else, like poking around in some code, or write about
> > > Pokemon. While you do so the professor gets a bit annoyed over the not
> > > so perfect article, and starts to wonder what happen to the crowd in
> > > crowdsourcing.
> > >
> > > Somewhere along the way the it became so bad to talk about anything
> > > except the pure wikipedian sitting on top of his pillar with a book
> > > and a computer, writing articles in solitude, that we completely
> > > missed the opportunities to get a much larger momentum.
> > >
> > > The Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia has over a half a million articles.
> > > About 10 % lack sources. Nearly all of them has spelling errors. It is
> > > nothing unusual about this.
> > >
> > > Could we use bounties to get some momentum?
> > >
> > > 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,
> 
> > ___
> > 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] blocking, unblocking, wikivoyage

2019-01-07 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
This person sent this mail today to multiple mailing lists, to some of them
twice.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:53 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>
> I do not see what community this is being
> controlled by;
>
> 1. there are no notice boards, or request for
> administrators, like they have in other wiki’s etc..
>
> 2. there is no
> arbitration committee, or problems resolution section to go to,
> etc..
>
> 3. there are no open rules on blocking.
>
> 4. there
> is no unblocking feature, and yet there is a review page.
> https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Category:Requests_for_unblock
>
> 5. there is nothing in place to review an
> administrators abuse of there blocking powers etc..
>
> 6. for
> newbies there is no active user talk page to request an unblock and if you
> try,
> to that gets blocked
> to.
>
> 7. there is no OTRS.
> ___
> 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] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

2019-01-07 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Well, in 2019 people should already have come to the notion that blocking
locally an acting steward is not really a good idea.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:21 AM Vi to  wrote:

> Because of a truly great idea
> <
> https://am.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E1%88%8D%E1%8B%A9:Log/block=%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D%3ATeles
> >
> the involved user's admin/bureaucrat access was revoked
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=rights==Codex+Sinaiticus%40amwiki===
> >
> by Marco Aurelio.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 7 gen 2019 alle ore 11:02 Amir Sarabadani <
> ladsgr...@gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
> > Given the response on the talk page [1] I think it's clear violation of
> > nondiscrimination policy [2]
> >
> > [1] "promotion of homosexuality will not be tolerated here nor will it be
> > forced down our throats to suit anyone's international political agenda
> if
> > you expect Ethiopians to take part."
> > [2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Nondiscrimination
> >
> > Best
> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 23:09 Risker  wrote:
> >
> > >  I note that we are talking about the block of one single user on one
> > > single project; this particular account has thousands of edits over
> > about a
> > > dozen projects, but is "attached" to hundreds of Wikimedia projects.
> The
> > > majority of these "attached" accounts are likely because the editor
> > > "visited" the various projects while logged in, activating the
> automatic
> > > account creation algorithm.  The account was created 8 years ago, and
> has
> > > actively edited a wide variety of  projects, including several
> > wikipedias,
> > > Commons, Wikidata, and Meta. While English Wikipedia is the account's
> > > "home" wiki, about 55% of the account's global edits have been made on
> > > Marathi Wikipedia. The Amharic Wikipedia account does not appear to
> have
> > > edited, which suggests that it was automatically created when the
> editor
> > > was "looking at" the project on 9  February 2018.  The block for
> account
> > > name was made on 22 October 2018.  I note that accounts were created on
> > > over a hundred projects over the course of a few days in February 2018.
> > >
> > > The point being raised in this thread is that it appears this editor
> was
> > > blocked on one of the 381 wikis on which they have an account,
> explicitly
> > > because of the perception that their username calls attention to the
> > sexual
> > > behaviour of the editor. What we do not know is (a) whether that is in
> > fact
> > > a legitimate username block reason on Amharic Wikipedia, or (b) if it
> is
> > a
> > > legitimate username block reason, *why* it would be a username block
> > > reason. We don't know why this block was applied so long after the
> > account
> > > was created. We don't know the username policy on Amharic Wikipedia,
> nor
> > do
> > > we know how it is applied; for example, we don't know if a username
> like
> > > "StraightGuy101" would be blocked.  We do know that there are only 4
> > > administrators on Amharic Wikipedia, and that there are fewer than 50
> > > active users working on the project, which may be part of the reason
> for
> > > the delay between automatic account creation and the account block.
> > >
> > > We also know that one of the challenges of single user login for all
> > > Wikimedia projects has highlighted the fact that certain usernames that
> > are
> > > acceptable on some projects are blocked on other projects; we've known
> > that
> > > for years. We know that each project establishes its own policies when
> it
> > > comes to usernames. There are legitimate reasons why a username that is
> > > acceptable in one language is not acceptable in another language, even
> in
> > > cases where the editor had no knowledge that the chosen username would
> > be a
> > > problem in another language. We do know that there have been lots of
> > cases
> > > where usernames have been blocked for "username policy violation" on
> all
> > > kinds of projects, despite the account operating productively on other
> > > projects.
> > >
> > > I also note that there is nothing in this thread that confirms the
> editor
> > > themself has raised any concerns about this block, and I am always wary
> > of
> > > turning an editor into a "martyr for a cause" without their direct
> > > agreement, as that can be as abusive as the original action. So the
> first
> > > step in this situation would be to confirm with the individual editor
> > > whether or not they want their "case" to be examined.
> > >
> > > Should the editor be agreeable, I suggest that the next step is for
> > someone
> > > who has the ability to converse in Amharic to contact the Amharic
> > Wikipedia
> > > and find out why the block has been issued, how it is consistent with
> the
> > > username policy on Amharic Wikipedia, whether that policy is driven in
> > part
> > > by external considerations (e.g., does the project risk heavy
> > governmental
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

2018-12-30 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Thanks for the reactions so far, they have been very useful. Let me answer
some of the points.

Re subject line: Obviously it is deliberately provocative to generate more
response and reach out to more people. Whereas what I write I do seriously,
if it stays a discussion of a dozen of people with the same views on the
subject it is probably useful.

Re milennials: this is clearly not a red herring. Just ask Facebook what
their demographics is and why the 18- generation is not using it.

Re introduction vs shorter articles:  I agree that a well-written
introduction is very important (though in practice it more often becomes a
battleground than not, and for most articles on my watchlist with non-zero
traffic it gets deteriorated with time, and it takes really a LOT of effort
of the community to maintain them). However, there are many other things in
the articles which are important as well, and I believe having
non-introductory pieces separately, written in a simple language, and
without excessive formatting is important. Currently, we can not
accommodate them within the articles - because there are too many details
to add, references, and formatting (the intro is an exception, it can
indeed be written simply without references).

Re fork: I actually do not believe in forking Wikipedia. One can fork
Wikipedia but so far all attempts to fork the community were unsuccessful,
and I do not think they will be successful in the future. I do not have a
problem with forking, I just believe it is not going to happen. What I
believe it will happen is a completely new platform suitable for new ways
of getting information. Just to give a perspective, imagine someone started
a project in the 1980s based on videotapes, and produced a lot of tapes. By
now they have either been copied to other media, or got completely
forgotten because nobody can play tapes anymore, at least unless one is a
very serious amateur or goes to a specialized library.

Re main point: People, let us be serious. We missed mobile editing (well,
at least this has been identified as a problem, and something is being done
about it). We missed voice interfaces. We are now missing neural networks.
We should have been discussing by now what neural networks are allowed to
do in the projects and what they are not allowed to do. And instead we are
discussing (and edit-warring) whether the Crimean bridge is the longest in
Europe or not because different sources place the border between Europe and
Asia differently, and, according to some sources, the bridge is not in
Europe. Why do you think that if we keep missing all technological
development relevant in the field we are still going to survive?

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 2:50 PM Zubin JAIN 
wrote:

> >That's exactly the point here! Maybe not everyone is like that, but
> the pattern is supported by studies. The question is: how do we
> support (or, how do we make Wikipedia relevant for) this category?
>
> But it's not supported by rigorous evidence, a few studies and a bunch of
> clickbait headlines hawking a decline narrative aren't things that should
> be used as a basis for deciding that the encylvopedia is out of date and
> Wikipedia should change itself to a primary video format
>
> >> The idea that Wikipedia needs to be dumbed down
> "Articles must be short and contain a lot of graphic information. May be
> they need to be videoclips. Short clips. Or, at lest, they must contain
> clips, with more voice and less letters." Dumbing down seems to be a fair
> summary of the proposal
>
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 20:51, Strainu  wrote:
>
> > În dum., 30 dec. 2018 la 12:40, Zubin JAIN
> >  a scris:
> > > These are gross generalizations
> >
> > That's exactly the point here! Maybe not everyone is like that, but
> > the pattern is supported by studies. The question is: how do we
> > support (or, how do we make Wikipedia relevant for) this category?
> >
> > > The idea that Wikipedia needs to be dumbed down
> > Nobody proposed that.
> >
> > > On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 17:21, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> > >
> > > > We need better upload interfaces for fixing spelling mistakes,
> > > > adding blue links, categories, media, and all other common tasks.
> >
> > I had a conversation with Dan Garry in Cape Town about why categories
> > and navboxes are not shown on mobile and it seems they are not a
> > "thing" anymore (aka not used by the readers, which prefer navigating
> > through inline links). For the rest, I agree. What do you think of the
> > CitationHunt tool? Would it help if integrated in the normal workflow?
> >
> > În dum., 30 dec. 2018 la 12:57, Anders Wennersten
> >  a scris:
> > >
> > > In my little duckpond (svwp) we have guidleines for the introduction
> > > part of the article.
> > >
> > > It should use (simple) language to enable 14-16 years old to understand
> > > it (while the rest can use more complicated vocabulary)
> >
> > How very interesting! I've always thought that Wikipedia should be
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

2018-12-29 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Frederick.

sure, I know. I am mostly writing about Russia, and I know there are a lot
of topics which are not covered. I am usually the first one who says that
there are many topics to even start an article on, and way more to improve.

But let us face it - if an English-speaking person looks for something in
the English Wikipedia they are most likely to find it. The articles I
create are definitely useful, but they get dozens of views per year.This is
one of the reason we lose editors.

But my point is that we are about to lose most of our editors - at least in
the first world countries which produce the most contribution in the
English Wikipedia, USA, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New
Zealand. I guess India is different, but the trend is global, I think it is
just a matter of time when it comes to that in India as well. And if
Wikipedia would die in these countries, it will die in India as well.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:14 PM Frederick Noronha <
fredericknoro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > However, as a general guideline, it is not so
> > much incorrect to state that all important things in Wikipedia have been
> > already written. Indeed, if someone looks for information in Wikipedia -
> > or, more precisely, uses search engines and gets Wikipedia as the first
> hit
> >  they are likely to find what they need with more than 99% chance.
>
> Yaroslav, Which world are you talking about? North America and Europe?
>
> When it comes to Asia (which I'm part of) and Africa, possibly Latin
> America too, we haven't even written down 1% of the diversity of these
> places. Leave aside getting it up onto the Wikipedia!
>
> Of course, I agree with the suggestion for new approaches (if I read you
> right). This is particularly true in a part of the world where much of the
> discussion is still in the oral domain, is often not in print; when it's in
> print, it is not digitised. Even when digitised, chances are that it's in a
> non-English language, which is very hard to find very search engines. (No
> wonder that some of the prominent people from our regions are continually
> getting dismissed as non-notable, which I see as another form of 'systemic
> bias').
>
> Give it a thought, please.
>
> Frederick Noronha
> Goa
>
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 03:05, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > I have written a long text today (posted in my FB) which the readers of
> > this mailing list might find interesting. I copy it below. I understand
> > that it is very easy to critisize me for side issues, but if you want to
> > comment/reply I would appreciate if you address the main issue. The
> target
> > audience I was thinking about was general (not necessarily
> > Wikimedia-oriented), and for the readers from this mailing list the first
> > several paragraphs can sound trivial (or even trivial and wrong). I
> > apologize in advance.
> >
>
> --
> FN* फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या * فريدريك نورونيا‎ +91-9822122436
> AUDIO: https://archive.org/details/@fredericknoronha
> TEXT: http://bit.ly/2SBx41G PIX: http://bit.ly/2Rs1xhl
> Can't get through on mobile? Please SMS/WhatsApp
> ___
> 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] Is the death of Wikipedia imminent?

2018-12-29 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
e
doing for 20 years will disappear. This is a usual development and happens
to almost every human activity. We know that only a few percents of pieces
of Ancient Greek and Roman literature survived until now.

Yaroslav Blanter, editor and administrator of the English Wikipedia, 125
000 edits.
___
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] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

2018-12-06 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Tomasz,

whereas you are right in theory, a practical application of this method
requires (i) availability and acceptance of all these sources in the
community (for example, if one side published in Croatian and another one
published in English, Croatian Wikipedia is likely to use only sources
produced by one side whereas the English Wikipedia is likely to use sources
produced by the other side); (ii) healthy community which is aware of the
notions of systemic bias, neutrality, and is willing to apply these notions
in their editing (for which it must be big and diverse enough so that all
notable topics get sufficiently represented). For the specific situation
with the Croatian Wikipedia, I highly doubt that we have (ii) and I am
pretty sure we do not have (i),

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:42 PM Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> Vast majority of sources in controversial topics are usually biased. There
> are topics where there is in fact no any non-biased sources. And - coming
> back to my previous example, having knowledge how automatic method o bias
> measurement works it is very easy to bully it:
>
> "According to unfaithful bastard X [source X1][source X2][source X3] the
> true is A. But, according to honorable and widely recognized expert Y
> [source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."
>
> This sentence is quite obviously biased towards B POV, but  automatic
> measurement of sources will tell you that there is bias towards A POV.  And
> this is very simple, primitive example of bias. People usually tend to do
> it in much more subtle way. Sometimes one short, completely unsourced
> sentence at the end of very long article with hundreds of citations can
> completely ruin NPOV...
>
> Or imagine that you write article about a bishop - quite naturally most
> sources will be religious POV - which does not necessarily mean that the
> article is biased as it might contain only basic facts of that person
> retrieved from official church sources. Then - following this example  - in
> Polish Wikipedia - we have probably articles about all living bishops from
> major christian denomination. But if you would want to "prove" that Polish
> Wikipedia has pro-roman-catholic POV you can easily show that we have 162
> articles about roman-catholic Polish bishops and only 12 about orthodox
> bishops. And the numbers of citations is more or less probably of the same
> proportion. Why? Simply because we have in Poland 162 catholic bishops and
> 12 orthodox. Wikipedia cannot change it obviously ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
> czw., 6 gru 2018 o 02:19 Dennis During  napisał(a):
>
> > Yes the method can miss bias. But if the references* used are* biased, it
> > would provide clear, objective (though not irrefutable) evidence of a
> > general bias.  The more factual the discussion, the more likely it will
> be
> > that any conclusions of the process will be accepted, if not by all at
> > Croatia WP, then perhaps by some there and by most other observers.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tomasz Ganicz 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to
> > measure
> > > NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow
> marking
> > > them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other
> > type
> > > of  POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited
> > than
> > > the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia
> > > project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the
> > > honesty and context of using sources.
> > >
> > > For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic
> using
> > > equal number of  sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can
> still
> > > be quite biased:
> > >
> > > "According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But,
> > according
> > > to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not
> true,
> > > but the true is B."
> > >
> > > I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV
> > is
> > > very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
> > >
> > >
> > > śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen 
> > > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database
> > with
> > > > the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
> > > include
> > > > the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
> > > When
> > > > they are a faith, they are our faith.
> > > >
> > > > My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that
> > will
> > > > bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
> > > favourite
> > > > project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
> > > undermines
> > > > Wikipedia as NPOV!
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >   GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why not test-run the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Odp: Re: Wikimedia Conference 2019: New name, new concept, eligbility criteria

2018-09-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Michal,

thank you for your reaction. No, I am personally not interested in
attending the Wikimedia conference or whatever name it has now. I am
unhappy with that, from my viewpoint, the opinions of what is called
unorganized volunteers is discarded.

- On stage 1, I participated in some discussions in the projects. I do not
see any traces of that discussion in the final document. On one occasion,
we were told that we are not discussing what we should be discussing.
However, we are writing the content - if we thing smth is important, and if
this smth is strategic, I expect the functionaries which are getting salary
from the funds raised because of our input, to at least take it seriously
and not dismiss it. I reported the case here, I got responses of the type
"this is not good", and nothing happened.

- When the was a call for strategy groups, I applied and was rejected.
Other people applied and were rejected. The report of the selection
committee essentially says that there were too many unorganized volunteers.
(To give a bit of a background, I speak five languages, lived in four
countries, and active in four Wikimedia projects, but I am not a member of
any affiliate). Fine. Nobody complains there are too many unorganized
volunteers to create content

- Now the strategy will be discussed at a conference, and it will be
discussed at local events. But I am not interested in going to these
events. I am a content creator, highly involved in the project governance
(I have administrator flag on four projects and a crat flag on one).It is
ok if the strategy is being discussed at the meetings where mostly
functionaries go, but it should be discussed at the projects - where
content is created - and not just in the form of the approval of a text
which has been drafted elsewhere and already approved by functionaries. As
it stands, it will be strategy for functionaries. Do not then expect
projects to follow smth they have not been asked to participate in creation
of.

I am not really happy to antagonize functionaries and content creators,
especially since I respect a few of functionaries for what they have done
and are still doing on the projects (and some of them are heavily working
on content), but we have come across too many things in the recent years
which suggest that the opinions of the projects are not properly respected,
and the strategy thing is just one of them.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 2:06 PM Michał Buczyński  wrote:

> Hi Yaroslav,   I find your concern important so let me attempt to refine
> it to discussion points or a call for action. :)   Firstly, I think it is
> unwise to assume what everyone is interested in. You dont
> know personally all the people in the Movement, e.g. me and my interests.
> If you meant some particular people or body, please voice it clearly and we
> can go from that point. Secondly, there were signs showing people
> interested in your input:1. while creating and filling a diversity
> matrix to check if we cover all the stakeholders, the
> non-representatives of affiliates, WMF or other bodies (FDC, sAPG, AffCom)
> this issue has been raised - certainly for the funds allocation group. I am
> not sure of the final outcome in terms of e.g. inclusion of particular
> names within the group (it is a pretty tricky to give some
> representativeness without overblowing the groups) but I am sure the
> strategy team has been working on this issue and can communicate something.
> :)  2. There are many ways to reaching out to the wider audiences:
> including surveys, online discussions, show and tell sessions (e.g. IIRC on
> Wikimania *all* strategic sessions, except the organizational/briefing for
> the groups, were fully open for all conference participants) and sessions
> dedicated to particular communities. E.g. in my home Poland there were
> strategy sessions for willing attendees of WMPL conferences, some languages
> also had dedicated online discussion venues, and everyone could contribute
> in English.   Thus, lets give the credit where it is due. I am not
> discussing here if this interest was sufficient. And I am pretty sure that
> if needed we can explore this direction further (e.g. put more resources to
> discuss the strategy in particular national/regional communities and send
> it upstream) and many people dont participate even though they have
> very meaningful things to say.  Perhaps what you wanted to write is e.g.
> Please provide X seats in the [ Group 4:  Additional participants –
> mostly members of the Movement Strategy working groups – invited to
> complement the conference program] for non-affiliated Wikimedians based on
> their editorship in Wikimedia projects and trust of their local
> communities. Did I understand you properly?Best Regards,   Michał
> Buczyński  Wikimedia Polska, FDC,   Resource Allocation Working 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2019: New name, new concept, eligbility criteria

2018-09-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
This is very remarkable that nobody is actually interested in input from
what the WMF functionaries now call "unorganized volunteers" - people who
actually work in the projects. We are just not in the picture. Good luck
with that. Do not be surprised to see a huge number of volunteers to oppose
the strategy document again, as it happened last year.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:54 PM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> I can comment on your question why we need another strategy conference: The
> Wikimedia 2030 process is ongoing, and is building – among many other
> inputs – upon the outcomes of the last two conferences. Organized groups
> are already working on the implementation of the Strategic Direction in
> their own strategic/annual planning and programmatic work, and Working
> Groups start developing recommendations for change on the structural level
> of the movement.
>
> In spring 2019, these groups will need feedback and input from the
> movement's organized groups and the Wikimedia Summit – alongside other
> opportunities for community consultations – will be build as a platform to
> synchronize the Working Groups' work and to gather and synthesize this
> input and agree upon next steps.
>
> I hope this helps to shed some light on the need for this event. Please let
> me know if you have further questions. We'll also be presenting the current
> state of the strategy process at today's activities meeting; if you're
> interested in tuning in:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings
>
> All the best
> Nicole
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 22:18, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > I have so many questions.
> >
> > Is anything concrete planned to replace the learning and
> capacity-building
> > work that used to happen at WMCON? (Or has the identification of capacity
> > building as a strategic priority just resulted in  the abandonment of
> > the main capacity building event?)
> >
> > And why after two "strategy focused" conferences, do we need another one?
> > What will it achieve except acres more flipchart? How many conferences do
> > we expect to need before the strategic direction starts to become a
> > reality?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018, 20:34 Cornelius Kibelka, <
> > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > As Nicole Ebber already wrote a couple of weeks ago, we would like to
> > give
> > > you some further information about the next Wikimedia Conference, that
> > will
> > > take place from March 29–31, 2019 in Berlin, Germany.
> > >
> > > The next conference will focus on the Movement Strategy process and
> > > movement governance for the organized part of the movement in general.
> > The
> > > program will be designed according to the status and needs of the
> ongoing
> > > Movement Strategy process and its working groups. We are hoping to see
> a
> > > diverse group of participants next year, and look forward to creating
> > three
> > > days of working, discussing, and thinking together. The event is made
> > > possible through the generous financial support of the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation.
> > >
> > > Thus, to make it clearer that learning and capacity-building will not
> be
> > > part of the program and cut laces to the previous conference, we will
> > > change the name to “Wikimedia Summit” (#wmsummit).
> > >
> > > The change of the purpose of the event is accompanied by a change in
> the
> > > composition of the audience. The event will be a more focused one, and
> > > therefore we aim to scale down the audience to around 200 participants.
> > As
> > > it is this still the Wikimedia affiliates conference, every _eligible_
> > > affiliate can send one (1) delegate. Furthermore, we will invite
> > > participants from the Wikimedia Affiliate EDs (~10), WMF Board of
> > Trustees
> > > (10), WMF staff (~10), the committees (~15 from FDC, AffCom and Simple
> > APG)
> > > and additional members of the Movement Strategy working groups, that do
> > not
> > > come in another role (~20). You can find more information regarding
> this
> > on
> > > Meta.[1]
> > >
> > > Registration for the Wikimedia Summit will open on November 2 and end
> on
> > > December 17, 2018. We urge participants that need a visa to register no
> > > later than November 19, so we can support them as best as possible to
> > get a
> > > visa for the event.
> > >
> > > We will keep you updated in the further weeks and months via the usual
> > > communication channels. If you have any questions, please do not
> hesitate
> > > to contact us, preferably via wmsum...@wikimedia.de.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Daniela Gentner & Cornelius Kibelka
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Eligibility_Criteria
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cornelius Kibelka
> > > Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
> > > for the Wikimedia Conference
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 

[Wikimedia-l] European Copyright Law

2018-09-12 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
If I understand correctly, the European parliament just approved the
copyright law essentially without changes, thus supporting the version we
protested against in May. What would be the consequences for us?

Cheers
Yaroslav
___
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] Sensory overloads

2018-08-15 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Thanks Romaine for sharing. As someone at the same side of the spectrum (I
get quickly tired in the places where a lot of people are gathering) I can
fully endorse this.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:42 PM Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> In our movement we have a lot of different people, including people with a
> different neurodiversity.
>
> Then it can happen that with events organised by the Wikimedia movement,
> there are people that get sensory overloads. it basically means that the
> input through the senses gets too much at some point. This can result in an
> emotional outburst, an instant heavy headache/migraine attack, or in my
> case I go (almost) completely blank.
>
> It is really hard to complain how it is like to people who have no
> experiences with it.
> I think however that we need as inclusive movement to be more aware of the
> huge amount of varieties of people and there needs. For that reason I like
> to share a thread on Twitter with you how a user I know well has
> experienced it herself.
>
> Read at: https://twitter.com/dodocurieux/status/1029743772584865792
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Romaine
> ___
> 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] [Wikimania-l] Celebrating Wikimania 2018 online

2018-07-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Paulo,

in the first instance, I am interested in improving articles on the
Mozambique districts on the English Wikipedia. I have already done that for
the southern half of the country (Buzi District which I references to is a
representative example of how I see these articles).

I was not planning to do anything specific about these districts on
Wikidata or elsewhere, but if you think it would be useful we can discuss
and do smth.

(I will be on holidays for two weeks starting tomorrow, my user name is
Ymblanter).

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:25 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> ​
> Yaroslav ,
>
> I'm working with Mozambique as well. I've been thinking about adding all
> those divisions to Wikidata, and then generating the Wikipédia articles
> from that info (not "live", though, just copying the information). I
> believe it would be much quicker, and would fill and correct Wikidata
> entries on the way.
>
> If you are interested in using something like that, please drop me a note.
>
> ​All the best,
>
> Paulo​
>
>
> 2018-07-26 17:25 GMT+01:00 Yaroslav Blanter :
>
> > Hi Gerard,
> >
> > when you come to Mozambique, pls let me know, there are reliable sources
> > down to the third level administrative divisions. For example, the two
> > sources present in
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzi_District
> >
> > are available for every district (though I so far only added about half
> of
> > them to the English Wikipedia articles).
> >
> > Cheers
> > ​​
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I do blog and tweet using #AfricaGap..  At this time I am adding
> > countries
> > > and their "administrative and territorial entities" in Wikidata. In
> many
> > a
> > > Wikipedia, they want to have "human settlements" linked to the lowest
> > level
> > > and these to every time a higher level.
> > >
> > > What I do is add more and more countries. The information is
> incomplete.
> > It
> > > takes a lot of people and a lot of time to get this done. To gain
> > > participation, I add Listeria list to a set of Wikipedias. I work on
> > > cleaning up the data but there is much to be done. One of the benefits
> of
> > > the Listeria lists for me is that I notice any and all activity. After
> > > Wikimania there was a spike, thanks to some bot work.
> > >
> > > What I have noticed is that information on Wikipedias did not keep up
> > with
> > > changes that rearanged these "territories". Consequently start and end
> > > dates are missing on many items. For me, the current situation is most
> > > relevant and historic "territories" are not really considered by me.
> > >
> > > You find what I am working on here [1]. You will find much of the same
> > data
> > > on several (African language) Wikipedias.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa#African_
> > > geographical_subdivisions
> > >
> > > On 26 July 2018 at 12:33, KuboF Hromoslav 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Great idea Romaine!
> > > >
> > > > I am now working on Esperanto Wikivoyage (in Incubator), mostly to
> make
> > > it
> > > > fully working. Now I am finishing Europe and immediately after that I
> > > will
> > > > focus on Africa (not only for the Africagap and to help our
> colleagues
> > > but
> > > > also to support tourism and facilitate meetings in Africa).
> > > >
> > > > See you online!
> > > > KuboF Hromoslav
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > po 23. 7. 2018 o 20:25 Romaine Wiki 
> > napísal(a):
> > > >
> > > > > The official part of Wikimania is over, this does not prevent
> > ourselves
> > > > > from celebrating Africa's first Wikimania online, in more
> particular:
> > > > > writing Wikipedia articles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Africa is under represented in Wikipedia, by writing about it we
> both
> > > > > celebrate our great conference as well as we work on solving the
> > > > Africagap
> > > > >
> > > > > With some Dutchies we started the idea of having a list of l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Celebrating Wikimania 2018 online

2018-07-26 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Gerard,

when you come to Mozambique, pls let me know, there are reliable sources
down to the third level administrative divisions. For example, the two
sources present in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzi_District

are available for every district (though I so far only added about half of
them to the English Wikipedia articles).

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I do blog and tweet using #AfricaGap..  At this time I am adding countries
> and their "administrative and territorial entities" in Wikidata. In many a
> Wikipedia, they want to have "human settlements" linked to the lowest level
> and these to every time a higher level.
>
> What I do is add more and more countries. The information is incomplete. It
> takes a lot of people and a lot of time to get this done. To gain
> participation, I add Listeria list to a set of Wikipedias. I work on
> cleaning up the data but there is much to be done. One of the benefits of
> the Listeria lists for me is that I notice any and all activity. After
> Wikimania there was a spike, thanks to some bot work.
>
> What I have noticed is that information on Wikipedias did not keep up with
> changes that rearanged these "territories". Consequently start and end
> dates are missing on many items. For me, the current situation is most
> relevant and historic "territories" are not really considered by me.
>
> You find what I am working on here [1]. You will find much of the same data
> on several (African language) Wikipedias.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa#African_
> geographical_subdivisions
>
> On 26 July 2018 at 12:33, KuboF Hromoslav 
> wrote:
>
> > Great idea Romaine!
> >
> > I am now working on Esperanto Wikivoyage (in Incubator), mostly to make
> it
> > fully working. Now I am finishing Europe and immediately after that I
> will
> > focus on Africa (not only for the Africagap and to help our colleagues
> but
> > also to support tourism and facilitate meetings in Africa).
> >
> > See you online!
> > KuboF Hromoslav
> >
> >
> > po 23. 7. 2018 o 20:25 Romaine Wiki  napísal(a):
> >
> > > The official part of Wikimania is over, this does not prevent ourselves
> > > from celebrating Africa's first Wikimania online, in more particular:
> > > writing Wikipedia articles.
> > >
> > > Africa is under represented in Wikipedia, by writing about it we both
> > > celebrate our great conference as well as we work on solving the
> > Africagap
> > >
> > > With some Dutchies we started the idea of having a list of like 10-20
> > > articles of subjects from Cape Town and surrounding area. For example:
> > >
> > >
> > > Well-known park in Cape Town:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company%27s_Garden
> > >
> > > The often referred to Dassie:
> > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q323847
> > >
> > > Input needed!
> > >
> > > Romaine
> > > ___
> > > Wikimania-l mailing list
> > > wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

2018-07-25 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Jane,

I think Andres is completely right of this description, that the whole
exercise was designed by functionaries for functionaries, and nobody ever
thought that volunteers working on the projects could be involved.

It is indeed right that many of those do not care about the strategy
discussions and just edit in their projects (though even say a Wikipedia
editor from time to time confronts the situation that Commons and Wikidata
exist but do not necessarily have the same policies as their project). But
many do care. In the 2010 strategy discussions, we had the volunteer
editors providing the input, and this is why this was a success.
Apparently, this time there were a large number of applications from the
volunteer editors who are not functionaries.

Now, you can say that functionaries and staffers are sometimes editors as
well. Indeed, some of them are and are well respected in the communities
(Maggie Dennis is a great example). Some edited the projects before but
since then have gone inactive and have no idea what is going on in the
communities. Some are openly fighting with the communities and have no or
very little respect there. Some never edited. Well, you can of course make
a selection and hope that these selected people understand everything about
the variety of our projects. May be. Or may be not. We had in the past very
bad decisions which WMF, with varying degree of success, tried to impose on
the projects. I often had an impression that people making these decisions
had no understanding of what is actually going on the projects, and do not
even know whom to ask.

Now the whole process only convinces me that this would repeat more and
more often. Especially since in the first round much of the project
feedback was ignored.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some interesting
> selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
> heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt whether
> the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think
> that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some
> languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on
> the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then
> there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks who
> work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic
> at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to any
> mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
> between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers
> tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library workers"
> tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully submit
> that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have
> enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong gets
> proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g. personally
> I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to seeing
> they are useful - even on Wikidata.
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
>
> > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
> are
> > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running
> > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard
> > core contributes.
> >
> > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully
> > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> weakness,
> > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being accepted.
> >
> > Facts
> >
> > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> >
> > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> >
> > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> (only)
> > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> candidates
> > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> > done transparent as is the cultur

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

2018-07-24 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

>
> I don't like to think in drastic terms like these because it fails to
> recognize the amount of good will that has been poured into the process and
> the selection of participants by the Strategy team. It is perhaps more
> interesting to think in terms of opportunities. The issues have been
> already pointed out, some possible solutions have been put forward, and
> perhaps there are even more options for participation that we are not aware
> of. I trust that the Strategy team will come up with ways to close the
> gaps, and the best we can do is offer our assistance to make things better.
> In the end this is a matter of work... work to have discussions, work to
> make them productive, work to find consensuses, work to make the
> consensuses legitimate, work to inform about it... so I see plenty of
> opportunities to give a hand anywhere and make life easier to those
> involved.
>
>
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said
here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are not
associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend
real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.

If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have net
see even an acknowledgement of its existence.

Cheers
Yaroslav
___
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: First round of Working Group members

2018-07-21 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Dear Kaarel,

with all respect, it would be great if you could name the issues first
before soliciting further feedback.

In my particular case, well, I have seen a message on this list which I
interpreted as a call for help. I have generally many things which interest
me, but I though that if WMF needs help, I could help, so I applied. I am a
volunteer.

Two days ago, I got a impersonalized mail saying that my application was
not accepted. Fine with me, I am sure there are people with tons of more
experience than me, and I have a lot of work on the projects. I was not
planning to react on this in any way.

But now you are saying you do not have enough volunteers and ask (us?
whom?) to encourage more people to apply?

So that they could get back impersonalized rejection messages?

I am not sure how specifically you want to solicit more applications but if
you want to get any help from the community you probably need to be very
specific on what exactly roles you need to ensure the diversity, and
specifically address people in these roles. Unless this has been done, I
will discourage everybody to apply.

Cheers
Yaroslav



On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Kaarel Vaidla 
wrote:

>  Dear Micru,
>
> Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of
> the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
> offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
> different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the
> current status of the process.
>
> >It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
> not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from
> our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...?
> It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to
> have members chosen by those communities.
> >I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do
> not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> discussions away from the volunteer community.
>
> The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
> was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
> Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would
> like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not
> interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I
> would be really interested in hearing them.
>
> The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of
> engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and
> collective process.
>
> >You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> know what the participants think of their assigned area?
>
> With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations
> are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in
> strategic discussions.
>
> We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
> communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps
> us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
>
> We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the
> Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling
> these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is
> also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
> thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your
> letter.
>
> >Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement
> a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> members?
>
> In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept
> further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we
> expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions
> will change
>
> Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a
> more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other
> interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to
> the diversity 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Status of Wikipedia Zero

2018-06-30 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Lucas,

this one is from February:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/02/16/partnerships-new-approach/

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Lucas Teles  wrote:

> Hello.
>
> On Portuguese Wikipedia Facebook page, I am receiving lots of messages
> asking if Wikipedia Zero is over. One of them stated that they were told by
> the internet service provider that WMF has cancelled the program.
>
> Do we have any official statement about it? I learnt that WZ would end this
> year, but I am looking for any accurate information in order to reply to
> the messages. Is it over for all the providers and countries? Is there
> something se should tell to the affected users?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Teles
> --
> Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and
> Wikimedia Commons.
> Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.
>
> +55 (71) 99707 6409
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

2018-06-11 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi David,

I just repeated the formulation of James's proposal (our messages crossed,
I did not react to your message).

Concerning your earlier question on whether "people getting money to learn
to listen" would work - well, it might. But than these people should be
clearly distinguished from the rest of the community and might not create
content, at least not with their special accounts. (I already explained why
I think paying people to create content is a bad idea, and why having
people in the community who are paid alongside with these who are doing the
same job and are not paid is a bad idea). This is, as far as I understand
it, the idea of the WMF community engagement team (in particular, community
health). However, whereas in principle it might work, I do not see how it
could be scaled up - you need people speaking several dozens of languages,
and who are professionally qualified. And I also agree that whereas there
are clearly things which are not healthy in the community, large-scale
psychoterapy is not what we should and can provide. If people are engaged
to the point that they get addicted and need some rehabilitation, they
should disengage (and possibly even forcibly be disengaged, as happened to
one recently globally banned user who meant well but was unable to stop)
and seek professional assistance outside Wikimedia movement. Wikimedia is
about creating free content and propagating free knowledge, it is not about
making friends, creating social networks, or getting the hobbies monetized.
(To be clear, I do not imply at all that you have these intentions or need
rehabilitation or smth, but the sentiment repeats much too often).

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:28 AM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Yaroslav,
> what do you mean by people working at the front? Do you mean that you would
> like some leadership in the movement?
> (understanding leadership as the capacity to listen to many voices, and
> challenge them)
>
> I never heard of any company where there are rotations of people who
> matter... in fact it is quite the opposite:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_retention
>
> Why do you feel that rotations are necessary? And wouldn't be the loss
> greater than the gain?
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:00 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Actually, concerning the group of people working "at the front" might
> work
> > (as soon as it is not just about the support of the English Wikipedia),
> and
> > I would not count sending them to Wikimania as a monetary reward -
> assuming
> > this group undergoes regular rotations, and people who stop working leave
> > the group.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > m...@anderswennersten.se
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > James, I think you yourself earlier today put forwards a possible first
> > > step in this direction.
> > >
> > > Support a group of people working "at the front" in neutralizing paid
> > > editing and other bad editing, by giving them possiblity to meet IRL,
> and
> > > why not at a session commited to this issue at WIkimania?
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Den 2018-06-10 kl. 20:09, skrev James Heilman:
> > >
> > >> There is a fair bit of literature on intrinsic versus extrinsic
> > >> motivation.
> > >> Wikipedia has been mostly built on the first. Introducing greater
> > >> extrinsic
> > >> motivation may decrease intrinsic motivation. Doing so should thus be
> > done
> > >> with great care, at a small scale that can be reversed, and be well
> > >> studied
> > >> to make sure the positive outweigh the negatives before being
> expanded.
> > >> Not
> > >> saying we should not look at this just that it may not result in the
> > >> benefits we hope far. With respect to burn out, emergency physicians
> are
> > >> generally paid well yet over half are experiencing burnout.
> > >> https://wire.ama-assn.org/life-career/report-reveals-severit
> > >> y-burnout-specialty
> > >>
> > >> James
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi David,
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having
> > long
> > >>> arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to
> > >>> agreement
> > >>> and is also very tiring. You gave 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

2018-06-10 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Actually, concerning the group of people working "at the front" might work
(as soon as it is not just about the support of the English Wikipedia), and
I would not count sending them to Wikimania as a monetary reward - assuming
this group undergoes regular rotations, and people who stop working leave
the group.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> James, I think you yourself earlier today put forwards a possible first
> step in this direction.
>
> Support a group of people working "at the front" in neutralizing paid
> editing and other bad editing, by giving them possiblity to meet IRL, and
> why not at a session commited to this issue at WIkimania?
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2018-06-10 kl. 20:09, skrev James Heilman:
>
>> There is a fair bit of literature on intrinsic versus extrinsic
>> motivation.
>> Wikipedia has been mostly built on the first. Introducing greater
>> extrinsic
>> motivation may decrease intrinsic motivation. Doing so should thus be done
>> with great care, at a small scale that can be reversed, and be well
>> studied
>> to make sure the positive outweigh the negatives before being expanded.
>> Not
>> saying we should not look at this just that it may not result in the
>> benefits we hope far. With respect to burn out, emergency physicians are
>> generally paid well yet over half are experiencing burnout.
>> https://wire.ama-assn.org/life-career/report-reveals-severit
>> y-burnout-specialty
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Yaroslav Blanter 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having long
>>> arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to
>>> agreement
>>> and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up to
>>> other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate this
>>> "last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument
>>> again,
>>> I would not even respond.
>>>
>>> Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I
>>> absolutely
>>> agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can come
>>> from
>>> both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the external
>>> parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary.
>>> There
>>> are many ways to reward people and at the same to avoid introducing
>>> additional factors which I believe are harmful for the community.
>>>
>>> Concerning the premise that the existed model does not work anymore - I
>>> just disagree with the premise. Indeed, we have for example burnout of
>>> volunteers - I myself resigned the admin tools in the English Wikipedia
>>> in
>>> January, and stopped editing for a month in February, after the community
>>> failed to do anything about long-term harassment of a certain user
>>> directed
>>> at me - but this unfortunately happened before and will happen later.
>>> Specifically concerning the administrator issue, in the English
>>> Wikipedia I
>>> would still like to see any evidence that there is work which requires an
>>> admin attention and does not get it. All backlogs I am aware of originate
>>> not because administrators are lazy or there are too few of them, but
>>> because things are being asked are not submitted to a right place - such
>>> as
>>> for example someone asking to resolve a long-standing content dispute
>>> claiming it is vandalism.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Yaroslav
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:21 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yaroslav,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you already made your point earlier, and I addressed it here [1]
>>>> and
>>>> also in the draft proposal to enable some volunteers to receive
>>>> donations
>>>> for their work [2]. The fact that you neither commented on my reply to
>>>>
>>> your
>>>
>>>> initial concern, nor on the proposal suggests me several possibilities.
>>>>
>>> The
>>>
>>>> first one is that you are not listening to me [3], because you are not
>>>> interacting with the proposals that could counter your fears, and you
>>>> are
>>>> not asking questions about them. The second one is that you don't trust
>>>> your o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

2018-06-10 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi David,

Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having long
arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to agreement
and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up to
other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really hate this
"last word" game. If Natacha did not raise exactly the same argument again,
I would not even respond.

Concerning people who do the job and do not feel appreciated - I absolutely
agree with you that they should be rewarded. The appreciation can come from
both the community and the WMF (and possibly sometimes from the external
parties). I just disagree that this appreciation should be monetary. There
are many ways to reward people and at the same to avoid introducing
additional factors which I believe are harmful for the community.

Concerning the premise that the existed model does not work anymore - I
just disagree with the premise. Indeed, we have for example burnout of
volunteers - I myself resigned the admin tools in the English Wikipedia in
January, and stopped editing for a month in February, after the community
failed to do anything about long-term harassment of a certain user directed
at me - but this unfortunately happened before and will happen later.
Specifically concerning the administrator issue, in the English Wikipedia I
would still like to see any evidence that there is work which requires an
admin attention and does not get it. All backlogs I am aware of originate
not because administrators are lazy or there are too few of them, but
because things are being asked are not submitted to a right place - such as
for example someone asking to resolve a long-standing content dispute
claiming it is vandalism.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:21 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Yaroslav,
>
> Yes, you already made your point earlier, and I addressed it here [1] and
> also in the draft proposal to enable some volunteers to receive donations
> for their work [2]. The fact that you neither commented on my reply to your
> initial concern, nor on the proposal suggests me several possibilities. The
> first one is that you are not listening to me [3], because you are not
> interacting with the proposals that could counter your fears, and you are
> not asking questions about them. The second one is that you don't trust
> your own capacity to listen to other people even when money is involved.
> That could also be, because people with the biggest fear that others do not
> listen to them are indeed not well equiped to listen to other people. And
> the third one could be that you are a victim of your own observations, you
> might be so used to see white swans (people being paid not listening) in
> your life that the mere idea that black swans (people being paid who
> listen) exist might seem inconceibable for you. It could also be that you
> find something wrong or that could be done better in my proposal or that
> you have a better one, but since you haven't voiced your opinion, I don't
> know what.
>
> Concerning time and motivation, I consider that the people who are
> contributing during their official working hours without explicit permision
> to do so are effectively STEALING resources from their employer. This is of
> course a partial view, because who owns actually the planetary resources?
> And who is there to say that it is not reasonable to invest some in
> Wikimedia projects? Although I understand and I feel empathy for the
> volunteers that Bodhisattwa mentions, I feel that what Aubrey said before
> holds true here: "You can't do good if there's no "you" in the first
> place". So if I ever meet people like that I will tell them: you are not
> doing any good here, because you are not putting yourself first.
>
> You say that "we indeed have a lot of people who shout loud, do very
> little, and get all kinds of credits for the work others have done". But we
> also have many people who speak quietly, do very much, and get no credit
> for what they are doing, and I do not see harm in recognizing their work
> with donations, specially if they commit to improve themselves and to
> listen. You don't explain why you don't like people who listen and who get
> donations. Tbh, I do not like to have slaves in our movement, and I think
> we should free them from this kind of ungrateful slavery that many seem to
> be very happy about. At least slaves got some food, and a place to sleep.
>
> And also listen to what Anders is saying, our model is not working any more
> (it was not sustainable to start with), we have reached the limit, and now
> it is time to reinvent ourselves. And as far as I know most of us here are
> "bottom", so we are building "bottom-up".
>
> @Aubrey: Thanks for your long answer :) I'll address it later on, to write
> this email took me at least 5h of coming to the keyboard and leaving to
> manage the stress. I hope a reply to your email takes me a bit less...
>
> Regards,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Appropriation of the Wikimedia Blog by the WMF

2018-06-10 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I made this point earlier this month, but let me make it again.

Money generated by volunteers should indeed go back to volunteers. It just
can not go back as a salary. If it goes back as a salary, you have people
working together, some of them being paid for the work, and some doing it
for free. If there is any conflict, "volunteers" getting salary will defend
their decision until they get blocked. We have seen this happening with
some of the WMF staffers who were not succeptible to any feedback of the
community. We have seen it with people who were not paid but who still got
some bonuses from WMF or the chapters. If a considerable amount of
volunteers get paid we are going to have it all over the place.

Concerning the motivation and the lack of time. Well, we all have real-time
obligations. I am a professor in a top research university. An hour of my
time costs, well, a lot. If I spent these three-four hours per day I am
currently spending for Wikimedia projects instead for my primary duties
(and our working time is essentially unlimited despite the 40 hr/week legal
restriction), I would probably produce much more results than I currently
do. And what I am doing on Wikipedia nobody else is doing. If I disappear,
the work just stays not done.  But this is our choice. If someone has no
time for editing Wikipedia - well, obviously, they have other priorities.
In this sense I fully symphatize with Bodhisattwa's example of a user
spending their last money to go to internet cafe to edit Wikipedia.
Wikimedia projects have grown as bottom-up institutions. All attempts to
rebuild them top-down failed miserably. We indeed have a lot of people who
shout loud, do very little, and get all kinds of credits for the work
others have done. But paying these other people if not the way to go.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Natacha Rault  wrote:

> Thanks for having this conversation.
> Having a balanced life is important, but why should the revenues generated
> by volunteer work not go back to volunteers also?
> In truth, wikimedia projects are addictive, time consuming, they generate
> passionate debates and I have seen many going down the black hole and
> finding it hard to manage “priorities”.
> This situation is detrimental to those who struggle most to survive.
> Should contributing  be the activity of only those rich people who can
> afford to be volunteers on their free time? I dont think so.
> Tackling with gendergap issues, I see many women not contributing because
> they say “it’s time consuming” and they cant afford it.
> I don’t know how to deal with these issues, but at the core of
> implementing “strategic orientations” which include diversity issues, well
> it is a must have conversation.
> As for the wikimedia blog I dont really have an idea on that: if the WMF
> does it, finances it, well ... At the same time it would need to remain
> under free licence so that we can use the stories in our projects, because
> the revenue paying it is generated from our volunteer work.
>
> Have a nice day, I have just bought myself a canoe kayak, which is the
> only way for me not to get entangled in contributing on a bright sunny day.
> I cant bring my computer on the river!
> I think we should finance “wikimedians go green off wiki for the week end
> projects”. Some days off the internet walking, swimming, having chats by a
> fire wood and just taking care of ourselves off wiki.
>
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> > Le 10 juin 2018 à 05:38, Bodhisattwa Mandal 
> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I hear you.
> >
> > I live in that part of the world where getting any job and earning money,
> > by any means possible, is the topmost priority of life, as unemployment
> and
> > corruption has become intimate part of most of the people. Involvement in
> > volunteer works with no personal or financial gain, is not appreciated at
> > all and sanity is frequently questioned even by family members and close
> > friends. The real life is far more harsh for us than the issues we face
> in
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > But, I have seen people, who have fought against all extreme odds to
> create
> > contents in Wikimedia. I met an Wikimedian, who would have no food or
> money
> > for the next day to survive, if he didn't go and look for some labour
> work
> > and earn some money for his family, yet learned advanced computer works
> > from scratch with the help of a Jurassic age broken laptop gifted by a
> > well-wisher and built the most impactful project in his language, believe
> > me, I have seen that laptop with my own eyes. I know someone, very close
> to
> > my heart, who once spent the small amount of money he had with him, to
> pay
> > the cyber cafe, he went almost everyday to edit Wikipedia, even if he
> knew,
> > that the money he was spending, was his last resort for that day. These
> > Wikimedians are no less than a legend to me and whenever I feel
> frustrated
> > and burnt out, I remember them. I am pretty sure, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Classification/Categorization games for Commons?

2018-06-06 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I think it is pretty similar to what we have built in Wikidata, Do
Structured Commons folks want to comment?

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Hi, folks.
>
> It occurs to me there are tens or hundreds of thousands of images donated
> en masse (GLAM etc.) that are only categorized as "image from X collection"
> or "Files donated by X", i.e. essentially uncategorized by content.
>
> This obviously greatly reduces the likelihood of discoverability and
> re-use.  But it's hard to find such files, and the massive categories
> (thousands of files, often) don't make organizing the work easy.
>
> I'm think of a gamified interface -- à la Wikidata Game -- that would let a
> volunteer (after OAuth identification) pick a category (from a pre-fed list
> of massive categories of donated files) and show one photo from the
> category that has only that category listed (i.e. has no categorization by
> content), and let the volunteer type (with auto-complete, like HotCat) some
> appropriate categories and hit Save, and the categories would be added, and
> the next file shown.
>
> (Optionally, a second layer of verification could be added, where
> volunteers would [also] be invited to vet or change previous volunteers'
> categorization, and actual change to categories on Commons would only take
> place after 2 (or N) users approved the categories.  I'm not at all sure
> this is needed, and I think we can start without it and see how it goes.)
>
> So, does something like this exist?  If not, who wants to build it? :)
>
>A.
> ___
> 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] Are we losing out against bad editing?

2018-05-28 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I am actually fully with Gnangarra here. I am also an unpaid volunteer who
invested a lot of hours of my free time into various Wikimedia projects
(and mostly getting a lot of shit in reward, but this is not the point
now). I did have an experience of disagreements with people who were either
paid chapter functionaries, or semi-paid  - meaning they would have
functionary friends and would be the first in line to get all kind of
subsidies such as for example Wikimania travel scholarships. My experience
is that I would always at some point back out. In the end of the day, I am
pretty much professionally successful, I do not need to prove anything to
myself or to anybody else, and at some point I would ask myself - whether
this is really the best way to spend my free time by quarreling with people
who clearly are not willing to listen to me. On the other hand, they were
paid, and they were defending their point of view until the end just
because of that. As soon as there are not many of them they can be ignored,
or, if they become too harmful, they can be dealt with by the community. If
we start getting a considerable share of paid contributors, who would be
defending their output just because they need it to report for their salary
- it will become impossible to work in Wikipedia for independent
contributors.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:48 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community
> and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless
> hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been
> and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as
> me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged.
> You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without
> support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources
> does not mean that other people might not need them.
>
> Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs
> are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own
> devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In
> that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of
> what is common practice now.
> In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community
> (more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also
> should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.
>
> When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid
> giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place
> to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at
> this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real
> estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have
> been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of
> community.
>
> I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think
> that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect
> of what they do"?
>
> Regards,
> Micru
> ___
> 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 Yaroslav Blanter
Hi David,

>It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>instance is cited to best BLP standards?

no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience,
categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
especially for categories, are often not defined. For example, if we are
talking about French jews - are we talking about observing religious jews,
or anybody of Jewish origin, including those who are not religious or
converted to other religions? The list is very clear that it is about the
origin, the category does not say anything.

Cheers
Yaroslav





On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally
> can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because
> we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving
> serious consideration.
>
> (As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's
> the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our
> ridiculously low DMCA rate.)
>
> It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
> instance is cited to best BLP standards?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > "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 

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

2018-05-25 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Whereas I absolutely agree with Todd, let me note that in the list many
entries are unsourced or poorly sourced and can not be there according to
the policies.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> 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,
> 
>
___
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] Fake news

2018-04-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
There are topics where generally there is a lot of POV pushing (not
necessarily fake news, just people adding unreferenced or poorly referenced
POV material), for example see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Crimea

which contains a lot of both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian pushing.
However, when it aggravates, it is easily stopped by applying a protection.
There are few administrators watching these topics (I used to be one of
them), but the protection requests rarely get rejected if the disruption is
ongoing.

An example of more difficult situation is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017

where two groups of editors, pro-independence and anti-independence, are
operating with two groups of sources (Catalan and Spanish central
government) which often contradict each other. Most of the editors seem to
be good-faith, but at the talk page they do not seem to be able to agree
with each other, and the article generally can not be trusted. I am afraid
the community does not have any capacity to go into details of the sources
and to mediate the conflict.

And articles like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe

can contain all kind of bullshit, nobody cares. I do  not think we
currently have enough bandwidth to clean all these articles up, and the POV
pushers know this.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Devouard (gmail) <fdevou...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for the first answers, both online and private.
> (the WikiData one is good and the List of Hoax should come handy.
> I also got an excellent suggestion with a recent research :
> http://wikiworkshop.org/2018/papers/wikiworkshop2018_paper_1.pdf)
>
> Let me be more specific... I am in particular interested in cases where it
> involves systematic actions involving automated systems or very large (and
> rich) networks against which the community would have difficulties to deal
> with.
>
> For example, the issue with BDB and binary options.
>
> Flo
>
>
> Le 27/04/2018 à 16:39, Yaroslav Blanter a écrit :
>
>> Hi Florence,
>>
>> this page might help:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia
>>
>> It is of course very different to create a complete hoax on Wikipedia on a
>> topic which is heavily watched. It is much easier to create a hoax on an
>> obscure subject very few people know about, then it has a chance to stay
>> undiscovered for a long time.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Devouard (gmail) <fdevou...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>>
>>> I have been proposed to give a conference about wikipedia and fake news
>>> and to focus on very specific examples rather than general concepts. I
>>> already have a few ideas but any pointers to particularly interesting
>>> cases
>>> or discussions will be welcome.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>> Florence
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> i/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/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/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/wik
> i/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] Fake news

2018-04-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Florence,

this page might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia

It is of course very different to create a complete hoax on Wikipedia on a
topic which is heavily watched. It is much easier to create a hoax on an
obscure subject very few people know about, then it has a chance to stay
undiscovered for a long time.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Devouard (gmail) 
wrote:

> Hi
>
> I have been proposed to give a conference about wikipedia and fake news
> and to focus on very specific examples rather than general concepts. I
> already have a few ideas but any pointers to particularly interesting cases
> or discussions will be welcome.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Florence
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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] How to recognise a Wikipedian

2018-04-23 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Well, if the person edits Wikipedia during the breakfast in the hotel,
should not we conclude with a high degree of certainty that the person is a
Wikimedian?

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Romaine Wiki 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> During the past Wikimedia Conference and the preceding days, a lot of
> Wikimedians came together and many of them did not know anyone and where
> wondering who in the hotel also is a Wikipedian/Wikimedian.
>
> To make it easier for users, a page has been published to help them:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_recognise_a_Wikipedian
>
> The page describes what you can look for with the subsequent levels for a
> higher level of recognisability.
>
> Hopefully this page makes it easier to recognise other people you share the
> same passion with.
>
> Thanks all for the conference, see you soon again!
>
> Romaine
> ___
> 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] Time to simplify the Bureaucracy ?

2018-03-06 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Zubin,

not that I know of.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Zubin JAIN 
wrote:

> Hello,
> As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some of
> the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the
> primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is
> organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition and
> the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily
> found and take a lot of digging to get out.
>
> A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often
> seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that it's
> unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project
> designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and
> automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective
> communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just to
> communicate.
>
> I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these
> problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I
> remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor from a
> few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on the
> future trajectory of the project?
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Zubin Jain
> ___
> 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

2018-03-01 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
One idea which was spelled out many times but never took off is that of a
Wiki-compendium. If we are talking about a language which is let us say not
endangered, has a reasonably large number of speakers but not millions, and
only has a limited number of sources published in this language - the
Wiki-community is typically not large, may be a dozen or a couple of dozens
speakers. Yakut  (Sakha) is a good example of such language, Tatar would be
another one. They do not have resources to support Wikipedia, Wikisource,
and possibly even Wikibooks and Wiktionary at the same time, and they have
to concentrate on Wikipedia as the largest project. The idea was that for
such languages the traditional division between sister projects is not
really useful, but one project, which would comprise Wikipedia, Wikisource,
and possibly others would be much better so that the editors would just be
in one central place, and every speaker of this language would know what
the place is. The idea is old, at least as old as LangCom, and the fact it
never took off probably means that it is somehow flawed - I just do not
know how.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> 2018-02-28 16:03 GMT+02:00 Jean-Philippe Béland :
> >
> > The Wikimedia movement is more than encyclopedias... We already have
> > Wikiversity for teaching, no? Are efforts to contribute to Wikiversity
> and
> > other sister projects making us lose focus? I'm not sure to understand
> what
> > you are saying.
>
> Paid translation of Wikipedia articles to underresourced languages is a
> project that I can easily imagine. What needs to be done is quite clear;
> the questions are how to get the resources for this, and how to make it not
> too biased for undesirable interests, neither Western nor local.
>
> Improving Wikiversity (or Wikibooks) is possibly a valid thing, but I just
> don't know how to do it. Of course, I'm not the only person in this
> movement; I'm just one of thousands of editors, and I also happen to be an
> analyst in the Foundation staff, and my decision-making capacities are
> very, very limited. If anybody has a *good* idea on how to improve them, it
> would be awesome.
>
> When I compare a project with a pretty easy-to-draft path, and an
> understandable goal (paid translation, growing a language's online
> presence), to a project the goal of which is finding ideas for how to
> improve Wikiversity, I'd bet my resources on paid translation (if it even
> was my decision to make). And I have to remind again, that I, in
> particular, am very biased about the topic of translation, so really, you
> don't have to agree with me ;)
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> ___
> 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] About Facebook Linked in some of Wikimedia projects

2018-02-28 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
At your service

https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniyetmə_(roman)

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:26 PM, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:

> Saluton,
>
> Can we actually have a link to a page with a concrete example so we can
> judge this factually?
>
> Vikiame
>
> Le 28/02/2018 à 20:43, Asaf Bartov a écrit :
>
>> Facebook is a de-facto major venue of communication for a great majority
>> of
>> Internet users.  Many communities, user groups, and chapters have some
>> kind
>> of formal presence on Facebook -- "groups" or "pages".  Directing visitors
>> to your wiki to *your own wiki's* presence on this other major platform,
>> i.e. a direct link to your group/page on Facebook, is absolutely fine.  It
>> is *quite* different from, say, just linking to www.facebook.com or
>> explicitly endorsing it as a platform ("Join Facebook! It's great!") in
>> general.
>>
>> As you note, a number of communities have done or are doing this.
>> Especially for smaller communities, the impact of such link placement can
>> be a significant driver of traffic (i.e. readers!) to your community
>> group/page on Facebook, which itself is important for outreach, awareness,
>> and volunteer recruitment, and therefore is mission-aligned.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Asaf
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:06 AM Jimmy Wales 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Speaking only for myself, not as a member of the board, I don't know of
>>> any legal or other reason why this should not be done.  I think we
>>> should be very careful about links or appearance of endorsement
>>> especially on article pages, but outreach to people in the world should
>>> take place wherever we find a willing and useful audience.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/18 6:29 AM, Minata Hatsune wrote:
>>>
 I know it based on local consensus, but what I mean here is: those
 consensus valid for WMF Term of Use and others policies or not? Because

>>> it
>>>
 same with Wikipedia have linked with 3rd party, which is a commerical
 website.

 Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy
 Vietnamese Wikimedian

 2018-02-28 18:52 GMT+09:00 James Heilman :

 IMO this is based on local community consensus. It is not a global
>
 policy.
>>>
 James
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Minata Hatsune <
>
 minatahats...@gmail.com>
>>>
 wrote:
>
> Hello, I have a question: is it legal and valid for Wikipedia
>>
> communities
>>>
 put promotion links to their Facebook pages on public space as Main
>>
> Page
>>>
 or
>
>> Sitenotice?
>>
>> I see many of Wikimedia projects doing this, as Indonesia Wikipedia,
>>
> Arabic
>
>> Wikipedia, etc... Their Facebooks page also have blue checkmark of
>>
> Facebook
>
>> as verified.
>>
>> All what I concern is: Facebook is a commerical website, we put a link
>>
> as
>>>
 "official" to them, will it same with Wikipedia biased for Facebook and
>> violated the NPOV policy? And in finally: is it OK if other projects
>>
> can
>>>
 do
>
>> that? Vietnamese Wikipedia also have a discussion about sitenotice
>> promotion to Facebook at <
>> https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Th%E1%BA%A3o_lu%E1%
>> BA%ADn/Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_b%C3%A1_trang_Facebook_%22Wikipedia_
>> ti%E1%BA%BFng_Vi%E1%BB%87t%22
>>
>>> . If this is OK, I think we have no reason to reject it.
>>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy
>> Vietnamese Wikimedian
>> ___
>> 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
> ___
> 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 Yaroslav Blanter
I actually agree with Todd, and I though this is actually a reason why WMF
staff may not edit articles (at least not from WMF accounts). I am afraid
disadvantages due to the broken symmetry will be bigger than advantages due
to actual content translated.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 9:40 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimedia vs. NSA

2018-02-07 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I though the United Stated, being the most democratic country of the world,
does not recognize decisions of international courts (and, specifically, it
withdrew from the International Court of Justice after a decision was taken
it did not like, and it never ratified the convention about the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights).

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:34 PM, mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:

> Thank you Katherine for the update.
>
> For Greg, I would like to know if there are some international courts in
> which this could also lead to a lawsuit. I'm thinking to the International
> Court of Justice, or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as I guess
> something like European Court of Human Rights would be out of scope,
> although the global spying practice might suggest otherwise.
>
> If any lawsuit is possible in an international court, had this been
> attempted by anyone, or had this been avoided for some specific reasons?
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Le 30/01/2018 à 01:14, Katherine Maher a écrit :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the U.S.
>> National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As you’ll
>> recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
>> plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court
>> against
>> the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
>> represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5]
>> and
>> the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
>> firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
>> Foundation.
>>
>> Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
>> reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the
>> foundational
>> values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access to
>> information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly in
>> the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around the
>> world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
>> other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat of
>> reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon
>> which
>> our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we joined
>> a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the
>> integrity
>> of intellectual inquiry.
>>
>> Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically the
>> large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
>> referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is tapping
>> directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
>> cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
>> communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based internet
>> communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
>> backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
>> These communications are being seized and searched without any requirement
>> that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
>> connection to terrorism or national security threats.
>>
>> Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of
>> Appeals[10]
>> in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
>> alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
>> surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of Wikimedia
>> users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
>> Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we
>> are
>> the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs. There
>> is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this case
>> one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
>> particular NSA surveillance practice.
>>
>> As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to
>> the
>> next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system, parties
>> use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other questions
>> about their claims. We have requested information and documents from the
>> government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire phase,
>> which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected to
>> last the next few months.
>>
>> As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what this
>> stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
>> bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case, like
>> other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally required
>> to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in our
>> data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 4 February 2018)

2018-02-04 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I think it is good to let them going for the time being.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 4 February 2018 at 06:13, Pine W  wrote:
> > P.S. Do people like these "What's making you happy this week" emails? Few
> > people respond to them, so I don't know whether people like them, feel
> that
> > they are a nuisance, or are indifferent. If you would like to share
> > feedback, you can email me off-list or leave a message on my Meta talk
> page
> > . If you like these
> threads
> > then you are welcome to contribute your own Wikimedia-related good news
> to
> > them, which I would be glad to read.
>
> I like them and on the whole are informative.  It makes a
> change to read positive messages which have content, as most other
> positive messages tend to be pile on congratulations-spam, which can
> be pretty irritating if they make your email ping ten times in the
> same day. 
>
> What's making me happy this week is finding my upload project stopped
> by getting IP blocked by the Library of Congress, but then discovering
> their rather good improvements to making all records publicly
> available in JSON format, in turn making the upload project give
> better results on Commons.[1]
>
> Links
> 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/LOC
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Publicpolicy] Update on FISA 702 reauthorization

2018-01-21 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
What about moving to another country? Still not an option?

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> 1) still don't see the relevance. If better technology is needed, it's
> needed - that should be independent of any lobbying preferences. It looks
> like you're just pushing tangents again.
>
> 2) You do realize that the FTC and the FEC are very different
> organizations? But again, it seems you just used this statement as an
> opportunity to push a tangent.
>
> Please don't do that.
>
> Thanks,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
> > > 1) I don't quite see how your question about servers and switches
> relates
> > > to Stephen's statement. Could you explain for us mere mortals how you
> > link
> > > the two?
> >
> > The NSA surveillance which was reauthorized by Congress can not depend
> > on eavesdropping alone with new HTTPS cyphers. It needs compromised
> > hardware to work, such as has been included in Dell servers since the
> > Foundation started purchasing them, and the design of which was
> > overseen by the Foundation's CTO, who worked then at Intel. This
> > provides us with the know-how, a teachable moment, and an excellent
> > opportunity to specify and acquire replacement open source hardware
> > which doesn't have the DIETYBOUNCE / System Management Mode OOB / iAMT
> > and related backdoors.
> >
> > https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/nsa_exploit_of.html
> >
> > > 2) I somehow missed the commitment by the WMF to research "FEC
> > requirements
> > > of organized advocates for US political candidates' or anything that
> > > suggests that the WMF may advocate for specific political candidates
> > (which
> > > seems a change of course that would be hard to sweep under the rug).
> > Could
> > > you quote?
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_
> > talk:Conflict_of_interest=prev=815460492#
> > Note_from_Wikimedia_Legal
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slaporte_(WMF)#
> > Research_topic_request
> >
> > ___
> > 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 Announcements] Movement Strategy: Endorse the strategic direction today! #wikimedia2030

2017-10-27 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I think the situation is pretty clear, and we have already many statements
exactly about this point. The dissenters are being, and will continue being
simply ignored.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Sorry Nicole, what you have written is ambiguous. Will all affiliates and
> individual volunteers be able to be full participants in later discussion
> on the strategy, to exactly the same level as those that endorsed phase
> one?
>
> Saying that nobody gets "banned" does not ensure an open process. I.e. that
> those not in the "club" will have the same access privileges or will not be
> simply ignored as "non-U".
>
> Thanks
> Fae
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
> http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
>
> On 27 Oct 2017 09:50, "Nicole Ebber"  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> By endorsing, people and organizations state that they agree that the
> direction is the right way for us as a movement to move forward, and
> that they commit to participate in phase 2 conversations in good
> faith. And in phase 2, we will discuss how to fill this direction with
> life. The next steps will will be designed as an inclusive process,
> but we won't "oblige" anyone to contribute to phase 2, nor will we
> "ban" people from it. A look into our FAQ can further clarify:
>
> "How you use the outcomes of this discussion is up to you. Some
> individuals or organizations may use it to inform programmatic or
> organizational strategy. Others may see it as a way to connect with
> the broader movement and invite others to contribute to Wikimedia.
> Some may not use it at all – and that’s okay!
>
> Practically, this does not mean that volunteers will be more
> restricted in what activities they develop or engage in. Volunteers
> will remain free to engage in activities that interest them and they
> believe will most benefit Wikimedia and the world."
> (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Frequently_asked_questions#How_will_this_
> impact_me_or_my_organization.3F)
>
> Hope that helps,
> Nicole
>
> On 27 October 2017 at 10:21, Lodewijk  wrote:
> > I'm not sure how I missed that strongarm-statement ("the endorsement is
> > also a necessary step in order to participate in phase 2 discussions").
> I'm
> > confident that this is a typo of a kind. It does not match with how I
> know
> > the people in charge of this process.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> On 26 Oct 2017 09:00, "Nicole Ebber"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Wikimedians,
> >>
> >> Today marks the final milestone of phase 1 of our movement strategy
> >> process. Over the past eight months, many of you, of your peers,
> >> colleagues, partners and friends have contributed to an endeavor that
> >> resulted in the new Strategic Direction of the Wikimedia movement.
> >>
> >> This direction provides us with an answer to the question: What do we
> >> want to build and achieve as a movement over the next 10–15 years: By
> >> 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
> >> ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be
> >> able to join us.[1]
> >>
> >> On behalf of the strategy team, it’s with great pleasure that I invite
> >> you today to declare your intent to work together towards this future.
> >> Organized groups as well as individual contributors of our movement
> >> are invited to endorse the Strategic Direction by adding their
> >> signature to the endorsement page on Meta-Wiki. You will find all
> >> necessary instructions there.[2]
> >>
> >> By endorsing the Strategic Direction, you are not necessarily agreeing
> >> with every single outcome of the first phase. Endorsing means that you
> >> commit to participating in the next phase of this discussion in good
> >> faith and to help define, by Wikimania 2018, how to come to an
> >> agreement on roles, responsibilities, and organizational strategies
> >> that enable us to implement that future.
> >>
> >> In addition to signing the meta page, you are all welcome to use the
> >> #wikimedia2030 hashtag on social media to celebrate and share your
> >> excitement with the world and encourage other Wikimedians to show
> >> their support, too.
> >>
> >> Ideally, please leave questions or remarks on the talk page, to make
> >> it easier to follow-up in a structured way.
> >>
> >> Thank you!
> >> Nicole
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> >> movement/2017/Direction#Our_strategic_direction:_Service_and_Equity
> >> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> >> movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nicole Ebber
> >> Adviser International Relations
> >> Movement Strategy Track Lead: Organized Groups
> >>
> >> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> >> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Movement Strategy: Endorse the strategic direction today! #wikimedia2030

2017-10-26 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
For the record, at the talk page of the endorsement page,

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement

we have a small number of contributors, including myself, who explain why
they refuse to endorse the document. I do not expect us to be heard though.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Kaarel Vaidla 
wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians,
>
> As a volunteer member of some of the support groups for phase 1 of movement
> strategy process [1], I am excited about the Endorsement Day and am one of
> the people who has *individually endorsed
>  movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Individual_contributors>*
> strategic
> direction
>  movement/2017/Direction>
> .
> With my letter to Wikimedia-l I would like to remind everyone that there is
> this possibilty of individual endorsement that may not have really been
> highlighted. So, if you personally feel like endorsing the direction, you
> are more than welcome to do that!
> I am happy to see already quite many endorsements on respective meta page.
> I am also happy that there are people presenting their discord with
> strategic direction in a constructive way on the endorsement discussion
> page
>  movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement>.
> I think that it is important not only to endorse or not endorse the
> document, but also to give rationale why it is done. I believe that this
> will help us in moving forward together with Phase 2 and learn as we go.
> As a result I have written a small essay in my user namespace
>  Endorsement_of_Wikimedia2030>
> presenting some of the reasons why I am happy with what we have achieved in
> phase 1 and with having a strategic direction for our movement. You may
> agree or disagree, but I feel it is important to express one's opinion.
> Also I encourage everyone else to share their reasons for liking or
> disliking the direction with wider Wikimedia public, so we can learn more
> and have even more meaningful phase 2.
> I thank you for your time and kind attention!
>
> Best regards,
> Kaarel Vaidla
>
> [1] Namely, Community Process Steering Committee
>  Steering_Committee>,
> Track A Advisory Group
>  Advisory_Group>
> and Drafting Group
>  movement/2017/People/Drafting_Group>
> ___
> 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 Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

2017-10-23 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
We absolutely do not want language communities to be under the control of
local chapters or user groups, for a multitude of reasons, one of the many
being that the chapters are organized by country (or even by territory)
whereas language communities are organized differently.

I think the idea that the language communities must be represented at a
Wikimedia conference is just wrong. The absolute majority of the
contributors to the Wikimedia projects just do not care (or do not know,
for that matter) about local chapters and affiliates, and they will be very
much surprised to learn that they are represented by anybody at a
conference which started as a conference of affiliates.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local chapters
> have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> language communities to be under the control of local chapters or user
> groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> representatives if they must be represented.
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac.
>
> On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
>
> That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as always :)
>
> As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and organized
> groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole movement. In
> 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the same
> location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was quite a
> unique situation because of the strategic process.
>
> The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a goal. If
> being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the structure
> probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation for
> all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
>
> On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would be to
> fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This could be
> input from certain language communities, or from certain cultures where we
> even lack readership. This would make more sense to me - as it would not
> imply a representation as much. In part it would lead to a similar
> consideration and outcome, but it would force you to also consider other
> areas where input is lacking from. For example, allied movements or project
> communities beyond Wikipedia (for example, the collective of developing
> language communities in Africa or communities that are government-blocked -
> of which I'm uncertain if they are covered by affiliates). This would also
> send the message to the communities you ask to send a representative what
> you expect of such participant (if that would indeed be your goal).
>
> There could be many other goals of course, that you (plural) could have in
> mind. I'm not sure which applies best. I would suggest not to deviate from
> the official line that chapters don't represent language communities,
> though. That is, unless this official line has changed.
>
> Warmly,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Cornelius Kibelka <
> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lodewijk, hi JP,
> >
> > Over the last years, we received the feedback that the Wikimedia
> Conference
> > would not be as (globally) representative as it could or should be. For
> the
> > Wikimedia Conference 2017, several “Community Leaders” were invited to
> the
> > conference to be heard for the Movement Strategy process, but the
> > selection/invitation process was not as clear as it could have been.
> >
> > To be more representative on a global scale and to have more different
> > people from different regions present at the conference, we needed clear,
> > transparent and non arbitrary criteria. However, there is no solution
> that
> > covers every possible challenge. Therefore, we chose to give this
> approach
> > – with clear criteria – at least a try for the Wikimedia Conference 2018.
> > Also, as we expect more changes in the Movement in the upcoming year,
> this
> > approach is a try for 2018 only, as an overhaul of the whole concept of
> the
> > Wikimedia Conference will be needed anyway.
> >
> > Additionally, I want to highlight this, because this was criticized in
> the
> > past as well, all regularly eligible affiliates may send at least two
> > representatives.
> >
> > I’m aware that this approach implies challenges, though. I’m happy to
> > receive suggestions on how to come up with equally clear and transparent
> > criteria.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Cornelius
> >
> >
> > On 23 October 2017 at 19:37, Jean-Philippe Béland  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I share the questions of Lodewijk
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 19:22 Cornelius Kibelka, <
> > > cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-20 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Hello Lodewijk,

no, you are certainly not alone in your concerns. It looks like at this
stage there is little we can do, and the only option left is to not endorse
the document.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Thanks for the response, Katherine. I'm a little concerned that we can have
> such "vastly different" interpretations of the same text. I tried to get
> some Wikimedians to give me their take-away, and have not gotten a
> consistent direction from those.
>
> What I mostly remember after reading your response is that Wikimedia would
> be doing more of the same, and more.
>
> This is a two-folded concern for me. On one hand, it feels like the
> direction is too multi-interpretable. While vagueness and leaving specifics
> open is only natural, I do believe that a clear direction is essential to
> take the next steps.
>
> Second, after reading your response I'm left with the feeling that we don't
> really take a direction. Choosing a direction is also determining what not
> to do. This was also a main criticism of the earlier version presented at
> Wikimania. Directions are painful, because we're not satisfying everyone.
>
> Currently, the WMF is asking people and affiliates to 'endorse' this text.
> It has a high textual quality and says a number of things that resonate
> with my ideals and those that I know to be Wikimedia's ideals. However, I
> don't feel it provides the direction we need yet. I'm not keen on endorsing
> a direction, which may then be interpreted in a vastly different way.
>
> I should also note: I have little hope of changing the process. And it may
> very well be that I'm alone in this concern. But I would suggest that you
> (plural) select 25 (or more) random Wikimedians that were not intimately
> involved with the strategic process, let them read the direction, and let
> them summarize their take-aways. (that is working from the assumption you
> have not done so already) If their variance is too large, that may be an
> indicator that unfortunately another cycle of labor may be needed before we
> can enter the next round. Given all effort and resources that have been
> invested in this process, such sanity check may be worth while.
>
> Warmly,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> ps: just to state the obvious: I'm highly appreciative of all the work that
> went into this. It could have turned out worse in many many ways, and I
> appreciate all the efforts that went into involving the community. I'm
> always feeling guilty about not having been able to spend way more time on
> the strategic process than I did in all the various steps of the process -
> such rebut would be totally fair :).
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay in chiming in. It's been a busy few weeks, and while
> I
> > haven't made a public update about strategy in a while, work has been
> > continuing! We've now closed Phase 1, and we're heading into Phase 2, in
> > which our objective is to start thinking about how we make the strategic
> > direction into a plan of action and implementation. It's an opportunity
> to
> > create greater clarity about how we each understand the direction, how we
> > might set goals against it, what we may need to change to achieve these
> > goals, and how we can contribute -- as projects, communities, and
> > individuals. I’ll be sending my next weekly update shortly but I wanted
> to
> > acknowledge the contributions in this thread first.
> >
> > I've read through this entire thread, and I've agreed, disagreed, agreed
> > again, and started emails only to see new ones come in and have to scrap
> my
> > drafts. While I found myself often agreeing with Erik, I dig the
> challenges
> > you all have put forward and appreciate the diversity of opinions. Some
> of
> > our differences stem from the unique contexts of the groups and
> individuals
> > responding and will result in differences in implementation in each
> > community. Other differences, such as questioning the very concept of
> > source credibility, will certainly require additional discussion. But
> > regardless of where we end up, it has been a delight to follow such a
> rich,
> > substantive conversation. This has been one of the best, and
> > most thought-provoking, Wikimedia-l threads I've read in some time, and I
> > hope that it is the first of many as we go into Phase 2 of the movement
> > strategy process.
> >
> > A few more responses inline:
> >
> > 2017-10-04 11:19 GMT-07:00 Lodewijk :
> > >
> > > I don't understand what exactly that direction is headed towards, there
> > is
> > > too much space for a variety of interpretation. The one thing that I
> take
> > > away though, is that we won't place ourselves at the center of the free
> > > knowledge universe (as a brand), but want to become a service. We don't
> > > expect people to know about 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-16 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
My understanding is they target 10K articles, not 100K.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:30 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Gnangarra
>
> I've heard bad things about the articles for creation process, but a
> minimum of either 1.5 kb  or 2,000 bytes of prose is a new one on me. Can
> you link to that part of the AFC rules? I have reread things such as
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/
> Reviewing_instructions and found one perfectly sensible comment about
> deleting single sentence "articles". But 1,000 bytes would be a jolly long
> sentence. AFC has its flaws, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but is
> it really as flawed as you assert?
>
> As for the women in red contest, you might want to read the rules, and if
> you have concerns there is a currently redlinked talkpage.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_
> talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_Contest/Rules&
> action=edit=1
>
> I've made a couple of bold tweaks to the competition rules myself, but they
> did already cover notability and of course copyvio. Though a contest aimed
> at existing editors is less likely to hit problems in those areas as an
> outreach editathon targeted at new editors - there we do need to explain
> our notability rules and sadly often teach people about copyright and
> plagiarism.
>
> As for criticising a project for aiming for 100,000 articles when they only
> have 4 judges and 108 participants, it is two weeks until it starts and
> they have a watchlist notice up to recruit more people either as
> participants or judges note
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_
> in_Red/The_World_Contest/Rules
> -* "If you want to help judge the contest or help out with running it
> please ensure that you add your name in the judges section on the main
> page"* I could understand at the end of a project having that sort of
> criticism if they had got ambitious but not tried to recruit enough
> participants. However at this stage such criticism is premature and
> probably misdirected. A more nuanced view would be to look at the end and
> check whether they succeeded in their objective and whether they achieved
> sufficient participation both of editors and judges. Criticising a project
> that doesn't start for another two weeks for having insufficient judges and
> participants when it currently in a major site wide recruitment drive for
> judges and participants seems premature to me.
>
> Alternatively one could look at the objective and ask whether creating
> 100,000 articles on women was sufficient, insufficient or excessive to deal
> with the known gender gap in our coverage. The 100,000 target looks about
> right to me and it will be interesting to see how much progress people can
> make on it in a one month contest, but if someone is uncomfortable about it
> it would be sensible to go through the figures and check if that is an
> appropriate target for the problem. Treating such an ambitious target as a
> problem without acknowledging that Wikipedia has coverage gaps on that
> scale comes across almost as denial of the problem.
>
>
>
> --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:02:50 +0800
> > From: Gnangarra 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red
> > Message-ID:
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-16 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
My (rejected) message below anyway.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why is my message to this thread getting rejected? It says "Message
> rejected by filter rule match"?
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I guess we are discussing this contest:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in
>> _Red/The_World_Contest
>>
>> because this is the one which starts in two weeks.
>>
>> For the full disclosure, I have absolutely no relation to the contest and
>> will likely not participate.
>>
>> First, this is an internal affair of the English Wikipedia. I am not sure
>> why it should be discussed on wikimedia-l.
>>
>> Second, we have seen many writing contests and drives and personal
>> initiatives on Wikipedia. Some were successful, some were complete
>> disaster. Whether the contest/drive is successful depends on the
>> organizers, and, in particular, on whether the goals are set properly.
>>
>> This one aims at 10K (not 100K) new articles in two months. This is
>> realistic and, even if some articles are substandard, will not disturb the
>> flow of Wikipedia. I recognize a lot of people who signed up as established
>> editors who certainly know how to source articles. The rules of the contest
>> establish 1K of pure prose (it indeed stated in one place 0.75K, which I
>> changed to align with what is written in the  rules of the contest.) They
>> also specify that the articles must be properly sourced. A fully sourced 1K
>> prose is a solid stub, and I do not see how it could harm Wikipedia. The
>> organizer is Dr. Blofeld, who previously organized events of similar scope
>> which were successful. (I for example participated in the Arfica destubaton
>> last year and won a prize; I closely monitored the quality and I saw how
>> Dr. Blofeld handled the quality control, I have no issues with that).
>>
>> To summarize, at this point I do not see any reasons for alarm.
>>
>> I would like, however, to address two more points which were raised in
>> this topic. First, the monetary prizes. I personally oppose giving monetary
>> prizes for writing Wikipedia articles. When I participated in the Africa
>> destubaton I mentioned above, I made it very clear that I am not going to
>> accept a monetary prize. After I won the contest in the nomination of the
>> articles on Mozambique, I had an Amazon voucher sent to me, which I spent
>> to buy an article on the history of Mozambique. So I am definitely not a
>> fan of monetary prizes, on the other hand, this is not the first contest
>> which offers monetary prizes, the prizes are of a scope comparable to what
>> what offered at similar contests previously, and if the issue has to be
>> discussed, it has to be discussed in a broader scope, not in relation to
>> this particular contest.
>>
>> Second, I am not sure how I should interpret the opinions that the
>> articles about women should be sourced worse than the articles about men,
>> but currently there is consensus on the English Wikipedia on how the
>> notability and verifiability policies should be implemented (I guess this
>> could be different in other projects). The community is currently not
>> accepting unsourced and poorly sourced articles, we have the trial running
>> for autoconfirmed article creation, and the queue of new page patrol, which
>> is now 13K articles, slowly goes down. (We actually struggled a lot to get
>> it going down, for several years). Any unsourced article about living
>> people gets PRODded within hours. No action which would attempt to revert
>> this trend is going to be accepted. It is not about woman vs man or Africa
>> vs Europe, it is about verifiability.
>>
>> Having said this, if there is a competition suddenly up in the air, aimed
>> at 100K articles, poorly organized and with unrealistically weak
>> requirements, I would definitely call it a road to disaster. It is just
>> what I referenced is not this.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This has nothing to do with Gender,
>>>
>>> The issue is the standards required and the aim of the event not the
>>> subjects of the content
>>>
>>> The event set a minimum standard at 0.75k per article created, new
>>> editors
>>> going through 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

2017-10-16 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Why is my message to this thread getting rejected? It says "Message
rejected by filter rule match"?

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I guess we are discussing this contest:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_
> in_Red/The_World_Contest
>
> because this is the one which starts in two weeks.
>
> For the full disclosure, I have absolutely no relation to the contest and
> will likely not participate.
>
> First, this is an internal affair of the English Wikipedia. I am not sure
> why it should be discussed on wikimedia-l.
>
> Second, we have seen many writing contests and drives and personal
> initiatives on Wikipedia. Some were successful, some were complete
> disaster. Whether the contest/drive is successful depends on the
> organizers, and, in particular, on whether the goals are set properly.
>
> This one aims at 10K (not 100K) new articles in two months. This is
> realistic and, even if some articles are substandard, will not disturb the
> flow of Wikipedia. I recognize a lot of people who signed up as established
> editors who certainly know how to source articles. The rules of the contest
> establish 1K of pure prose (it indeed stated in one place 0.75K, which I
> changed to align with what is written in the  rules of the contest.) They
> also specify that the articles must be properly sourced. A fully sourced 1K
> prose is a solid stub, and I do not see how it could harm Wikipedia. The
> organizer is Dr. Blofeld, who previously organized events of similar scope
> which were successful. (I for example participated in the Arfica destubaton
> last year and won a prize; I closely monitored the quality and I saw how
> Dr. Blofeld handled the quality control, I have no issues with that).
>
> To summarize, at this point I do not see any reasons for alarm.
>
> I would like, however, to address two more points which were raised in
> this topic. First, the monetary prizes. I personally oppose giving monetary
> prizes for writing Wikipedia articles. When I participated in the Africa
> destubaton I mentioned above, I made it very clear that I am not going to
> accept a monetary prize. After I won the contest in the nomination of the
> articles on Mozambique, I had an Amazon voucher sent to me, which I spent
> to buy an article on the history of Mozambique. So I am definitely not a
> fan of monetary prizes, on the other hand, this is not the first contest
> which offers monetary prizes, the prizes are of a scope comparable to what
> what offered at similar contests previously, and if the issue has to be
> discussed, it has to be discussed in a broader scope, not in relation to
> this particular contest.
>
> Second, I am not sure how I should interpret the opinions that the
> articles about women should be sourced worse than the articles about men,
> but currently there is consensus on the English Wikipedia on how the
> notability and verifiability policies should be implemented (I guess this
> could be different in other projects). The community is currently not
> accepting unsourced and poorly sourced articles, we have the trial running
> for autoconfirmed article creation, and the queue of new page patrol, which
> is now 13K articles, slowly goes down. (We actually struggled a lot to get
> it going down, for several years). Any unsourced article about living
> people gets PRODded within hours. No action which would attempt to revert
> this trend is going to be accepted. It is not about woman vs man or Africa
> vs Europe, it is about verifiability.
>
> Having said this, if there is a competition suddenly up in the air, aimed
> at 100K articles, poorly organized and with unrealistically weak
> requirements, I would definitely call it a road to disaster. It is just
> what I referenced is not this.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This has nothing to do with Gender,
>>
>> The issue is the standards required and the aim of the event not the
>> subjects of the content
>>
>> The event set a minimum standard at 0.75k per article created, new editors
>> going through articles for creation are required to have 1.5k of prose
>> which is twice the requirement  for this competition.
>>
>> I'll repeat we should not expect more from new editors than we do from
>> existing editors, regardless of the subject.  With any competition we
>> should be expecting a higher amount than the minimum from existing
>> community members, mass creation of stubs is not the best way to address
>> to
>> encourage those editors to take an inter

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-05 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I guess for the same reason we never managed to run a successful journal,
despite talking about this for about ten years. This project would need to
have infrastructure comparable with the infrastructure needed to run an
academic publishing house - editors, referees etc, which at this point
looks insurmountable. And it will not be a project anyone can edit, which
is a new entity in a Wikimedia universe.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> I agree that is the current situation, but why should we not have such a
> project (in theory - in practice I could list several obstacles, possibly
> surmountable)
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:54 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
>
> Yes, but if oral tradition is recorded at the academic standard, why
> should we be the first publication venue? Usually these people just publish
> books in academic publishing houses.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the
> > purpose, but that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any
> > project that allows anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral
> > tradition would at least have to be sourced to the teller, and would
> > have to be recorded by a reliable and identified recorder, who can be
> > held responsible for their due diligence. This would not be an easy
> > thing for a crowdsourced project, but anything less would be like a
> magnet for everything we don't want.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Chandres Wikipedia
> > Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> > Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
> >
> > I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in
> > Wikipedia today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.
> >
> > Just to give you an illustration:
> >
> > Today ,a significative amount of African topics in the Wikipedia in
> > French rely only on the work of only few French historian. Without
> > saying they are not honest, I find difficult to consider that there
> > words have really so more value than the words of the Ancient of the
> African tribes.
> >
> > We know for sure than oral tradition will include bias, but do not
> > forget that the «  traditional western historian work » are not exempt
> of bias too.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > PS: IMHO, I find offensive the way you define oral traditions, but it
> > may be caused by a misconception from my part.
> >
> > These are the definition I use for urban legend and oral tradition,
> > very different each other I think.
> > urban <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban#English> legend <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legend#English> (plural urban legends <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban_legends#English>)
> > A widely circulated story <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/story> that
> > is untrue <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/untrue> or apocryphal <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apocryphal>, often having elements of
> > humour <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humour> or horror <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horror>.
> > oral <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oral#English> tradition <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tradition#English> (countable <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable> and
> > uncountable
> > <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable>,
> > plural oral traditions <https://en.wiktionary.org/
> > wiki/oral_traditions#English>)
> > Cultural <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture> material transmitted
> > < https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transmit> orally from one generation
> > < https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/generation> to another.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Le 4 oct. 2017 à 21:11, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Yes, but if oral tradition is recorded at the academic standard, why should
we be the first publication venue? Usually these people just publish books
in academic publishing houses.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the purpose,
> but that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any project that
> allows anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral tradition would at
> least have to be sourced to the teller, and would have to be recorded by a
> reliable and identified recorder, who can be held responsible for their due
> diligence. This would not be an easy thing for a crowdsourced project, but
> anything less would be like a magnet for everything we don't want.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Chandres Wikipedia
> Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
>
> I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in Wikipedia
> today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.
>
> Just to give you an illustration:
>
> Today ,a significative amount of African topics in the Wikipedia in French
> rely only on the work of only few French historian. Without saying they are
> not honest, I find difficult to consider that there words have really so
> more value than the words of the Ancient of the African tribes.
>
> We know for sure than oral tradition will include bias, but do not forget
> that the «  traditional western historian work » are not exempt of bias too.
>
> Charles
>
> PS: IMHO, I find offensive the way you define oral traditions, but it may
> be caused by a misconception from my part.
>
> These are the definition I use for urban legend and oral tradition, very
> different each other I think.
> urban <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban#English> legend <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legend#English> (plural urban legends <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban_legends#English>)
> A widely circulated story <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/story> that is
> untrue <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/untrue> or apocryphal <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apocryphal>, often having elements of
> humour <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humour> or horror <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horror>.
> oral <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oral#English> tradition <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tradition#English> (countable <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable> and
> uncountable <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable>,
> plural oral traditions <https://en.wiktionary.org/
> wiki/oral_traditions#English>)
> Cultural <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture> material transmitted <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transmit> orally from one generation <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/generation> to another.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le 4 oct. 2017 à 21:11, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > You might be right, and the goal is indeed to differentiate between
> > them. I just do not see how it could be implemented in practice. A
> > legend is a legend, be it urban or not.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Chandres Wikipedia
> > <chandres...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is
> >>> likely to be problematic (since it is really difficult to
> >>> differentiate between say folk tales and the oral traditions which
> >>> state that Earth is flat and that all US presidents report to the
> >>> Zionist Occupational Government),
> >> but
> >>>
> >>
> >> For me, your definition of oral tradition is the one of « urban legend
> ».
> >> TO my understanding, oral tradition refer to culture where the
> >> History of the tribes/nation/people is transmit only by a spoken way
> >> and never put on paper.  Am I wrong?
> >>
> >> charles
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and ht

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
You might be right, and the goal is indeed to differentiate between them. I
just do not see how it could be implemented in practice. A legend is a
legend, be it urban or not.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Chandres Wikipedia 
wrote:

>
> > to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is likely
> > to be problematic (since it is really difficult to differentiate between
> > say folk tales and the oral traditions which state that Earth is flat and
> > that all US presidents report to the Zionist Occupational Government),
> but
> >
>
> For me, your definition of oral tradition is the one of « urban legend ».
> TO my understanding, oral tradition refer to culture where the History of
> the tribes/nation/people is transmit only by a spoken way and never put on
> paper.  Am I wrong?
>
> charles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Thanks Lodewijk.

I do not know about Ziko, but my personal position which I also expressed
during the strategy consultations is that oral traditions can not be taken
to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is likely
to be problematic (since it is really difficult to differentiate between
say folk tales and the oral traditions which state that Earth is flat and
that all US presidents report to the Zionist Occupational Government), but
at least I see how it can exist. We certainly do have WMF projects which
allow original research.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
wrote:

> (first I'll respond to Ziko/Yaroslav, and then I'll ponder a bit about the
> direction in a more general sense)
>
> Just to check, Ziko and Yaroslav: are you talking about Wikipedia, or the
> sum of all human knowledge? Are you arguing that Wikipedia should only make
> use of secondary sources, or are you arguing that the whole Wikimedia
> movement should limit itself to that?
>
> I can see pathways (although they won't be easy) of how oral knowledge can
> be collected, described, analyzed, compared and turned into a secondary
> source in Wikimedia projects. Maybe Wikipedia is not the most suitable
> project for that - this is something we could discuss. This is a typical
> topic that is super important to a part of our community.
>
> This is probably true for many things: what doesn't work for Wikipedia
> (right now), may well work within other projects. Not each component of the
> strategy is equally applicable to every single person and every single
> situation.
>
> But in general, there are two ways that the strategic direction can be
> improved - and they are in direct contradiction. The first is to make
> everything more acceptable to everyone. That is basically what you're
> arguing here. The second is what was a resonating feedback I heard at
> Wikimania: to make clearer choices. Actually setting a direction.
>
> We are an incredibly diverse community (even if we are underrepresented in
> many groups), and people will want to go in different directions. After
> reading the current direction, I'm acknowledging there's more 'direction',
> but still feel left hanging.
>
> I don't understand what exactly that direction is headed towards, there is
> too much space for a variety of interpretation. The one thing that I take
> away though, is that we won't place ourselves at the center of the free
> knowledge universe (as a brand), but want to become a service. We don't
> expect people to know about 'Wikipedia' in 10 years, but we do want that
> our work is being put to good use. Is this a correct (simplified)
> interpretation?
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I fully support Ziko on this point. Making oral tradidions welcome, in
> > particular, making them welcome at Wikipedia, will open the door to all
> > king of fringe POV theories. We were able to distinguish ourselves
> exactly
> > because these fringe theories had no place on Wikipedia. Allowing them
> > meaning shoot our own feet.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Guillaume,
> > >
> > > Thank you for making your point of view clear, I appreciate that.
> Please
> > > allow me to make two points clear myself.
> > >
> > > (A) It is not my opinion that only active Wikipedians are „community“.
> > > There are other Wikimedia wikis, and also activities, that have a
> > community
> > > character. I do reject the idea to open the term community to literally
> > > everybody/anybody „and beyond“. It would be necessary that the draft
> > paper,
> > > instead, explains what should be understood by „movement“ or
> „community“
> > in
> > > order to avoid certain ambiguities.
> > >
> > > (B) I also do not deny that there is an overweight of content that is
> > > related to Western countries and culture. On (English) Wikipedia, the
> > > average Dutch village is certainly much better described than a larger
> > city
> > > in, for example, Ethiopia or Guatemala. I am always supportive of
> > > initiatives that want to do something about this lack of balance. (And
> I
> > > suppose that most people on the Berlin conference meant that, too).
> > >
> > > But the wording in the further strategy process was much different. The
> > > concept of „reliable sources“ was called a Western bias, while „oral
> > > traditions“ should b

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
I fully support Ziko on this point. Making oral tradidions welcome, in
particular, making them welcome at Wikipedia, will open the door to all
king of fringe POV theories. We were able to distinguish ourselves exactly
because these fringe theories had no place on Wikipedia. Allowing them
meaning shoot our own feet.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Dear Guillaume,
>
> Thank you for making your point of view clear, I appreciate that. Please
> allow me to make two points clear myself.
>
> (A) It is not my opinion that only active Wikipedians are „community“.
> There are other Wikimedia wikis, and also activities, that have a community
> character. I do reject the idea to open the term community to literally
> everybody/anybody „and beyond“. It would be necessary that the draft paper,
> instead, explains what should be understood by „movement“ or „community“ in
> order to avoid certain ambiguities.
>
> (B) I also do not deny that there is an overweight of content that is
> related to Western countries and culture. On (English) Wikipedia, the
> average Dutch village is certainly much better described than a larger city
> in, for example, Ethiopia or Guatemala. I am always supportive of
> initiatives that want to do something about this lack of balance. (And I
> suppose that most people on the Berlin conference meant that, too).
>
> But the wording in the further strategy process was much different. The
> concept of „reliable sources“ was called a Western bias, while „oral
> traditions“ should be considered to be reliable as well.
>
> I know that writing the history of many countries is difficult because of
> the lack of written material. That makes it also difficult to write a more
> complete history of, for example, Celtic and Germanic tribes in ancient
> times.
>
> But „oral traditions“ are just not reliable in the way scholarly literature
> is. Historians provide us with numerous examples how people fail in
> remembering what they heard a long time ago, or even recently. The human
> brain is simply not made by nature to be a historian or a data storage;
> human memory is fragile and changes. Also, additionally some people have a
> malicious intent when giving their testimony to a historian or a well
> meaning platform for „oral history“. A historian‘s work is to collect
> several testimonies, compare them to each other (= the transcripts of their
> interviews) and corroborate them with other material - and finally write
> their own account of their research.
>
> Imagine, I would claim that I am a descendant of Charlemagne (source: my
> father and grandfather told me so). Or that national socialism had a
> positive impact on Germany and many other lucky countries in Europe
> (source: what someone told me at family meetings). - Wikipedia works
> because we use „secondary sources“, scholarly literature. That is where
> (some major aspects of) the quality comes from. That is why people like
> Wikipedia and donate for it.
>
> It would be necessary to make Wikipedia the great (even greater)
> encyclopedia it could be. With an integration of Wikidata and Commons, and
> good interfaces. With the focus on readability, with a well thought through
> concept of providing content for the general public, for special groups and
> for scholars. With an understanding of what we do and what we explicitly
> don’t do, with whom we can partner up (and where are the limits). This more
> cautious vision makes me not very enthusiast, to say the least, about
> widening the scope to a degree that we loose recognizability.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
> o
>
>
>
>
> Guillaume Paumier  schrieb am Mi. 4. Okt. 2017 um
> 04:37:
>
> > Dear Ziko,
> >
> > For context, I want to preface this by saying that I am speaking as a
> > former member of the strategy team, not as a Foundation employee. My
> > perspective was always that the team leading the movement strategy
> process
> > was working in service of the movement, not of the Foundation.
> >
> > I hear that you are unsatisfied with some of the content of the
> document. I
> > hear that you disagree with particular elements like advocacy or new
> forms
> > of knowledge. I hear that you question the broad definition of
> "community",
> > which in your opinion should only include active Wikipedians.
> >
> > I don't agree with all your points, but I understand them and I relate to
> > some.
> >
> > I appreciate that you hold very strong opinions on some of those topics.
> I
> > would like you to see that other people in the movement can hold
> > dramatically different opinions that are just as valid.
> >
> > Many people (in and outside the movement) pushed for Wikimedia
> > organizations to become much more active politically. Others expressed
> > concerns about becoming too political. In the end, the document gave a
> nod
> > to political advocacy but didn't make it the number-one priority of the
> > 

  1   2   >