Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Summit 2021 in Berlin cancelled

2020-09-24 Thread effe iets anders
Oh, I totally didn't notice that this was about 2021! Thanks for pointing
that out. This was not obvious to me either. Please disregard my previous
email.

I share your disappointment.

Lodewijk

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 10:29 AM Risker  wrote:

> I'm not entirely certain that people outside of Europe necessarily were
> aware that the in-person meeting was going to be cancelled, or at least
> that a decision/announcement to cancel it would be made this far in
> advance. I agree that cancellation, even seven  months before the scheduled
> meeting, is an appropriate decision.
>
> I too am a bit disappointed that there doesn't appear to be any planning
> for some sort of virtual meeting, though. It will definitely affect
> strategy implementation.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 12:59, effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I think the point of this message is to
> say
> > that nothing virtual will be organized either (we already knew no
> physical
> > meeting was going to happen). Which brings lots of questions as to how
> that
> > affects the strategy implementation.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:19 AM Rajeeb  wrote:
> >
> > > Very sad to hear that, hopefully a virtual one will make us happy.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Rajeeb.
> > > (U:Marajozkee).
> > >
> > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 12:31, Abraham Taherivand <
> > > abraham.taheriv...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > It’s with regret that we have to inform you that due to the continued
> > > > global health situation (COVID-19), the meeting of the Wikimedia
> Summit
> > > > 2021
> > > > and related side events in Berlin have been cancelled.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We optimistically look forward to safely reconvening in Berlin in
> 2022.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Abraham Taherivand, Executive Director Wikimedia Deutschland
> > > >
> > > > Katherine Maher, Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Geschäftsführender Vorstand / Executive Director
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > > > http://wikimedia.de
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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] Wikimedia Summit 2021 in Berlin cancelled

2020-09-24 Thread effe iets anders
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I think the point of this message is to say
that nothing virtual will be organized either (we already knew no physical
meeting was going to happen). Which brings lots of questions as to how that
affects the strategy implementation.

Lodewijk

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:19 AM Rajeeb  wrote:

> Very sad to hear that, hopefully a virtual one will make us happy.
>
> Regards,
> Rajeeb.
> (U:Marajozkee).
>
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 12:31, Abraham Taherivand <
> abraham.taheriv...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > It’s with regret that we have to inform you that due to the continued
> > global health situation (COVID-19), the meeting of the Wikimedia Summit
> > 2021
> > and related side events in Berlin have been cancelled.
> >
> >
> >
> > We optimistically look forward to safely reconvening in Berlin in 2022.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Abraham Taherivand, Executive Director Wikimedia Deutschland
> >
> > Katherine Maher, Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > --
> >
> > Geschäftsführender Vorstand / Executive Director
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > http://wikimedia.de
> > ___
> > 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] Moderation notice

2020-09-10 Thread effe iets anders
Hi Lukas,

I appreciate you opening up on this. I have a hard time following the line
of argument. I can appreciate that it can be stressful to see someone
generalize opposition to this extent, and I dont think it is helpful to the
conversation, because it basically rejects all solutions out of hand. I
would have contributed that myself, if others didn't beat me to the punch.
However, that is more due to the content of the opinion, than to how it's
being phrased. I don't see how a different phrasing would have reduced that
stress significantly, other than by packaging it with various phrases that
express appreciation that was not meant.

I would love us to be more gentle, but at the same time it is also
important to recognize diversity in character, expression and opinion. If
we want to take a universal code of conduct seriously, we also need to take
responsibility in restraining ourselves in 'calling the cops' each time
someone tiptoes across the line. I would encourage you to apply the
approach expressed in various ancient texts: if someone crosses the line,
first approach them privately to correct them. If that does not work,
include someone else in this conversation, and if all else fails, bring it
up publicly (or in this case: bring it to the admins). The fact that it is
possible to place someone on moderation, does not mean it is the most
appropriate solution.

But that's just my thoughts.

Lodewijk

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:30 AM Lukas Mezger 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As one of the list subscribers who contacted the list moderators about the
> messages in question, please let me second the sentiment that this list
> should welcome discourse that is honest and frank while remaining
> constructive and civil. Being subscribed to this list can be stressful for
> some of us at times, so please keep that in mind when contributing.
> Thank you, and kind regards,
>
> Lukas
>
>
> --
>
> Dr. Lukas Mezger
> Vorsitzender des Präsidiums / chair of the Supervisory Board
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 260 – (0151) 268 63 931
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Bleiben Sie auf dem neuesten Stand! Aktuelle Nachrichten und spannende
> Geschichten rund um Wikimedia, Wikipedia und Freies Wissen im Newsletter:
> Zur
> Anmeldung .
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://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
>
> Am Do., 10. Sept. 2020 um 18:19 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
>
> > Is the objection to the words he used or to the way he used them?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Asaf Bartov
> > Sent: 09 September 2020 21:57
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice
> >
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > List subscriber Dan Szymborski has been placed under moderation, due to
> > posts with unacceptable language.
> >
> > I remind everyone that criticism is appropriate and welcome on this list,
> > so long as it remains civil and respectful of the people involved.
> >
> >Asaf (volunteer capacity)
> >on behalf of Wikimedia-l list moderators
> > --
> > Asaf Bartov 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > --
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] [Covid-19] An update on in-person gatherings

2020-09-08 Thread effe iets anders
Hi Lydia,

thanks for that update. Just to give a little more context for my message:
- In Katherine's email, there was no timeline, but it was the last
substantive email. While your response did have some helpful process
information, it did not respond to any of the substantive points. That is
no accusation, but I just haven't seen any actual action in the past month,
in the public space. Maybe I missed it (I didn't see the engagement of Chen
that you referred to - so that is very well possible. If anyone is looking
for it: it's this edit I presume
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:Conference=revision=20412418=20404630=source>
?).
- As I mentioned before, there is usually a big spike of activities in
September, and it's especially demotivating to see that no policy will be
available
- I had hoped (honestly: expected) that the release "end of August" was
referring to when the policy/tool/etc would start, not when the
consultation of what such guidance could look like, would start.
- I find it hard to keep a constant eye on meta each day, waiting for that
feedback page that was promised a month ago to come live.

Maybe these are naive or unrealistic expectations. I really appreciate the
good intentions, but I guess what I was hoping for mostly, was more of an
ongoing engaging conversation, to arrive at a policy that is not only
sensible from a safety perspective, but also practical.

Lodewijk

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 7:13 AM Lydia Hamilton 
wrote:

> Hi Lodewijk,
>
> As shared previously, an update is forthcoming during the month of
> September. I struggle a bit with the statement "the last month of silence,"
> when Katherine, Chen, and myself have been in active communication with
> the community on this topic via either wiki-l or the Conference and Events
> Grant Meta page [1], all within the last 30 days.
>
> Nonetheless, as I believe you're specifically seeing a deadline, the
> guidance will be sent by the end of this week.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Lydia
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference
>
>   --
> *Lydia Hamilton* (she/her)
> Director of Operations
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:31 AM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> is there any update on this? Has any progress been made to start a
>> conversation with the community organizers about this?
>>
>> As an organizer, the months of silence (and the last month of silence) on
>> this are a little saddening.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:24 PM Lydia Hamilton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lodewijk,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your feedback. We look forward to the forthcoming
>>> September release of detailed guidance that will allow Community members to
>>> assess their ability to safely host events and activities during the
>>> current pandemic circumstances.
>>>
>>> I’d like to respond to some of your comments:
>>>
>>> "It looks like your email was written to include a place where you want
>>> to gather this feedback."
>>>
>>> -- Feedback will be gathered on the guidance Meta talk page, which will
>>> reside in the Grants portal.
>>>
>>> "I'm assuming we're talking only about local events of limited size
>>> (probably a different risk profile applies for larger and/or
>>> travel-involved activities)."
>>>
>>> -- The guidance will address events of all sizes.
>>>
>>> "As an organizer, it is nice to have clarity where possible. Crisp
>>> definitions that translate well, are very helpful."
>>>
>>> -- Agreed. The guidance will be reviewed for clarity, ease of use and
>>> ease of translation.
>>>
>>> "I can't imagine an identical set of constraints to apply across
>>> countries."
>>>
>>> -- The guidance will include a host of assessment criteria that will
>>> allow Community members to evaluate the specific characteristics of their
>>> proposed event/activity, including location.
>>>
>>> "I'm confident that you already reached out to many affiliates to get
>>> their input ealy on."
>>>
>>> -- Yes. We will be evaluating and testing the guidance with selected
>>> affiliates prior to release on Meta.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Lydia
>>>
>>> Lydia Hamilton (she/her)
>>> Director of Operations
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:41 PM Anusha Alikhan 
>>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Covid-19] An update on in-person gatherings

2020-09-08 Thread effe iets anders
Hi all,

is there any update on this? Has any progress been made to start a
conversation with the community organizers about this?

As an organizer, the months of silence (and the last month of silence) on
this are a little saddening.

Thanks,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:24 PM Lydia Hamilton 
wrote:

> Hi Lodewijk,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. We look forward to the forthcoming September
> release of detailed guidance that will allow Community members to assess
> their ability to safely host events and activities during the current
> pandemic circumstances.
>
> I’d like to respond to some of your comments:
>
> "It looks like your email was written to include a place where you want to
> gather this feedback."
>
> -- Feedback will be gathered on the guidance Meta talk page, which will
> reside in the Grants portal.
>
> "I'm assuming we're talking only about local events of limited size
> (probably a different risk profile applies for larger and/or
> travel-involved activities)."
>
> -- The guidance will address events of all sizes.
>
> "As an organizer, it is nice to have clarity where possible. Crisp
> definitions that translate well, are very helpful."
>
> -- Agreed. The guidance will be reviewed for clarity, ease of use and ease
> of translation.
>
> "I can't imagine an identical set of constraints to apply across
> countries."
>
> -- The guidance will include a host of assessment criteria that will allow
> Community members to evaluate the specific characteristics of their
> proposed event/activity, including location.
>
> "I'm confident that you already reached out to many affiliates to get
> their input ealy on."
>
> -- Yes. We will be evaluating and testing the guidance with selected
> affiliates prior to release on Meta.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Lydia
>
> Lydia Hamilton (she/her)
> Director of Operations
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:41 PM Anusha Alikhan 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *effe iets anders 
>> *Subject: **Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Covid-19] An update on in-person
>> gatherings*
>> *Date: *August 10, 2020 at 8:43:04 PM EDT
>> *To: *Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> *Reply-To: *effeietsand...@gmail.com, Wikimedia Mailing List <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>
>> Thank you Katherine for this update,
>>
>> I'm much looking forward to a more nuanced policy. I think it is clear
>> that
>> the standing policy (no in-person activities of any size, around the
>> world)
>> is past its expiration date and can't realistically be maintained any
>> longer in its broad interpretation. With the current policy, we're risking
>> people just ignoring it when they feel no legal obligation to follow it.
>>
>> I hope that we can have an updated policy to provide a little more
>> flexibility sooner than later, even if that means that it is a first phase
>> of making things more nuanced. For example, we could carve out exceptions
>> for countries where there is a clear 'safe' situation (even if we all know
>> this is a very relative thing). Wiki Loves Monuments is about to start,
>> and
>> it would be nice if we could make sure that updates can be considered in
>> the planning as much as possible - especially as this is happening in many
>> different countries, and traditionally mostly outdoors anyway.
>>
>> It looks like your email was written to include a place where you want to
>> gather this feedback. Did a link go missing?
>>
>> For what it's worth, I do have some thoughts about such an updated policy,
>> from the viewpoint as someone who would have to comply. I'm assuming we're
>> talking only about local events of limited size (probably a different risk
>> profile applies for larger and/or travel-involved activities). I'm
>> obviously no epidemiologist or public health policy expert, and I suspect
>> many of these are already front and center in your thinking:
>> - As an organizer, it is nice to have clarity where possible. Crisp
>> definitions that translate well, are very helpful.
>> - Given how different the public health situations are around the world, I
>> can't imagine an identical set of constraints to apply across countries.
>> - Acceptance is important. For example, I know there are a large number of
>> countries where the wearing of masks is considered an accepted good
>> practice, while there are other countries where this is seen as counter
>> productive (with a heavier reliance on distance, for example). I know this
>> is a touchy subject in the US
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop Improvements coming to Vector

2020-08-25 Thread effe iets anders
I don't think the approach "we are going to see resistance anyway, so lets
make it a bigger change" has proven to be terribly helpful in the past year
or so.

These layout changes are hard for sure, but there are definitely ways to
bring people on board. The thing is, not every exciting change is
necessarily going to help everyone to the same extent, and it's hard to
convince a really diverse community. But there are a few tricks that we
should definitely keep using, that are nothing new to the developing
community: don't surprise (iterate and be public), try it out in a willing
community (check) and try to remain backward compatible (how long have we
supported the monobook skin now?).

I actually feel that a constant change is more helpful, because it gives
less of a 'now we have to fight to keep our ways' - it allows people to see
that they will like some changes, and dislike some others, but on a
balance, it'll improve for everyone. It's probably more time consuming
because it requires more consultation too, but I think it's worth it.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 5:00 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Indeed! The FINAL stage of the changes is deeply conservative and not a
> change at all. It's a small lifting, but not a real change. We are now 10
> years old, and with the new changes we will be 8 years old in a year,
> instead of being 11 years old.
> 
> From: Olga Vasileva 
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 1:53 PM
> To: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop
> Improvements coming to Vector
>
> Hi Vira, Ala'a, and Galder,
>
> Thanks for your feedback - we’re really glad you’re enjoying the changes
> we’ve made so far.  I wanted to point out that this is not all! The
> deployed changes are a part of a larger series of improvements that we will
> be rolling out progressively over the next 1+ years. To see a list of the
> other features we are planning on working on, please check out our project
> page[1]. In addition, we believe that even after the project is complete,
> there will still be work to do. We’d like to view this project as a new
> baseline on which we can build new functionality that can improve both
> reading and editing in the future.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> - Olga
>
> [1]
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Features
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 8:06 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this topic!
> At euwiki it has been some weeks we have experienced the new vector style,
> and it has some great things: you can be sure about how width images will
> take for any reader, you can create better galleries or even decide where
> to insert an image to avoid sandwiching.
>
> BUT...
>
> I think that the changes (even when finishing) will be too short on what
> we need (a real face change!) but it will annoy in the same amount to those
> who don't want any change at all. So, we are losing an opportunity to go on
> with big changes.
>
> Best
>
> Galder
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>> on behalf of Ala'a Najjar <
> ala201...@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 10:06 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List  wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
> Cc: ovasil...@wikimedia.org <
> ovasil...@wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop
> Improvements coming to Vector
>
> Thanks for bring our attention to this Desktop Improvements.
> I opened section about this on Arabic Wikipedia village pump
> https://w.wiki/a9S, so users can try it, and maybe there feedback can
> help Readers Web team.
>
> Best,
> Alaa
> https://w.wiki/JNQ
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l  wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>> On Behalf Of Vira Motorko
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 1:01 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List‏  wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop
> Improvements coming to Vector
>
> Hi all,
>
> I don't see any messages about the Desktop Improvements to wikimedia-l, so
> I've decided to forward one from wikitech-l.
>
> If I understand correctly, Desktop Improvements are changes to the desktop
> version of the Vector skin, which are to be built throughout the next year,
> features being added one by one. Several wikis already enjoy them by
> default, and users of other wikis can find a respective tick in their
> preferences to make new Vector visible.
>
> Current features are said to not be permanent anyway but wouldn't it be
> good for more people to see them while they are still work in progress?
>
> See email text and links below.
> *--*
> *Vira Motorko // Віра Моторко*
> mobile: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Covid-19] An update on in-person gatherings

2020-08-10 Thread effe iets anders
Thank you Katherine for this update,

I'm much looking forward to a more nuanced policy. I think it is clear that
the standing policy (no in-person activities of any size, around the world)
is past its expiration date and can't realistically be maintained any
longer in its broad interpretation. With the current policy, we're risking
people just ignoring it when they feel no legal obligation to follow it.

I hope that we can have an updated policy to provide a little more
flexibility sooner than later, even if that means that it is a first phase
of making things more nuanced. For example, we could carve out exceptions
for countries where there is a clear 'safe' situation (even if we all know
this is a very relative thing). Wiki Loves Monuments is about to start, and
it would be nice if we could make sure that updates can be considered in
the planning as much as possible - especially as this is happening in many
different countries, and traditionally mostly outdoors anyway.

It looks like your email was written to include a place where you want to
gather this feedback. Did a link go missing?

For what it's worth, I do have some thoughts about such an updated policy,
from the viewpoint as someone who would have to comply. I'm assuming we're
talking only about local events of limited size (probably a different risk
profile applies for larger and/or travel-involved activities). I'm
obviously no epidemiologist or public health policy expert, and I suspect
many of these are already front and center in your thinking:
- As an organizer, it is nice to have clarity where possible. Crisp
definitions that translate well, are very helpful.
- Given how different the public health situations are around the world, I
can't imagine an identical set of constraints to apply across countries.
- Acceptance is important. For example, I know there are a large number of
countries where the wearing of masks is considered an accepted good
practice, while there are other countries where this is seen as counter
productive (with a heavier reliance on distance, for example). I know this
is a touchy subject in the US
- I wouldn't expect the WMF to interpret each country's public health
policy, at the risk of being always behind. Carving out exceptions for
countries that are notorious for not developing responsible policy, seems
fair though (although that seems an interesting problem for the
communications department...).
- Reduce bureaucracy to a minimum. Some may be needed to help people
through the thinking process, but it's also a deterrent to actually follow
the policy.

The balance between simplicity and nuance seems a hard one to strike. A
bright line would be great, but that most likely conflicts with the
realism.
As so many governments are experiencing, it must be terribly complex to
strike a right balance between requiring all recommendations to be followed
and actually get people to endorse and support such requirements. The WMF
only has limited leverage, and I would hate it to see people actively
looking for loopholes. Because we both know that if anyone can find them,
it's a Wikimedian. I would strongly recommend that the policy is such, that
people will want to follow it, even if they don't have to.

I can appreciate the underlying thought pattern that seems to underpin your
mentioned focus: help people assess, inform about best practices and
suggest alternatives. Those feel like helpful building blocks. I hope that
the various communities will share many responsible ways as they get
creative with organizing within those guidelines. I'm confident that you
already reached out to many affiliates to get their input ealy on.

Warmly,
Lodewijk
(member of the Wiki Loves Monuments international team, but responding in a
personal capacity)

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:31 PM Katherine Maher  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> If this were a more predictable year, Wikimedians from around the world
> would be together this weekend at Wikimania Bangkok 2020, in the warm
> hospitality of our remarkable Wikimedia ESEAP hosts. We’d be preparing for
> a weekend of inspiring presentations, serendipitous meetings, and
> fascinating conversations with Wikimedians from dozens of projects,
> languages, and communities.
>
> I miss these moments of togetherness, and seeing people in person. Even
> though we’re mostly known as an online community, in-person events have
> always been part of the fabric of the Wikimedia movement. They are how we
> have built working partnerships, friendships, and the skills that support
> these remarkable projects over the years.
>
> In March, I sent messages out to the movement, asking grantees to postpone
> or cancel their in-person events until the World Health Organization
> declares the COVID-19 pandemic over. Today, that seems wistfully optimistic
> -- that we’d have this all wrapped up in six months! As we enter August the
> COVID-19 pandemic is still with us and seems likely to be part of our lives
> for some time to come.
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-20 Thread effe iets anders
The problem I indicated is that 'OTRS' is a diffuse system of queues. There
are very few policies that govern 'OTRS', and even practices will differ
across queues. I'm for example a member of the teams that handle info-nl,
permissions-nl and wlx. All those behave very differently.
If you replace 'OTRS' with 'xyz queue on OTRS', someone from that queue may
be able to give you a coherent answer. If you're asking at the OTRS-level,
I don't think there's much policies/practices beyond the ones that I
mentioned.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alessandro Marchetti 
wrote:

> I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions
> about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too generic
> for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?
>
> ok if it helps, here are some of them
> 1. are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with instruction
> with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of
> legal issues, mail about copyright etc
> 2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review process? is it
> regularly done?
> 3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal constant activity on
> content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag?
> 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator?
> 5. is there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal
> information related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of
> arrival and maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?)
> 6. is there a open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got
> the flag, a link to the request and how many queue they are handling?
>
> I think it's enough for now.
>
> Alex
> Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders <
> effeietsand...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I rather have
> > > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> > opportunity
> > > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> > I have not made explicit.
> >
> > Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
> >
> > > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
> assumed
> >
> > No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
> >
> > > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
> Andy
> > > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
> >
> > It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> > ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> > comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> > know?
> >
> > > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> > on
> > > the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
> >
> > I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
> > said they are.
> >
> > As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
> > clear about my wish to see them.
> >
> > > This is why I
> > > noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
> all
> > > kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
> >
> > It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
> > on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
> >
> > > There are actually a few policies
> > > linked at [[m:OTRS <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS>]], that are
> > > simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
> >
> > That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
> > which I have already referred.
> >
> > > There is some stuff about
> > > privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
> nothing
> > > that exciting.
> >
> > Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
> > should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
> > discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
> > then... Nothing.
> >
> > > OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
> > try
> > > to analyze that with overly broad questions.
> >
> > I do not accept that questions su

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-19 Thread effe iets anders
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders 
> wrote:
> >
> > I rather have
> > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> opportunity
> > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
>
> You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> I have not made explicit.
>
> Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
>
> > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed
>
> No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
>
> > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy
> > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
>
> It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> know?
>
> > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> on
> > the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
>
> I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
> said they are.
>
> As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
> clear about my wish to see them.
>
> > This is why I
> > noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all
> > kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
>
> It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
> on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
>
> > There are actually a few policies
> > linked at [[m:OTRS <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS>]], that are
> > simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
>
> That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
> which I have already referred.
>
> > There is some stuff about
> > privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing
> > that exciting.
>
> Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
> should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
> discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
> then... Nothing.
>
> > OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
> try
> > to analyze that with overly broad questions.
>
> I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
>
>5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
>
>7 what is the process for the community to remove an
>   individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold
>   or abide by policy?
>
>9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent,
>   or remove their permissions?
>
>10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
>
> are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their
> focus?
>
>
First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm
not going to waste further energy on that.

Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying
issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.

Lodewijk


> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-19 Thread effe iets anders
We're dealing with a diverse community here, and at the same time people
often want to imply information without making it explicit. I rather have
that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an opportunity
to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.

My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed,
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy
would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.

I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is on
the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter. This is why I
noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all
kind of secrecy that doesn't exist. There are actually a few policies
linked at [[m:OTRS ]], that are
simply copied there (Access, Activity policies). There is some stuff about
privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing
that exciting.
There is plenty of other 'stuff' on that wiki - which may or may not have
to be confidential. I wouldn't be against someone combing through that and
looking what can be published - at their own peril. The point is, nobody
seems willing or able to do that. These pages have accumulated over the
years, and it's simply not going to help anyone to triplicate that effort.
I'm not fundamentally against it, I just don't think it's a good use of
time and energy. I for sure ain't gonna do that, even if you paid me for
it.

OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to try
to analyze that with overly broad questions. I suspect you could spend a
few years worth of research on understanding it. That is why I tried to get
at the bottom of what Andy actually wants, so that I can try to help with
that. Given that Andy seems unwilling to make the questions narrower (my
interpretation) - that ends this conversation on my side, as I have little
more to contribute.

Lodewijk

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 9:25 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Seems to me that if someone does not specify a motivation, we leave it as
> that - no motivation. It you want to know what it is, you ask. You may get
> an answer, but sometimes it is not particularly relevant, as the question
> may be worth asking for whatever reason because the answer could be useful
> anyway.
> This strikes me as one of those questions. I would be interested to know
> the answers, because they would be illuminating and useful. It does not
> really matter to me what Andy was thinking about at the time other than
> wanting an answer to a reasonable, neutrally expressed question about
> something I considered should be freely available somewhere in the system.
> What was surprising is how long it has taken to get what little information
> has been forthcoming, but that has little bearing on why the question was
> asked in the first place.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Pete Forsyth
> Sent: 17 July 2020 23:17
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
>
> Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place
> where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that
> are reliably adhered to.
>
> It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public
> discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be
> happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which
> amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something
> they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about
> your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that.
>
> Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I
> could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you
> think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am
> rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts
> or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?)
>
> -Pete
> --
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Since it seems
> > > that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder
> > > whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this
> point
> > > more clearly.
> >
> > Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27
> February:
> >
> > #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
> >
> > We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not
> > answered, above, some arising from that discussion):
> >
> > 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> > 2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
> > public?
> > 3. where are 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Diff – a blog by and for the Wikimedia volunteer community

2020-07-15 Thread effe iets anders
The editorial team has been the status quo for years. I'd like to see it
expanded over time with volunteers, but at this point it would be unfair to
look down at this development for that reason.

To keep things constructive here: are there specific guidelines or
procedures that you would like to see changed? What is the kind of
volunteer/non-WMF person that you would like to see added to the team? (not
expecting you to call names, but you may be able to come up with broad
categories)

If you have such big problems with the privacy policy, could you create a
separate thread about that and be specific about what exactly you find
concerning, and why? I don't think an announcement thread is the best place
to discuss those concerns - if these are really significant problems, it
warrants a separate thread.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:27 PM Yair Rand  wrote:

> I am concerned.
>
> Although it is purported to be "by and for the Wikimedia volunteer
> community", the blog is clearly run by the WMF, the editorial team is made
> up of WMF staff, the WMF handles moderating, the guidelines were written by
> the WMF, the blog was created by the WMF without community consultation or
> input, and the structure and category system are clearly WMF-oriented.
> Also, it's based on WordPress, yet again, and with a very
> problematic privacy policy which probably won't be acceptable to many in
> the community.
>
> This is not a positive development, in my opinion.
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 15 ביולי 2020 ב-15:31 מאת ‪Andy Mabbett‬‏ <‪
> a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk‬‏>:‬
>
> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 18:50, Chris Koerner 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Diff builds on lessons and  experiences from  the
> > > Wikimedia Blog, the Wikimedia Foundation News, and Wikimedia Space;
> > > previous posts from these channels are archived on Diff.
> >
> > Based on my involvement with the Blog, I've identified some issues...
> >
> > At the request of the WMF, in 2017 I wrote a blog post, which was
> > published - after WMF's editorial approval - at:
> >
> >https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/11/29/astronaut-spoken-voice/
> >
> > an independently-archived copy may be found at:
> >
> >
> >
> https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/11/29/astronaut-spoken-voice/
> >
> > This has now been republished at:
> >
> >https://diff.wikimedia.org/2017/11/29/astronaut-spoken-voice/
> >
> > to which the original URL has now been redirected.
> >
> >
> > The new version of the article has  footer, saying:
> >
> >Archive notice: This is an archived post from blog.wikimedia.org, and
> >as such was written under a different editorial standard than Diff.
> >
> > I am concerned that this unexplained comment may not reflect well on
> > me, as the named author.
> >
> >
> > The new version of my author profile page:
> >
> >https://diff.wikimedia.org/author/cap-andy-mabbet/
> >
> > is missing the thumbnail image for the blog post; compare with the
> > archived version:
> >
> >
> >
> https://web.archive.org/web/20191218122440/https://blog.wikimedia.org/author/andy-mabbet/
> >
> > (the spelling error in the URL has carried over from the original).
> >
> > > The channel
> > > is primarily intended for community-authored posts, in which
> > > volunteers can share their stories, learnings, and ideas with each
> > > other.
> >
> > I didn't write the above post simply to share the story with other
> > volunteers; it was written - I again emphasise, at the WMF's request -
> >  for a global audience, and presented to the press as such, as part of
> > a joint publicity initiative with the European Space Agency.
> >
> > > content on Diff can be written and
> > > translated into languages to reach a wide audience.
> >
> > My original post - as can be seen from the banner in the version at
> > the Internet Archive - was kindly translated into Italian (apt, as the
> > subject was an Italian Astronaut) and French. The banner containing
> > the links to those translations is missing from the "Diff" copy.
> >
> > The original URLs of the italian and French versions:
> >
> >
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/it/2017/11/29/wikipedia-lascia-il-pianeta-terra
> >
> >
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/fr/2017/12/01/wikipedia-quitte-la-planete-terre
> >
> > now redirect, respectively, to:
> >
> >
> >
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/it/2017/11/29/wikipedia-lascia-il-pianeta-terra
> >
> >
> >
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/fr/2017/12/01/wikipedia-quitte-la-planete-terre
> >
> > each of which are returning a 404 error.
> >
> > Several links to the original Italian URL, from the Italian-language
> > Wikipedia, including those in encyclopedia articles, and two links to
> > the original French URL on the French-language Wikipedia, are now
> > broken. Obviously this also applies to any external sites that link to
> > them, too.
> >
> > > Still curious to learn more?
> >
> > Yes: What consultation was carried out with contributors, and the
> > wider the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-12 Thread effe iets anders
The question is however as well: how many open licensed content creators
would switch to NC if they were aware that this would be 'good enough' for
Wikipedia - even if that means in reality only English Wikipedia (but who
cares about other languages) and without actually allowing to build on top
of it?

I have found the argument 'don't use NC because then it can't be used on
Wikipedia' rather convincing in the past. It will not always work, and I
also wish it would convince /more/ organizations. But then, I would also
wish that enwiki wouldn't use fair use exceptions - so maybe I'm not the
benchmark you'd be looking at anyway.

Lodewijk

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 5:32 PM James Heilman  wrote:

> Yes one of the stronger reasons to reject all use of the NC license is that
> it increases incentives for other organizations to actually adopt open
> licenses. I simply wish that such a position would convince more
> organizations. WHO has repeatedly told me that we, as a non-profit, are
> already free to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
> > Hi James :)
> >
> > (This is my last reply for today, given the recommended posting limit
> > on this list.)
> >
> > > We all agree that NC licenses are exceedingly poor due to the reasons
> > > listed, yet we leave a lot of useful content (such as Khan academy
> > videos)
> > > less accessible to our readers because we disallow any such use.
> >
> > I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
> > or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
> > initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
> > perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
> > and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
> > license.
> >
> > > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
> >
> > I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
> > want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
> > can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
> > altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
> > Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
> > licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
> > poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a
> > nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how
> > is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in
> > some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to
> > Wikimedia projects?
> >
> > If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the
> > free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms
> > strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be
> > short-sighted.
> >
> > Warmly,
> > Erik
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-11 Thread effe iets anders
Jonatan: Implying that there's more secrecy than necessary, is unhelpful. I
would dare say that if the policies that Andy is looking for exist (given
his inquiry he's looking for a specific set), they should and would be
available on meta. If that is not the case, that is more likely due to
laziness and/or lack of time than by design - so if you know of policies
where that is not the case, please bring it up internally, ask for
objections to publish it, and lets rectify. I agree with Tomek that your
line of answering with non-answers bring up conspiracies.

Andy: I'm sorry that you're unhappy about your experiences with OTRS. It
seems that you're particularly concerned about the Commons/Permissions
queues. I'm not exactly clear on what policies you're looking for (although
I get the gist). If you're talking about policies related to how
permissions are handled (what threshold are we using, what level of
scrutiny, etc), I would say that in the end, that is up to the Commons (or
alternative receiving) community.
If you're talking behavior, I'm indeed not sure if we have much 'policy'
other than some guidelines and common sense.

From the page it looks like there were multiple people willing to help pull
together the relevant pages and documentation. But you're right that this
is a bit of a mess - much of OTRS has grown organically. I doubt you
expected much different.

All in all, I'm afraid there are no hard black-and-white answers that
people can give you to these questions, because the questions are too
broadly formulated for a diffuse system like this. I know that is not
satisfactory, but there is little use in pretending it's any different.

Now I should note that I'm not super active on OTRS, and especially not on
the permissions queues - so it may well be that I have overlooked something
super obvious. But I would be highly surprised.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:26 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 10:05, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> >
> > czw., 9 lip 2020 o 18:53 Andy Mabbett 
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:46, Tomasz Ganicz 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all
> OTRS
> > > > > agents sign.
> > >
> > > > Well, please do not create conspiracy theories...
> > >
> > > It's not a conspiracy theory if there is evidence of a conspiracy.
>
> > What evidence?
>
> * OTRS policies, stored on the OTRS wiki, are not public
>
> * The questions asked in February have still not been answered
>
> *  A post from Jonatan to this list, saying "I'm unable to answer this
> due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign."
>
> > General copyright rules, procedures and copyright agreement templates are
> > made public in most wikis
>
> Again; that is not what is being asked.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia

2020-07-02 Thread effe iets anders
I guess that depends on whether you count WikiVoyage to be launched in 2003
or 2013 :)

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:55 AM Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is a great news!!! Congratulations :)
>
> Just so we are all on the same page, the last approved project was Wikidata
> right?
>
> And back then, one of initial core members of the project was someone
> called Denny Vrandečić too, right?
>
> Denny, I'm happy to say that is how patterns start...
>
> Stay safe and take care ^^
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 2 juil. 2020 à 7:28 PM, Daniel Mietchen via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> a écrit :
>
> > Good to see such an abstract proposal to reach this point on the way
> > towards becoming a very real Wikimedia project!
> > d.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:05 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Excited to see even how this mind-blowing idea comes to live!
> > >
> > > Congratulations
> > >
> > > Galder
> > > 
> > > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> of
> > > Isaac Olatunde 
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:01 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new
> > > Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia
> > >
> > > Wow! This is a great news.
> > >
> > > Thanks for sharing Katherine.
> > >
> > > With best wishes
> > >
> > > Isaac.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, 17:39 Denny Vrandečić, 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Katherine, thank you for the warm welcome and your kind words!
> > > >
> > > > I am very happy to be given the opportunity to start this new
> project,
> > > and
> > > > deeply honored by the trust and confidence of the Board and the
> > > Foundation.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to the many who have listened to me talking about this project
> > in
> > > > the last few years, read my papers and plans, commented on them,
> > > > scrutinized them, and offered encouragement, criticism, and advice.
> > > Thanks
> > > > to everyone who expressed their support and raised their concerns on
> > the
> > > > proposal page on Meta [1]. It is thanks to you that the Board was
> > > confident
> > > > enough to make this decision.
> > > >
> > > > There is a lot of work in front of us, and I will continue to rely on
> > > your
> > > > guidance and collective wisdom. We will need to foster a new
> community.
> > > > Just as with Wikidata, I hope that some of you will become active in
> > the
> > > > new community, and I also want to make sure that we will be welcoming
> > to
> > > > new contributors. We want to extend and grow the Wikimedia movement
> not
> > > > only with new functionalities, but also with new people.
> > > >
> > > > Settling in this new position will take quite a bit of my attention
> in
> > > the
> > > > next few weeks, so please forgive me if I may be slow with answering
> > your
> > > > questions between now and then. One of the first things we’ll do is
> to
> > > set
> > > > up new communication channels. We will continue discussing the
> project
> > > and
> > > > planning on Meta [2] for now and also welcome you to the new,
> dedicated
> > > > mailing list [3].
> > > >
> > > > One of our first tasks together will be to find a name for the
> > project. A
> > > > first set of proposals have already been made [4], and I invite you
> all
> > > to
> > > > come up with more ideas. We will start that off in July or August.
> Did
> > I
> > > > mention that you can join us on Meta [2] to discuss proposals for
> > names,
> > > > the project itself, and much more?
> > > >
> > > > Again, thank you all! I am super excited about figuring this thing
> out
> > > with
> > > > you, and am looking forward to coming back to Wikimedia full-time.
> > > >
> > > > Stay safe,
> > > > Denny
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia
> > > > [2]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_Wikipedia
> > > > [3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
> > > > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Name
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:24 AM Brion Vibber 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm extremely excited about this project!
> > > > >
> > > > > Not only will this be directly useful on its own (and a fascinating
> > > > project
> > > > > in its own right!), but it will help our volunteer editors to ramp
> up
> > > > good
> > > > > base material to work with on the "prose" Wikipedias we already
> know
> > > and
> > > > > love.
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea is really to make the structured data we've all been
> putting
> > > > into
> > > > > Wikidata available in a human-readable form at a big scale, that's
> > > still
> > > > > able to be shaped and made into something real and readable by
> human
> > > > > editors. By moving around where in the chain the data gets
> expressed
> > as
> > > > > human language, we hope to make something that's just 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

2020-06-30 Thread effe iets anders
Thank you Nat,

Thank you for pushing up the timeline a bit on having this conversation - I
agree that it's probably better not to stretch the conversation too much,
before an updated process is decided upon.

Will you invite any other people to present additional information to the
board? I think we all would like the board to be as fully informed as
possible about this topic, and I couldn't reasonably expect all board
members to read all discussions about this topic. I could for example
imagine that you invite the framers of the open letter to provide a short
presentation as well. This would be in acknowledgement that it's a very
complex task for any team to collect data and insights that are contrary to
what they saw as their instructions for several years.

As I also referred to in my 'asymmetry of power' comment in response to the
executive statement on meta earlier, I believe this is core to many
objections when highly disputed decisions are being made by the board: the
voice of the part of the community that strongly feels about and disagrees
with the proposal, is not in the room to make their case. I know there are
some attempts being made in the strategy process to address this, but
perhaps in the same spirit, the board could experiment a little with being
more inclusive of such voices - especially now that is technically trivial
as the meetings are all online anyway.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 4:27 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
>
> Stay safe,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
>
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Internet Archive BOT

2020-06-23 Thread effe iets anders
Hi Pascal, all,

this is being discussed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyberpower678 THe last response was
June 16, and it seems to focus on geo-blocking as the cause for
blacklisting (in case anyone feels called to help out the developer).

This bot performs incredible work and I hope it gets fixed soon!

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:04 AM Pascal Martin  wrote:

> HI,
>
> My native language is French, automatic translation into English.
> This message follows the numerous detection of false 404 links by the
> Internet Archive robot because it is blacklisted on a lot of servers. Small
> details concerning the archiving service of Wikiwix (
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:De_kroeg#Internet_Archive_Bot )
> It is based solely on this Javascript to be implemented since 2008 in
> French Wikipedia:
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-ArchiveLinks.js
> The advantage of this solution makes it possible to add other archiving
> sources, and does not modify the content of Wikipedia articles.
> New links are detected by 3 different means:
> • Annual recovery: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/backup-index.html,
> • Recovery on IRC and on the WEB of Recents Changes.
> And we also recommend clicking on the archive link as soon as the source
> is added by a contributor, this immediately generates storage of the link
> and allows you to test the rendering of the archived page.
> In addition to fighting 404 errors, this solution also offers the
> advantage of protecting against changes in content that may appear in the
> pages to be archived.
> Wikiwix strictly respects copyright, archiving is only done with the
> author's approval using the noarchive tag.
> Since 2015, I have been alerting about the deployment of the IA ​​robot:
> 2015:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2015/Bots_and_gadgets:
> the bot solution with modification of the template cache is currently
> exclusive to WayBackMachine, 2017:
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_user:Pmartin#I_left_you_a_message! :
> attempted collaboration abort by the bot trainer and bot stopped following
> numerous false detections on page 404.
> The role of IABOT is to detect the links present in Wikipedia which are in
> errors 404, to find an archive in priority on the WayBack Machine, and to
> modify the articles to replace the dead link there.
> This process is not good because IABOT only allows one archive url to be
> stored on all the languages, which greatly favors the Wayback Machine, to
> the detriment of the different versions of the page. While the template
> should link to a page that would list all of the possible archives for a
> 404 page.
> A week has been planned for the end of July 2020 to resolve the few
> stabilization problems that Wikiwix currently encounters, linked to the new
> solution which consumes only 30 euros of electricity per month, we can also
> support this week for a deployment of the solution on the NL part of
> Wikipedia.
>
> Could someone stop this bots, otherwise the false detection of links will
> become contagious for all projects?
>
> Pascal Martin
> ___
> 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 effe iets anders
In good encyclopedic tradition, a reference to that quote in context, is
probably in order. Ziko, I suspect you got this quote from this 2010
chapter? https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/chapter-2.html

If I look at this post, he talks about progressivism in the context of
methodology and technology used, much more than where it comes to content.
It is very well possible to be progressive in the way you edit your
encyclopedia, or to hold progressive values, and at the same time be
conservative in the decisions what knowledge to incorporate and what to
leave out. But maybe I'm reading it wrong?

But I'll let others read Reagle's chapter, and draw their own conclusions -
it's an interesting read either way.

Lodewijk

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:46 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> 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,
> 
___
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

2020-05-24 Thread effe iets anders
How is a one-off ban comparable in any way with a structured effort to
develop a policy in consultation with the community, and then implement it
together?

Lodewijk

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:02 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> Worked out great the last time WMF tried to pull something like this,
> didn't it?
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
>
>
> Oh, wait. By "worked out great" I mean "was an unmitigated disaster." One
> wonders if the folks at the WMF are capable of learning from mistakes, and
> one is not encouraged by the apparent answer.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:59 PM María Sefidari 
> wrote:
>
> >  Hello everyone,
> >
> > Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees unanimously passed a
> > resolution and published a statement[1] regarding the urgent need to make
> > our movement more safe and inclusive by addressing harassment and
> > incivility on Wikimedia projects. The statement builds on prior
> statements
> > from 2016 and 2019,[2][3] affirms the forthcoming introduction of a
> > universal code of conduct, and directs the Wikimedia Foundation to
> rapidly
> > and substantively address these challenges in complement with existing
> > community processes.
> >
> > This includes developing sustainable practices and tools that eliminate
> > harassment, toxicity, and incivility, promote inclusivity, cultivate
> > respectful discourse, reduce harms to participants, protect the projects
> > from disinformation and bad actors, and promote trust in our projects.
> >
> > Over the past nearly twenty years, the movement has taken a number of
> > unique and sometimes extraordinary steps to create an environment unlike
> > anything else online: a place to share knowledge, to learn, and to
> > collaborate together. In order for the movement to continue to thrive and
> > make progress to our mission, it is essential to build a culture that is
> > welcoming and inclusive.
> >
> > Research has consistently shown that members of our communities have been
> > subject to hostility and toxic behavior in Wikimedia spaces.[4][5] The
> > Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy recommendations have also identified the
> > safety of our Wikimedia spaces as a core issue to address if we are to
> > reach the 2030 goals, with concrete recommendations which include a
> > universal code of conduct, pathways for users to privately report
> > incidents, and a baseline of community responsibilities.[6]
> >
> > While the movement has made progress in addressing harassment and toxic
> > behavior, we recognize there is still much more to do. The Board’s
> > resolution and statement today is a step toward establishing clear,
> > consistent guidelines around acceptable behavior on our projects, and
> > guiding the Wikimedia Foundation in supporting the movement’s ability to
> > ensure a healthy environment for those who participate in our projects.
> >
> > * Developing and introducing, in close consultation with volunteer
> > contributor communities, a universal code of conduct that will be a
> binding
> > minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects;
> >
> > * Taking actions to ban, sanction, or otherwise limit the access of
> > Wikimedia movement participants who do not comply with these policies and
> > the Terms of Use;
> >
> > * Working with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive
> > review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those
> cases
> > which pose legal or other severe risks; and
> >
> > * Significantly increasing support for and collaboration with community
> > functionaries primarily enforcing such compliance in a way that
> prioritizes
> > the personal safety of these functionaries.
> >
> > Together, we have made our movement what it is today. In this same way,
> we
> > must all be responsible for building the positive community culture of
> the
> > future, and accountable for stopping harassment and toxic behavior on our
> > sites.
> >
> > We have also made this statement available on Meta-Wiki for translation
> and
> > wider distribution.[1]
> >
> > On behalf of the Board,
> > María, Board Chair
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> >
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2016_-_Statement_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> >
> > [3]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Archives/2019#Board_statement_posted_at_Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram
> >
> > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015
> >
> > [5]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights/2018_Report#Experience_of_harassment_has_not_declined_since_2017_and_appears_to_remain_steady
> >
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Preventing conflicts of interest in Wikimedia organizations' employment and financial relationships

2020-05-22 Thread effe iets anders
From what I understand, you're mostly concerned about fraud and conflicts
of interest.

First of all: wholly agree with Andy. I am not aware of any organization
that would monitor the bank account transactions of its board members.
Self-reporting interests, sure. I'm curious what kind of outrageous fraud
you suspect that would justify such invasion of privacy.

Second, any of these measures probably would require us first to have a
clear picture of what would qualify as a problematic relationship that
would benefit from such a cooling off period. Usually, such a cooling off
period seems to be suggested in a context where people may lobby for
something in the hope of getting a juicy appointment elsewhere
afterwards, or because they were strongly colored by a previous appointment
elsewhere. I don't think it's realistic to expect a cooling off period for
voluntary board members. For its staff members, I don't know enough at this
point about labor law to know if this is already covered elsewhere. Do you
know of guidelines that suggest that this is a best practice at charities?

 I suspect most of our organizations will have some implied or explicit
conflict of interest policy, to cover at least that angle.

I'm fascinated what triggered this highly suspicious email. Did I miss
something?

Lodewijk

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:16 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 20:21, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > For example, is there any monitoring of the bank accounts of board
> > members and executives
>
> I  very much hope not. That would be an outrageous intrusion.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2020-05-22 Thread effe iets anders
Thanks for that clarification! I read that initially as capacity, tools,
training etc for community functionaries to be better enforcers (maybe I
read it too quickly - I'm still ambivalent about it). Glad I didn't
interpret that correctly!

Best,
Lodewijk

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 6:50 PM Shani Evenstein  wrote:

> Hi  Lodewijk,
>
> This ecosystem you are describing is exactly what we are hoping for.
>
> And we absolutely agree that what you called "education" is needed.
> We referred to it as "training" and "capacity building" in this sentence
> in the statement:
>
> "To that end, the Board further directs the Foundation, in collaboration
> with the communities, to make additional i*nvestments in Trust & Safety
> capacity*, including but not limited to: development of tools needed to
> assist our volunteers and staff, research to support data-informed
> decisions, development of clear metrics to measure success, *development
> of training tools and materials* (*including building communities’
> capacities around harassment awareness and conflict resolution*), and
> consultations with international experts on harassment, community health
> and children’s rights, as well as additional hiring."
>
> Best,
> Shani.
>
>
>>
>> From: effe iets anders 
>> Date: Sat, May 23, 2020 at 4:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>
>>
>> Thanks for this step - I wish that it wouldn't be necessary. I'm not sure
>> of all the implications, but was mostly wondering: will this be primarily
>> a
>> stick, or is the foundation also going to invest more heavily in carrots
>> and education?
>>
>> I get the impression that we have much progress to make in training,
>> educating and exposing correct behavior (some chapters have made attempts
>> at this). So much of our energy already goes into the bad behavior, that
>> it
>> exhausts many community members. I'm confident that the Trust and Safety
>> live through a more extreme version of that daily.
>>
>> I'd wish that we manage to build an ecosystem that encourages good
>> behavior, diverts bad behavior at a very early stage, and removes the bad
>> actors that cannot be corrected. Probably not as popular as punishing
>> people, but hopefully more constructive for the community as a whole.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello, Dennis!
>> >
>> > Not at all. What it means is that this a not a process that goes into
>> play
>> > *before* a decision to act is made, but *after*. It should stand as an
>> > option for those who want to ensure that actions taken are fair, as
>> long as
>> > the case does not relate to legal risks or other severe concerns.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>> >
>> > 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!
>> >
>> > On Sat, May 23, 2020, 01:58 Dennis During  wrote:
>> >
>> > >  "Work with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive
>> > > review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those
>> > cases
>> > > which pose legal or other severe risks "
>> > >
>> > > What does "retroactive review process" mean?
>> > >
>> > > I hope it doesn't mean applying standards that were not promulgated at
>> > the
>> > > time to past actions and applying severe sanctions to the alleged
>> > > perpetrators.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 5:59 PM María Sefidari 
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >  Hello everyone,
>> > > >
>> > > > Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees unanimously
>> passed a
>> > > > resolution and published a statement[1] regarding the urgent need to
>> > make
>> > > > our movement more safe and inclusive by addressing harassment and
>> > > > incivility on Wikimedia projects. The statement builds on prior
>> > > statements
>> > > > from 2016 and 2019,[2][3] affirms the forthcoming introduction of a
>> > > > universal code of conduct, and directs the W

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

2020-05-22 Thread effe iets anders
Thanks for this step - I wish that it wouldn't be necessary. I'm not sure
of all the implications, but was mostly wondering: will this be primarily a
stick, or is the foundation also going to invest more heavily in carrots
and education?

I get the impression that we have much progress to make in training,
educating and exposing correct behavior (some chapters have made attempts
at this). So much of our energy already goes into the bad behavior, that it
exhausts many community members. I'm confident that the Trust and Safety
live through a more extreme version of that daily.

I'd wish that we manage to build an ecosystem that encourages good
behavior, diverts bad behavior at a very early stage, and removes the bad
actors that cannot be corrected. Probably not as popular as punishing
people, but hopefully more constructive for the community as a whole.

Lodewijk

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Hello, Dennis!
>
> Not at all. What it means is that this a not a process that goes into play
> *before* a decision to act is made, but *after*. It should stand as an
> option for those who want to ensure that actions taken are fair, as long as
> the case does not relate to legal risks or other severe concerns.
>
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> 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!
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020, 01:58 Dennis During  wrote:
>
> >  "Work with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive
> > review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those
> cases
> > which pose legal or other severe risks "
> >
> > What does "retroactive review process" mean?
> >
> > I hope it doesn't mean applying standards that were not promulgated at
> the
> > time to past actions and applying severe sanctions to the alleged
> > perpetrators.
> >
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 5:59 PM María Sefidari 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees unanimously passed a
> > > resolution and published a statement[1] regarding the urgent need to
> make
> > > our movement more safe and inclusive by addressing harassment and
> > > incivility on Wikimedia projects. The statement builds on prior
> > statements
> > > from 2016 and 2019,[2][3] affirms the forthcoming introduction of a
> > > universal code of conduct, and directs the Wikimedia Foundation to
> > rapidly
> > > and substantively address these challenges in complement with existing
> > > community processes.
> > >
> > > This includes developing sustainable practices and tools that eliminate
> > > harassment, toxicity, and incivility, promote inclusivity, cultivate
> > > respectful discourse, reduce harms to participants, protect the
> projects
> > > from disinformation and bad actors, and promote trust in our projects.
> > >
> > > Over the past nearly twenty years, the movement has taken a number of
> > > unique and sometimes extraordinary steps to create an environment
> unlike
> > > anything else online: a place to share knowledge, to learn, and to
> > > collaborate together. In order for the movement to continue to thrive
> and
> > > make progress to our mission, it is essential to build a culture that
> is
> > > welcoming and inclusive.
> > >
> > > Research has consistently shown that members of our communities have
> been
> > > subject to hostility and toxic behavior in Wikimedia spaces.[4][5] The
> > > Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy recommendations have also identified
> the
> > > safety of our Wikimedia spaces as a core issue to address if we are to
> > > reach the 2030 goals, with concrete recommendations which include a
> > > universal code of conduct, pathways for users to privately report
> > > incidents, and a baseline of community responsibilities.[6]
> > >
> > > While the movement has made progress in addressing harassment and toxic
> > > behavior, we recognize there is still much more to do. The Board’s
> > > resolution and statement today is a step toward establishing clear,
> > > consistent guidelines around acceptable behavior on our projects, and
> > > guiding the Wikimedia Foundation in supporting the movement’s ability
> to
> > > ensure a healthy environment for those who participate in our projects.
> > >
> > > * Developing and introducing, in close consultation with volunteer
> > > contributor communities, a universal code of conduct that will be a
> > binding
> > > minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects;
> > >
> > > * Taking actions to ban, sanction, or otherwise limit the access of
> > > Wikimedia movement participants who do not comply with these policies
> and
> > > the Terms of Use;
> > >
> > > * Working with community functionaries to create and refine a
> retroactive
> > > review process for cases brought by involved 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia branding

2020-03-11 Thread effe iets anders
It looks like this list was skipped in providing an update in asking for
feedback (or I missed something - in which case, my apologies). I'm just a
random passer by who was wondering why this wasn't shared yet.

The Wikimedia branding process seems to have moved to yet another phase on
March 1 (I think?), allowing for a feedback phase to define one more
'concept' besides the 23 that have been defined (again: I think. The
communication is a bit confusing to me, sorry). Deadline is March 17 (5-6
days from now).

The process should be explained here:
https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/ (scroll down, the concepts are
actually on that page below the text. Yes, those blocks.)

It turns out that at the very bottom in the footer, there's a link to a
wikipage where you should be able to engage:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project

on that meta page however, they seem to rather recommend to engage on
Facebook (a closed group
) or on Wikimedia
Space (!sic).

Anyhow, at a first glance those concepts look fine, but that'd be true for
many sets of 23 buzzwords :). I don't have enough insights into the
consequences of these choices, or how they got together, but hopefully the
communications team can share that at some point better than me.
Other people here may have more informed opinions than me.

-- Lodewijk
___
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] 2020 Wikimania Scholarships now open

2020-03-10 Thread effe iets anders
As very practical question for the scholarships: should people be spending
time on the scholarships right now, or would it be fair to postpone the
deadline until a bit after this hard decision has been made?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:27 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> Kaya Toni and the Community
>
> We are trying to assemble the latest up to date advice we can get, as you
> can imagine thats a very complex task given how wide spread our community
> is and the shifting dynamics of the current situation.   While ESEAP is the
> host for the Wikimania we still need the WMF, its events team, the Board,
> and the Wikimania Committee to agree to what is decided.  I dont wish to
> preempt any outcome and I hope everyone can keep an open mind about what
> lays ahead while we endeavor to provide a more specific answer.
>
> I wish I could give you a more direct answer but for now your patience is
> very much appreciated.
>
> Boodar-wun
> Gnangarra
>
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 19:48, Toni Ristovski 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Gnangarra,
> >
> > On your last email in this thread you mentioned that you will discuss
> > situation with corona virus CoVid-19, regarding upcoming Wikimania. I
> know
> > that nobody have enough information, but following all the news and
> > following recent developments, could you please update us about this
> issue
> > on this thread.
> >
> > Thank you
> > Toni
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:15 PM Ciell Wikipedia <
> ciell.wikipe...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for your response!
> > >
> > > Ciell
> > >
> > > Op wo 26 feb. 2020 12:32 schreef Gnangarra :
> > >
> > > > Hi Ciell
> > > >
> > > > ESEAP team and the WMF are meeting later this week with discussion on
> > > this
> > > > very issue on the agenda. As it stands we have been following the
> > changes
> > > > and recommendations of many countries in relation to travel to
> Thailand
> > > and
> > > > Bangkok.  The WMF  team is also following developments, as you can
> > > imagine
> > > > its a very dynamic situation.  At this stage we are continuing the
> > > > scholarship application process because there isnt the time frame
> > > necessary
> > > > to delay while waiting for further developments occur so we can more
> > > > assured of the necessary measures that will need to be taken.
> > > >
> > > > For people who dont get scholarships, or are already planning to fund
> > > their
> > > > own travel there for once waiting is becoming an advantage as the
> cost
> > of
> > > > travel is dropping and there will be incentives to encourage people
> to
> > > > travel.   Anyone making bookings I recommend you obtain insurance
> that
> > > > covers you for all eventualities especially scenarios related to the
> > > virus.
> > > >
> > > > Community safety is at the absolute forefront of our plans and
> > concerns.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 19:05, Ciell Wikipedia <
> > ciell.wikipe...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Gnangarra,
> > > > >
> > > > > With the Corona virus spreading rapidly around the world: can you
> > tell
> > > me
> > > > > (us) something about the scenario for Wikimania when the virus
> would
> > > > still
> > > > > be heavily active in August?
> > > > > People might want to wait a bit longer before applying, or maybe
> want
> > > to
> > > > > know more about cancelling their travels after they have confirmed
> > the
> > > > > scholarship. Will this be possible?
> > > > >
> > > > > Vriendelijke groet,
> > > > > Ciell
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Op do 20 feb. 2020 om 21:46 schreef Gnangarra  >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wikimania is fast approaching, this year it'll be held in Bangkok
> > and
> > > > as
> > > > > > always the Wikimedia Foundation has a limited number of
> > opportunities
> > > > to
> > > > > > assist people to attend. There are two types of scholarships the
> > > first
> > > > > > being a full scholarship which covers, travel, accommodation, and
> > > > > > registration, the second a  partial scholarship that covers
> > > > accommodation
> > > > > > and registration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This year for the first time East, South East Asia, and Pacific
> > > > (ESEAP)
> > > > > as
> > > > > > collaboration between the region we'll be your host for
> Wikimania.
> > > The
> > > > > > region has placed a high importance on collaboration and
> knowledge
> > > > > sharing
> > > > > > this years Wikimania program will reflect that. Our theme is;
> > > > > > *Power of Diverse Collaboration*
> > > > > > *Sharing knowledge brings people together*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does this impact on scholarship? ESEAP is looking for people
> > who
> > > > are
> > > > > > prepared to share their knowledge to help develop potential
> future
> > > > > > leaders.  We'll be looking for two broad areas of contributions,
> > from
> > > > > those
> > > > > > who have successfully developed programs, and those  newer
> > > contributors
> > > > > who
> > > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Launch of Wikimedia Affiliates Data Portal

2020-03-07 Thread effe iets anders
Thanks for the update Dimi.

The system seems reasonably flexible (assuming the links can be both
internal and external). There are two things I'd suggest:
- Please track language versions. If multiple languages are available, it
would be nice if they can be connected. It would also be helpful to
identify languages in the report.
- Be generous with the 'other' option. For example, you now only allow
monthly and annual reports. Would you discourage quarterly reports to be
shared? Or three-year reports? I know those may not be required by WMF, but
they may be produced for different purposes. I imagine you would want those
to be shared too?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Joy Agyepong  wrote:

> Hello Dumi,
>
> Thanks for the update and teams efforts on this initiative. I have taken a
> tour on the portal and it looks really simplified and easy to navigate.
> However, I will be on standby for the training session.
>
> Best,
> Joy
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:25 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Dumi,
> >
> > Thank you and Derrick for this work. I look forward to the seminar.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> > On Sat, 7 Mar 2020, 20:10 Michael Peel,  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dumi,
> > >
> > > This looks interesting, but I’m worried that the WMF is still trying to
> > > exclude itself from reporting its metrics. Will this new tool also make
> > it
> > > easier for the WMF to post its reports?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > > On 6 Mar 2020, at 17:51, Dumisani Ndubane 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > TL;DR: Launch of Wikimedia Affiliates Data Portal
> > > >
> > > > We are launching a new form-based annual reporting system for
> Wikimedia
> > > > affiliates [1], as well as a basic Affiliates data query system. We
> > would
> > > > love your feedback.
> > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - -
> > > - -
> > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > > >
> > > > Hello, Affiliate Leaders & Community Members,
> > > >
> > > > Tired of the affiliate reports [2] wiki table of death? SO are we!
> > > >
> > > > The Learning & Evaluation team is pleased to announce the launch of
> the
> > > > Wikimedia Affiliates Data (WAD) Portal [1]. This portal will serve
> > three
> > > > purposes as follows:
> > > >
> > > >   1. It introduces a new Object-Oriented User Interface (OOUI) [3]
> > > >   form-based report submission interface for annual activity and
> > > financial
> > > >   reports. This replaces the wiki mark-up based submission via the
> > > >   [[Reports]] page on meta.
> > > >   2. It introduces the ability for Organizations to update their
> > > >   information using OOUI forms on the fly.
> > > >   3. It introduces a new simple data query form that allows anyone
> > > >   logged-in to their public wiki accounts to run a query and view
> > > results on
> > > >   available Affiliates data. The query tool will be improved in the
> > > coming
> > > >   financial year, as we work to code data in Affiliate reports into
> > > >   structured data, to allow for richer analysis.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The [[Reports]] page on meta will continue to be visible on meta
> until
> > > the
> > > > end of June 2020, after which it will be protected and archived. All
> > > > organizations that are due to submit annual reports at the end of
> March
> > > are
> > > > encouraged to use the new report submission forms. If you do use the
> > new
> > > > forms, please share any feedback you have about this new process on
> the
> > > > Portal’s talk page
> > > >
> > > > We will hold training seminars for those who wish to be onboarded to
> > the
> > > > submission forms and the Query system during the months of March and
> > > April
> > > > 2020 (Dates will be communicated soon).
> > > >
> > > > We have taken time to pre-populate the system with basic information
> > > about
> > > > each recognized Wikimedia affiliate, however, should you find any
> > > incorrect
> > > > or outdated information about your group, please use the organization
> > > > information page[4] to provide updated information.
> > > >
> > > > We trust that you will enjoy the new portal and that you will find it
> > > > useful. Should you have any problems or encounter bugs in the new
> > forms,
> > > > please use the Portal talk page [5] to log these, or to simply ask
> > > > questions. We will collect similar questions to create an FAQ page in
> > due
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > Kindest regards
> > > >
> > > > *Dumisani Ndubane* - Lead Designer
> > > > *Derick Alangi* - Software Developer
> > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > > > *Learning & Evaluation team*
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > >
> > > > *Links:*
> > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Affiliates_Data_Portal
> > > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports
> > > > [3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/OOUI
> > > > [4]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FY1819 Fundraising Report

2020-02-25 Thread effe iets anders
+1

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:46 AM Philip Kopetzky 
wrote:

> Hi Chuck,
>
> since this is hopefully a less busy season of the year, have the internal
> discussions yielded anything that might help in breaking these numbers down
> a little bit more? :-)
>
> Best,
> Philip
>
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 03:59, Chuck Roslof  wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing your thoughts about how this information could be
> useful
> > for local affiliates and communities. We'll discuss internally to see if
> we
> > might be able to share more information in the future in order to achieve
> > those benefits in ways that don't raise legal concerns or create
> excessive
> > overhead for our fundraising team. We're entering into the busiest time
> of
> > the year for online fundraising, though, so it'll be at least a few
> months
> > before we are able to address the question internally.
> >
> >  - Chuck
> >
> > ==
> > Charles M. Roslof
> > Legal Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > Pronouns: they /he
> > 
> >
> > NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> > reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
> community
> > members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For
> more
> > on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> > .
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:27 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> philip.kopet...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Chuck for digging out that old email, it does explain why this
> > isn't
> > > done for every country.
> > > Chris and Sandra have a point though, because this can't be a legal
> issue
> > > for most European countries for example. In return, the local
> > organisations
> > > and communities would benefit from an added layer of feedback based on
> > > their work.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, how and how much we fundraise will be one of the important
> > > talking points when implementing the recommendations, especially to
> set a
> > > benchmark to evaluate if involving local organisations in the
> fundraising
> > > process actually works or not.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Philip
> > >
> > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 09:38, Sandra Rientjes - Wikimedia Nederland <
> > > rient...@wikimedia.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Chris.
> > > > Furthermore: Wikimedia Nederland, like all chapters, puts a lot of
> > effort
> > > > in raising awareness of and support for the Wikimedia projects.  I
> > would
> > > > really like to know if these efforts 'pay off'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sandra Rientjes
> > > > Directeur/Executive Director Wikimedia Nederland
> > > >
> > > > tel.(+31) (0)30 3200238 (ma, di, do)
> > > > mob. (+31) (0)6  31786379 (wo, vrij)
> > > >
> > > > www.wikimedia.nl
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mariaplaats 3
> > > > 3511 LH  Utrecht
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Op do 3 okt. 2019 om 09:13 schreef Chris Keating <
> > > > chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Chuck,
> > > > >
> > > > > The reasons the question keeps getting asked is because it was
> never
> > > > really
> > > > > answered in the first place.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only good reason I can think of for not publishing
> country-level
> > > data
> > > > > is that there are some countries where that could create risks to
> the
> > > WMF
> > > > > or individuals because they're places where giving donations to a
> US
> > > > > nonprofit is either illegal or politically risky.
> > > > >
> > > > > However that doesn't apply to most countries, so why not publish
> the
> > > data
> > > > > for most of the world?
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 1:34 AM Chuck Roslof  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Philip,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We do not publish country-level fundraising numbers. My colleague
> > > > Stephen
> > > > > > discussed why on this list a few years back, so rather than
> > > > paraphrasing
> > > > > > his previous email I'll just provide a link to it:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-November/085576.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Chuck
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > Charles M. Roslof
> > > > > > Legal Counsel
> > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > > Pronouns: they /he
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally
> privileged
> > > > > > information in it. If you have received this message by accident,
> > > > please
> > > > > > delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for
> the
> > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give
> legal
> > > > > advice
> > > > > > to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or
> > staff
> > > > > > members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Scholarship for 2020 Wikimania now open

2020-02-19 Thread effe iets anders
For clarification, from the website:

* Deadline for applying for scholarships: *17 March 2020* 23:59 UTC-12:00

* Apply here: https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_81GOJ9AFVdPHZgp

and frequently asked questions:
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships/FAQ

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> Wikimania is fast approaching, this year it'll be held in Bangkok and as
> always the Wikimedia Foundation has a limited number of opportunities to
> assist people to attend. There are two types of scholarships the first
> being a full scholarship which covers, travel, accommodation, and
> registration, the second a  partial scholarship that covers accommodation
> and registration.
>
> This year for the first time East, South East Asia, and Pacific  (ESEAP)
> as collaboration between the region we'll be your host for Wikimania.  The
> region has placed a high importance on collaboration and knowledge sharing
> this years Wikimania program will reflect that. Our theme is;
> *Power of Diverse Collaboration*
> *Sharing knowledge brings people together*
>
> How does this impact on scholarship? ESEAP is looking for people who are
> prepared to share their knowledge to help develop potential future
> leaders.  We'll be looking for two broad areas of contributions, from those
> who have successfully developed programs, and those  newer contributors who
> want to develop their skills to do more but have never been to a Wikimania
> to broaden their support networks.
>
> As you apply please agree to share your details with the local affiliate
> should they also have scholarships available. When answering questions if
> you have urls to reports, dashboards, and events please provide them.
> Rather than writing lots of words again let your past recordings speak.
>
> On behalf of the ESEAP community, and the Scholarship committee we look
> forward to seeing you in Bangkok in August.
>
> --
> Gnangarra
> Wikimania Scholarship committee Co-chair
>
> *Power of Diverse Collaboration*
> *Sharing knowledge brings people together*
> Wikimania Bangkok 2020
> August 5 to 9
> hosted by ESEAP
>
> Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>
>
> ___
> 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, 


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

2020-01-15 Thread effe iets anders
Just to emphasize my point: I have searched, and was still unable to find
any serious consideration or response for some of the feedback that was
provided all the way back in August. In the next iteration, these examples
seem to have been ignored.

It may well be that this is a particularly sad example and that in other
cases this was done much better, or that I happen to be looking at this one
WG that didn't engage/respond/consider . However, this strengthens my
feeling that it would be nice to have open and clear expectations to the
community what will be done with their feedback.

From Kaarels message in another thread I seem forced to conclude that no
changes should be expected based on feedback (that would be the same as my
very limited experience last August), but that someone will only summarize
opposition in some report to the board. Is that a correct reading? This
strongly informs the strategy for community members to follow: try to
engage in an argument/conversation, or in activist petitions, if they would
have concerns with some recommendation.

Lodewijk

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:42 AM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Hi Nicole,
>
> Last round (or was it the round before that?) there were some disappointed
> community members because their feedback did not really spark any
> conversation/exchange in a timely manner. I don't want to go back to focus
> on things that coulda woulda shoulda been better though.
>
> However, I did want to ask whether this time, you (plural) could commit to
> provide timely engagement with the feedback. As I understand it, there will
> be a single round of feedback (even if it is a six week round), before the
> board votes on it. It would be nice if we could make that truly interactive
> and most likely to result in improvements and addressing concerns, rather
> than registering them.
>
> Would you, for example, be able to commit to a three day response time to
> constructive questions? Maybe even to actively entertain constructive
> improvement suggestions?
>
> I realize that there has been a long process within the walls of many
> committees so far - and that no change will be easy to make without risking
> the fabric. Your initial announcement sounds a bit like you're only
> collecting 'feedback' which you will 'summarize' and report back - which
> suggests that not much will happen with it unless we collectively make a
> lot of noise.
>
> I would much prefer an active and constructive conversation with the
> committee members, which is open for actual change over a set of
> petitions/protests.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:38 AM Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We’ve got lots of news to share from movement strategy: The first version
>> of the movement strategy document is almost ready, and we’ll be starting a
>> new round of community conversations.
>>
>> == First version of the movement strategy document coming next week ==
>> The writers have been hard at work developing the first version of the
>> movement strategy document. A key part of this has been turning the 89
>> recommendations produced by the nine working groups into one coherent set
>> and consolidating the work into 13 recommendations. Alongside this, the
>> document also features principles that guide the recommendations and a
>> narrative of change that summarizes how the recommendations fit together
>> and contribute to helping our Movement align with our strategic direction.
>>
>> There has been a high level of activity in the last few weeks, both by the
>> writers and the community strategy liaisons, to create a set of
>> recommendations that encompasses the work of the working groups and the
>> broad community input received throughout the process. They’ve gone above
>> and beyond what was asked of them, and I would like to thank them
>> wholeheartedly for the huge effort they’ve invested into this work and for
>> their inspiring dedication to making this happen.
>>
>> == Community conversations begin next week ==
>> A new round of community conversations around this document will begin
>> next
>> week. We encourage people from across our Movement – members of online
>> communities, affiliates, boards, WMF staff – to review the recommendations
>> and share what these might mean for their community, organization, or
>> context. With this round, we are looking to come to a common understanding
>> that the recommendations enable us to move forward in our strategic
>> direction.
>>
>> Conversations will be held on Meta [1], on various language wikis, on
>> social media, and on your community’s other preferred channels. They will
>> run until the fi

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

2020-01-14 Thread effe iets anders
Hi Nicole,

Last round (or was it the round before that?) there were some disappointed
community members because their feedback did not really spark any
conversation/exchange in a timely manner. I don't want to go back to focus
on things that coulda woulda shoulda been better though.

However, I did want to ask whether this time, you (plural) could commit to
provide timely engagement with the feedback. As I understand it, there will
be a single round of feedback (even if it is a six week round), before the
board votes on it. It would be nice if we could make that truly interactive
and most likely to result in improvements and addressing concerns, rather
than registering them.

Would you, for example, be able to commit to a three day response time to
constructive questions? Maybe even to actively entertain constructive
improvement suggestions?

I realize that there has been a long process within the walls of many
committees so far - and that no change will be easy to make without risking
the fabric. Your initial announcement sounds a bit like you're only
collecting 'feedback' which you will 'summarize' and report back - which
suggests that not much will happen with it unless we collectively make a
lot of noise.

I would much prefer an active and constructive conversation with the
committee members, which is open for actual change over a set of
petitions/protests.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:38 AM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We’ve got lots of news to share from movement strategy: The first version
> of the movement strategy document is almost ready, and we’ll be starting a
> new round of community conversations.
>
> == First version of the movement strategy document coming next week ==
> The writers have been hard at work developing the first version of the
> movement strategy document. A key part of this has been turning the 89
> recommendations produced by the nine working groups into one coherent set
> and consolidating the work into 13 recommendations. Alongside this, the
> document also features principles that guide the recommendations and a
> narrative of change that summarizes how the recommendations fit together
> and contribute to helping our Movement align with our strategic direction.
>
> There has been a high level of activity in the last few weeks, both by the
> writers and the community strategy liaisons, to create a set of
> recommendations that encompasses the work of the working groups and the
> broad community input received throughout the process. They’ve gone above
> and beyond what was asked of them, and I would like to thank them
> wholeheartedly for the huge effort they’ve invested into this work and for
> their inspiring dedication to making this happen.
>
> == Community conversations begin next week ==
> A new round of community conversations around this document will begin next
> week. We encourage people from across our Movement – members of online
> communities, affiliates, boards, WMF staff – to review the recommendations
> and share what these might mean for their community, organization, or
> context. With this round, we are looking to come to a common understanding
> that the recommendations enable us to move forward in our strategic
> direction.
>
> Conversations will be held on Meta [1], on various language wikis, on
> social media, and on your community’s other preferred channels. They will
> run until the first week of March. After that, the core team will take one
> week to summarize all community input and reflect it back in a short,
> public report. The community will then have one week to suggest changes to
> the posted summary so that it accurately reflects their viewpoints.
> Community Strategy Liaisons will help facilitate conversations in Arabic,
> French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, and Spanish. There will also be targeted
> support for English speaking communities. Finally, Strategy Liaisons from
> affiliates and online language communities will also receive support for
> facilitating conversations on their own channels.
>
> If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Looking forward
> to hearing from you soon.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
>
>
> --
> 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.
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] default import sources

2019-12-21 Thread effe iets anders
I remember bringing this up several years ago at Dutch Wikipedia, and from
what I recall, there were people that don't want the import function to be
active on their wiki for more fundamental reasons (they don't want old
versions to exist that were not created on their own wiki).

So I'm pretty sure that yeah, there would be people who are against a
sensible default.

It sounds like you want to do this as a workaround for poor access to
documentation (it's hard for people to figure out how the function works
and how to request stuff) - is that correct? If so, wouldn't it make more
sense to always link this kind of pages to a documentation page (ideally on
the same spot for all those special pages), and if the set of wiki's to
import from is empty, that we make that documentation even more explicitly
available?

Lodewijk

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 2:39 AM Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> One of these oddly-working features of MediaWiki is import sources: from
> which wikis can you import content into your wiki.
>
> The default is none. Nevertheless, a lot of wikis in all kinds of languages
> do want to import from other wikis, which makes a lot of sense. You can see
> the full list here:
> https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php
>
> (This page is huge; search for wgImportSources.)
>
> Since there is no default, every new wiki has to create its own entry
> there. It's not a part of the usual wiki creation process (
> https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Add_a_wiki ), so people only notice
> this when they try to import something and nothing works, at which point
> they often aren't sure who should they ask to fix this.
>
> Does anyone object to having some sensible default for this, so that at
> least something will work when people try to import?
>
> Taking the most common sources listed in the file above looks like a good
> starting point.
>
> I proposed this almost a year ago (
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T214139 ), but the commetns there
> suggest
> that a wider consensus is needed, so here I am.
>
> --
> 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] Donating to Wikipedia

2019-12-18 Thread effe iets anders
Yeah, I've been getting this feedback each year for at least the past years
too. I am pretty sure that most of the people who were alarmed and told me,
did not thoroughly read the message, but mostly picked up on cues. It may
be that I have more of such people in my circle of acquaintances than you :)

Lodewijk

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:44 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> I think the current messages are quite good and clear, the ones I've seen
> get better each year.
> I don't find the messaging alarmist or misleading.  But perhaps subtle cues
> can change how they are perceived.
>
> [I also don't usually get this feedback from people outside our community
> (last: in 2012), so it might just be random walks through feedback space.]
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:30 PM Michel Vuijlsteke 
> wrote:
>
> > This discussion comes back every year. Every year we get the same
> > reassurance that it's being looked into, that we'll try to do better,
> that
> > things have been tested, etc.
> >
> > The reality of the matter is that the alarmist and misleading stuff
> > *works*. And that it's most probably not going anywhere. Just like last
> > year and the year before.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, 22:58 Samuel Klein,  wrote:
> >
> > > I've heard this asked this by 3-4 people recently
> > > * A family member (checking in to make sure things were ok)
> > > * A local grantmaker (who likewise has supported WP at least once
> before)
> > > * A couple undergrads (on phones, asking eachother what to do if WP
> went
> > > down during finals)
> > >
> > > All worried either that there had bee some sudden change, or that
> > knowledge
> > > or access would be lost in the near future. Perhaps there's a way to
> > reach
> > > the same people while highlighting our commitment to persistent access
> to
> > > knowledge across time.  And maybe a way to measure interpretation or
> > > reaction to a banner in addition to its conversion rate.  [Some banners
> > are
> > > so delightful that they are a welcome improvement to a page without;
> and
> > > I've occasionally thought we should run some of those, w/ low
> > probability,
> > > continuously year-round.]
> > >
> > > Wikilove,
> > > SJ
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sadly I had a similar experience only this weekend.
> > > >
> > > > We were enjoying a going away lunch with friends who are out of the
> > > > country over Christmas, when one of them asked about Wikipedia's
> > > > problems, knowing that I often volunteer time to it. He claimed that
> > > > the site was spamming screen-sized pop-up banners trying to raise
> > > > money because they were going bust. I had to advise him how wealthy
> > > > the Foundation was, with hundreds of staff and extra cash in an
> > > > endowment fund.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it about time that the Wikimedia Foundation came to terms that
> > > > /plenty/ of money is made through sensible fundraising, without every
> > > > year embarrassing the whole Wikimedia Community by promoting the
> > > > impression that Wikipedia is about to close down if the public don't
> > > > give them enough money to keep their servers powered up over
> > > > Christmas? Making 10% more money every year is growth for the sake of
> > > > it unless we can understand in an accountable and transparent way
> > > > where that extra 10% is needed; preferably right there in the
> > > > fundraising banner so folks don't get the impression that Wikipedia
> is
> > > > about to vanish.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Fae
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 20:34, Jacob Jose 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I also felt like how Benjamin's dad did..  If one is viewing using
> > the
> > > > > mobile app, the red banners fill the entire screen and one has to
> > > scroll
> > > > > down to get to the content. I think the fund solicitation ads need
> to
> > > be
> > > > > much less loud than it's now..
> > > > >
> > > > > Background: I have been an active Wiki contributor for over 10
> years
> > > now.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:27 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My dad recently said to me:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I was solitated by them after looking something up.  I thought
> it
> > > > strange
> > > > > > the way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like
> > > they
> > > > > > might be shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Has there been any research into how common it is for readers to
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > > wrong impression from the marketing messaging?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've heard of this sort of thing happening before, and I think
> it's
> > > > highly
> > > > > > antithetical to our values to be deceptive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Remember Wikipedia Zero.. Where is the research about the effects of its demise?

2019-11-30 Thread effe iets anders
Hi Gerard,

It would be great if you could keep a slightly more constructive tone in
your messages. On one hand, you seem genuinely interested to help access to
free knowledge in Africa, but in your second email, you seem to jump (after
one response) to conclusions already. If you like to get real responses to
your emails, you may want to try a more constructive attitude. For me, it
is at least sufficiently offputting to disengage (I removed the rest of my
response/suggestions).

-- Lodewijk

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:34 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Kiwix and off line Wikipedia did exist at the start of Wikipedia Zero.  It
> is great that you brought some to Africa but you do not scale and it is not
> a study into the effects of what the effects are of terminating Wikipedia
> Zero.


> No idea what "Starlink"  is


https://lmgtfy.com/?q=starlink=l


> but it is not a reality for a few more years..
> It sounds like we have thrown all these kids under the bus but hey, we have
> plan. A plan/action is having our own caches in Africa and providing edit
> and read capabilities for all who care to use it... and then measure the
> extend it helps us recover from our Wikipedia Zero public.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 02:48, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > We have offline Wikipedia. I have shipped devices to Kinshasa, and
> > they arrived :-)
> >
> > Of course they do not at all address the need for two way communication.
> >
> > I am hoping Starlink will help when it comes online in a few years.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:19 AM Gerard Meijssen
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The BBC shows how dramatically expensive internet is in Africa.. For in
> > my
> > > opinion local political reasons Wikipedia Zero has terminated. That is
> ok
> > > up to a point; the point being that we understand the consequences from
> > > this action.
> > >
> > > Given that our data is NOT local, people have to pay a premium. What
> are
> > we
> > > going to do to compensate for expensive Wikipedia that replaced
> Wikipedia
> > > Zero? Did we study the effects or are we not interested in the
> > consequences
> > > of our actions?
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> > >
> > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-50516888
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> 
___
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] Yahoo/AOL warning

2019-10-11 Thread effe iets anders
(I'm not the most technical person, so feel free to correct imprecisions or
add better suggestions)
It feels like a blast from the past, but it turns out there's still a fair
amount of Yahoo/AOL users that are part of our community.

Just a fair warning: as has been known for a while now (at least 2013
), yahoo (and AOL?) emails
through mailman lists are often treated as spam by gmail email recipients.

This has gotten worse: I understand Yahoo may have blacklisted
lists.wikimedia.org altogether, and emails are bouncing. I noticed for some
50-100 email Yahoo and AOL addresses on the Wiki Loves Monuments mailing
list that they bounced back, and eventually got automatically unsubscribed.

So if you or a friend has a Yahoo or AOL email address - you/they may be at
risk of being unsubscribed from (some?) Wikimedia mailing lists without
notification. The only 'fix' that you can do, that I'm aware of, is slowly
moving to a different provider, if you want to be active on these lists.

The issue is being tracked without much visible activity here:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T232417 (there may be more relevant
tickets).

Best,
Lodewijk
___
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] [Affiliates] Recognition of the Wikimedians of Saint Petersburg User Group

2019-10-04 Thread effe iets anders
Sure, if you want to see it through that lens I guess you could argue such.
However, just to put things in perspective: 1) if a group has more active
cores, maybe they should be more broadly represented in Berlin. Maybe these
constructs shouldn't be necessary. 2) No matter how much some care about
the ASBS, I doubt that this will be a driving force to get more bureaucracy
(because that is the cost of setting up a UG). 3) funding for local
activities is probably not really a consideration in the case of Russia,
where foreign funding is (to put it mildly) 'complicated'.

Lets assume for the sake of the discussion that the group has legitimate
reasons to request affiliate status (although I have my assumptions, I'm
curious what tipped the scale).

Lodewijk


On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:01 AM Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> This is a very interesting strategy for any well developed affiliate. It
> allows :
>
> * decentralization, and stronger local groups, now as full fledged
> affiliates
> * more seats in Berlin and other conferences
> * more votes in the ASBS election
> * less financial burden over the national chapter, and additional funding
> for local activities.
>
> Huge and well established chapters like WMDE could easily set up dozens of
> local affiliates, with great advantage.
>
> Paulo
>
>
>
> A sexta, 4 de out de 2019, 08:04, Philip Kopetzky <
> philip.kopet...@gmail.com>
> escreveu:
>
> > I can only reiterate what Lodewijk said - I'm trying to find the approach
> > and goals in the decision to acknowledge user groups that seem to be an
> > integral part (or from an outside perspective, should be) of the national
> > chapter. In the past this has been an indicator of personal conflicts
> > within a chapter or user group and AffCom perpetuating these conflicts by
> > setting up competing affiliates (the situation in Albania being a recent
> > example of this).
> >
> > Best,
> > Philip
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 06:33, effe iets anders 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to note that one of the contacts of this user group is
> > > Vladimir Medeyko, the director of Wikimedia Russia. I'm assuming
> > > comfortably that this application happened in full coordination with
> > > Wikimedia Russia.
> > >
> > > The question about process is still an interesting one though (what is
> > > nowadays the approach of Affcom, and what are the considerations) when
> a
> > > user group application comes in from a geographic area with an active
> > > affiliate at a 'higher level' (in this case, a country). You could
> > continue
> > > the comparison with what happens if an application would come in from
> > South
> > > of Nevsky (a neighborhood in St. Petersburg).
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:29 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wikimedia NYC is a very different situation, there is not a national
> > > > chapter in the US, so it's not a cell of anything.
> > > > Just to clarify: Saint Petersburg eventually could not be a cell, but
> > the
> > > > way it is presented (to promote Wikimedia RU activities in SP, with
> > same
> > > > Wikimedia RU people), it's basically a cell.
> > > >
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > > Yuri Astrakhan  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > > 3/10/2019
> > > > à(s) 23:06:
> > > >
> > > > > What about Wikimedia NYC?  (I'm not sure of its organizational
> > status)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > > paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wales is a whole country complete with it's own language, I don't
> > > > believe
> > > > > > it compares with a city UG.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paulo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andy Mabbett  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > > > > 3/10/2019
> > > > > > à(s) 22:53:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 20:45, Paulo Santos Perneta
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why isn't it a department of Wikimedia Russia, if apparently
> > it's
> > > > > > > basically
> > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of the Wikimedians of Saint Petersburg User Group

2019-10-03 Thread effe iets anders
I would like to note that one of the contacts of this user group is
Vladimir Medeyko, the director of Wikimedia Russia. I'm assuming
comfortably that this application happened in full coordination with
Wikimedia Russia.

The question about process is still an interesting one though (what is
nowadays the approach of Affcom, and what are the considerations) when a
user group application comes in from a geographic area with an active
affiliate at a 'higher level' (in this case, a country). You could continue
the comparison with what happens if an application would come in from South
of Nevsky (a neighborhood in St. Petersburg).

Lodewijk

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:29 PM Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Wikimedia NYC is a very different situation, there is not a national
> chapter in the US, so it's not a cell of anything.
> Just to clarify: Saint Petersburg eventually could not be a cell, but the
> way it is presented (to promote Wikimedia RU activities in SP, with same
> Wikimedia RU people), it's basically a cell.
>
> Paulo
>
> Yuri Astrakhan  escreveu no dia quinta, 3/10/2019
> à(s) 23:06:
>
> > What about Wikimedia NYC?  (I'm not sure of its organizational status)
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wales is a whole country complete with it's own language, I don't
> believe
> > > it compares with a city UG.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > Andy Mabbett  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > 3/10/2019
> > > à(s) 22:53:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 20:45, Paulo Santos Perneta
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why isn't it a department of Wikimedia Russia, if apparently it's
> > > > basically
> > > > > a cell of Wikimedia Russia?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a curious precedent.
> > > >
> > > > The precedent was already set, in March 2017, by Wikimedia Community
> > > > User Group Wales (c/f Wikimedia UK).
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andy Mabbett
> > > > @pigsonthewing
> > > > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> 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 effe iets anders
Now imagine trying to explain the difference between a chapter, the
Foundation and the community when they have the same name...

Lodewijk

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:41 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners
> the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia and the relationship between
> them.
>
> In most cases we just use "Wikipedia" so as to not confuse them.
>
> Of course some people would share an opposing view for many reasons but I
> do think this rebranding is important.
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 9:29 PM Strainu 
> > Pe vineri, 6 septembrie 2019, Adrian Raddatz  a
> > scris:
> >
> > > Yet another potentially good idea from the Foundation killed by the
> usual
> > > atrocious style of stakeholder management. No benefits framed for the
> > > community,
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > no indication that this change is coming from the bottom up,
> >
> >
> > Huh? Have you seriously never seen people asking the difference between
> > Wikipedia and Wikimedia or wiki(m|p) edians complaining about how hard it
> > is to explain that difference?
> >
> > This change is very much a bottom up one, even if it is pushed by the WMF
> > using corporate procedures rather than by the community using an RfC.
> >
> >
> >
> > > no
> > > assurance that this change happens or not based on the results of the
> > > consultation.
> >
> >
> > I would say that it was pretty clear the change will happen :)
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > >
> > > You can't figure out the benefits to the community - your key
> stakeholder
> > > group - entirely as part of the consultation. You need to frame the
> > > consultation as figuring out how to achieve pre-identified benefits to
> > your
> > > stakeholders in the optimal way. You should also try to get buy-in from
> > key
> > > community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of
> > the
> > > consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns
> > into
> > > the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
> > >
> > > It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
> > >
> > > Adrian Raddatz
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > After the last disastrous WMF intervention in Wikipedia - Framgate -
> I
> > > > believe the timing is just perfect for the WMF to go forward with
> this
> > > fit
> > > > of creativity of branding themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation".
> > > >
> > > > It's one after another, and never stops.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > > Yaroslav Blanter  escreveu no dia sexta, 6/09/2019
> > > à(s)
> > > > 18:25:
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Welcoming Ryan Merkley to the Wikimedia Foundation

2019-08-14 Thread effe iets anders
Congrats Ryan!

The main question here at Wikimania is really... Will you be more like Leo
McGarry or like Doug Stamper as far as it comes to problem solving? :)

Lodewijk


On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 07:33 Rajeeb Dutta  wrote:

> Congrats Ryan & all my best wishes, thanks Katherine for the update.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rajeeb.
> (U: Marajozkee)
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 13-Aug-2019, at 10:15 PM, Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I’m excited to let you all know that Ryan Merkley, formerly CEO of
> Creative Commons, is joining the Wikimedia Foundation as my new chief of
> staff.
> >
> > Many of you have met Ryan before -- at CC Summit, Wikimania, Wikimedia
> Summit, or MozFest. He’s a leader in open source, open knowledge, and
> free-culture communities, and for the past five years, he’s been the CEO of
> Creative Commons, initiating programs like CC search to index all 1.6
> billion licensed works online. He’s passionate about the power of the
> commons, and the role that everyone can play in making it sustainable and
> open to all. I couldn’t be happier he’s now bringing this passion and
> experience to our movement.
> >
> > In Ryan’s own words, “My heart has always been in open communities, and
> the power of collective acts --  that is, the things that people can only
> do when they work together, like building a commons of free knowledge for
> every person.”
> >
> > For now, Ryan’s two top priorities will be bolstering the work of the
> movement strategy team and supporting the Board. He’ll support the strategy
> core team to move the Working Group recommendations into implementation
> within the community and Foundation over the course of the coming year.
> He’ll also serve as Board liaison to the Board of Trustees, strengthening
> the connections, communications, and coordination between Trustees and the
> Foundation. Internally, he’ll support the office of the Executive Director,
> acting in my stead on various projects.
> >
> > I’m excited by this new role for an old friend of the open community.
> Ryan knows our movement well. He has spent many hours with many
> Wikimedians, and understands the centrality of the community to the
> Wikimedia mission and identity. His background as a partner to Wikimedia,
> and a leader in the broader open movement will be invaluable to our work,
> and confirmation of the importance of community experience in Foundation
> leadership.
> >
> > Ryan doesn’t start in his new role until Monday, September 16th.
> However, he will be at Wikimania, so for those of you attending, please say
> hi, and join me in welcoming him to Wikimedia!
> >
> > Katherine
> >
> > P.S. This announcement can also be found on our news page:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/08/13/wikimedia-foundation-welcomes-ryan-merkley-as-chief-of-staff-to-the-office-of-the-executive-director
> >
> > --
> >
> > Katherine Maher (she/her)
> > Executive Director
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > ___
> > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ___
> > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-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] Announcement from the Board of Wikimedia Belgium (WMBE)

2019-08-02 Thread effe iets anders
Thanks for the update Geert. I'll join you in thanking Romaine for the vast
amounts of work that he has done over the past years in Belgium. I think
this was a great trigger to get the chapter to where it is now - even if I
have only seen the tip of the activities from my comfortable outsider
position.

I hope to see you soon again both!

Lodewijk

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:55 AM Geert Van Pamel  wrote:

> Romaine has decided to step down as Board member of Wikimedia Belgium
> (WMBE). Following an international escalating conflict and an
> unauthorized email, he has been feeling stressed and prefers to live in a
> safe environment, and give priority to his own health. [1]
>
> It is important to provide a safe environment for all volunteers. As such
> the board of Wikimedia Belgium, based on a proposal of the
> General Assembly, has requested the Affiliate Chairs to vote to request an
> Internal audit (based on international best
> practices/standards/norms) of major WMF procedures. [2]
>
> WMBE sincerely thanks Romaine for co-founding Wikimedia Belgium and for
> his valued work during his years as Board member. WMBE
> regrets having lost one of her most active Board members. It is a loss for
> the association, our partners in Belgium and abroad, and
> for the Wikimedia community as a whole. [3]
>
> The WMBE Board temporarily assigns the Treasurer function to the Chair
> until a new candidate is found. The WMBE statutes allow the
> Board to assign technical functions outside of the Board. We would welcome
> candidates. [4]
>
> We hope we can return to a safe environment, and that the focus goes back
> to where WMBE was founded for: activities to get more free
> knowledge.
>
> -- The Board of Wikimedia Belgium (WMBE)
> -- Geert Van Pamel, Chair of Wikimedia Belgium
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-June/092878.html
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_WMF_Internal_audits_and_appeal_procedures
> [3]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-June/092909.html
> [4] http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/tsv_pdf/2014/10/17/14190820.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Belated update from Wikimedia Portugal

2019-08-02 Thread effe iets anders
Thanks for the update - I'm glad this got resolved.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:50 AM Rajeeb Dutta  wrote:

> Great news and many many congratulations to all the winners.
> Thanks Gonçalo for the update.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rajeeb.
> (U: Marajozkee)
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 31-Jul-2019, at 6:09 PM, camelia boban 
> wrote:
> >
> > Great and congratulations to Wiki Loves Earth PT & ES 2019 winners.
> > Thank you Gonçalo for this update.
>
> ___
> 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] fallout from 2018 Wikimedian of the Year announcement

2019-07-25 Thread effe iets anders
Hey Farhad,

really impressive how you managed to leverage this opportunity. Thank you
for putting in all this effort, it's heart warming to see you and your
colleagues so busy.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:16 PM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin <
f...@yandex.com> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> Over the course of last 3 months we have:
> * Completed prequalifying & judging Tatar 4.0 contest in partnership with
> World Tatar Youth Forum (Youth wing of World Congress of Tatars ethnic NGO)
> with over 100 participants & 60 school teams writing their first articles
> in ttWP.[1]
> * Publicly launched cooperation with Tatar internet development Fund (NGO)
> during 7th Tatar Literary Marathon closing ceremony.[2]
> * Presented lead regional library with Qur'ans in Spanish, French &
> Romanian on behalf of WUG TAT, Wikimedia RUSSIA & Wikimedia movement (on
> last Friday of Ramadan).[3]
> * Had over 200 people sign-up for Spring 2019 Selet WikiSchool.[4]
> * First CEE Spring in ttWP with over 5 active participants.[5]
> * Our long time partner Selet Youth Foundation signed a cooperation
> agreement with Wikimedia Russia & inviting Russia's and foreign Wikimedians
> to run a Wiki-session during 2019 IT BILER FORUM of theirs.[6] Katherine
> Maher and Jimmy Wales were replaced by Nichole Saad & Amir Aharoni.[7]
> * We agreed with Kazan State Institute for Culture to start Wiki-education
> cooperation around promoting regional cultural heritage on WData, Commons,
> Wpedias, etc.[8]
> * Kazan Federal University's Institute of International Relations
> initiated an MOU with Wikimedia Russia to do similar things around
> activities of Regional Economic Geography & Eurasian Studies (as part of
> mandatory practical internships program for students), also expressing
> potential interest to host a public multilingual WikiClub on their premises
> downtown Kazan.[9]
> * Restarted work with Regional Tourism Authority to move their
> www.visit-tatarstan.com to CC-BY
> * Recent meeting in Tatarstan Presidential Administration resulted in
> Regional Department of Education making a request to be provided with a
> standardized step-by-step guide for elementary and secondary school
> teachers to use Wiki in all subjects taught in various languages (mainly
> Tatar, Russian and English, some other foreign languages as well).[10] I
> was requested to provide first feedback in about a week, so meanwhile
> decided to inquire about possibility of reactivating Russian Vikidia &
> opening one in Tatar.[11] (CC-BY-SA Wiki for 8-13 year olds)
> * Various other leads with Education and Publishing partners.
>
> Next update will be around Wikimania, so I might change the topic as we
> will pass the baton to the 2019 Wikimedian of the Year then :)
> regards,
> farhad
>
>
> [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:TATAR_4.0_contest
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:7th_Tatar_Literary_Marathon
> [3]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2019_Library_in_the_Park_in_Kazan
> [4] Spring 2019 Selet WikiSchool Wiki-page - https://w.wiki/3ZS  (in
> Tatar, links to 4 Wiki-trips, 5 Master-classes & 3 practical editing
> sessions over YouTube, some registrations)
> [5] CEE Spring 2019 in ttWP - https://w.wiki/6AN (in Tatar)
> [6]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki-program_of_IT_BILER_FORUM
> [7]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-ru/2019-July/005119.html
> (in English)
> [8] Roadmap for raising awareness on regional Cultural Heritage -
> https://w.wiki/6AC (in Russian) -  to be followed in partnership with
> Kazan State Instute of Culture
> [9] On cooperation with Kazan Federal University Institute of
> International Relations Chair of Regional Economy and Eurasian Studies (in
> Russian)
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-ru/2019-July/005118.html
> [10] July & preceding progress report on Wiki-Tatarstan (in Russian)
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-ru/2019-July/005124.html
> [11] Inquiring on reactivating Russian & starting Tatar Vikidia
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-ru/2019-July/005129.html
> (in English)
>
> --
> Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / Wikidata:Q34036417
>
>
> 22.04.2019, 19:22, "Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin"  >:
> > Regional department of education (elementary & secondary education) &
> Kazan Federal University today received instructions signed by the
> President of Tatarstan on integrating Wikimedia Education Program
> opportunities into the curricula of educational establishments of the
> Republic. I was asked for some guidance on the topic before tonight, so
> prepared what I could in Russian
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-ru/2019-April/005086.html
> > We are in the country with a centralized education system culture, so
> project owner will be the ministry, with Wikimedians serving as
> stakeholders, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Affiliations Committee : Wikimedia India's Demand For A Fair And Transparent Hearing

2019-07-15 Thread effe iets anders
Thank you Kirill for outlining the procedural component. That is helpful,
and paints a better picture. I know Affcom us always balancing in a tough
position, not only between interests but also between different levels of
transparency expectations.

The piece of information that I'm struggling to extract/find without
interpreting and reading between the lines (which I prefer not to do in
such a complex case), is what the underlying complaints/findings were. I
understand that there were reporting violations - but I also read something
about capacity issues.

I think it would be at the very least helpful to the wider community to
better understand that component. Could you spell out in a bit more detail
what those capacity concerns were, and what other findings may have
existed? This may especially be helpful to the India community, as it would
be especially hard to address the issues without a full understanding.

Thank you!

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:03 AM Kirill Lokshin 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia-l readers,
>
>
> AffCom understands the complexity and sensitivity of the circumstances
> surrounding the decision to de-recognize Wikimedia India as a chapter, and
> we would like to share more information around it. This decision was not
> taken lightly, and only came after consistent warnings, including
> suspensions of the chapter, and continued attempts by AffCom to bring the
> chapter’s activities in line with the requirements for chapter status. We
> understand that volunteers would like more information about this decision
> and past actions that influenced its outcome. We will attempt to provide an
> overview of the factors and history that led to this decision.
>
> Wikimedia India has been given ample time to address their lack of
> compliance with minimum chapter expectations since their initial signs of
> non-compliance in 2015 and concerns presented to them during their 2015
> site visits, initial 2016 suspension, and most recent 2018 suspension last
> November. The Wikimedia India Executive Committee (EC) has repeatedly
> failed to respond in a timely and complete manner to call requests, annual
> reporting timelines, and remediation deadlines for demonstrating
> compliance.
>
> It is worth noting that there may be issues related to incomplete
> information regarding the current relationship between WMIN and AffCom.
> Abhinav is a current WMIN representative, but he was recently appointed to
> the EC on June 14, 2019 [1] following the EC’s receipt of the final
> revocation notice sent on June 13, 2019. He was not informed of, nor did he
> participate in, our communications regarding the current suspension process
> before that time, so he has had to rely on second-hand knowledge of the
> situation. The remaining four members of the EC appear to have fully
> abdicated their responsibility for communications leadership and as such
> further confirm the chapter’s lack of capacity at this time.
>
> Suspension notices give explicit requirements for what and how to
> communicate with respect to a chapter’s capacity and provide a timeline for
> addressing gaps to meet requirements. We’re providing a table reflecting
> the most recent suspension notice, the requirements included, and the date
> they were to be delivered below for the community’s context:
>
> According to the suspension notice, Wikimedia India was to:
>
> Status
>
> Submit an Action Plan. By January 15, 2019, the chapter was to submit an
> updated Action Plan including a timeline with dates for completing the
> tasks outlined.
>
> Submitted past deadline.
>
> Received on March 4, 2019.
>
> Insufficient response; awaiting new action plan for potential
> reorganization as outlined in April call.
>
> Complete and submit the required overdue chapter activities and financial
> reporting. The chapter was to submit the reporting by December 1, 2018.
>
> Submitted past deadline.
>
> Received Activities Report on December 3, 2018 and Financial Report on
> December 22, 2018.
>
> Develop a strategy and timeline for addressing the following potential gaps
> in meeting the basic criteria for chapter status in terms of Legal
> Structure, Open Governance, Active Contributor Involvement, and Capacity.
> By
> January 15, 2019, the chapter was to submit a plan, via email or posted
> online, demonstrating how the chapter meets the specific chapter
> requirements outlined. If the chapter does not currently meet the
> requirements, they were to provide a plan and timeline for how to address
> these issues before June.
>
> Submitted past deadline.
>
> Received on March 4, 2019.
>
> Insufficient response as detailed in April call.
>
>
>
> Resolve concerns related to organizational best practices. By May 1, 2019,
> the chapter should be able to demonstrate that it is following the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board’s recommendations for organizational best
> practices
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Resolutions/Organizational_best_practices
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediaindia-l] Fwd: Open Letter to Affiliations Committee : Wikimedia India's Demand For A Fair And Transparent Hearing

2019-07-08 Thread effe iets anders
Thanks Abhinav for your email. I'm having a hard time splitting the email
out in a) what is the exact and complete set of reasons that Affcom put the
chapter on suspension. b) what additional complaints are part of the big
picture. c) what is the response from WMIN.

I realize it is really hard for you to separate these components, because
you have been living this discusion for the past 8 months (at least), if I
read this correctly.

You mention that AffCom has not heard your objections, but from the rest of
your email, it sounds more like they heard your responses (you mention both
written and oral communication), but they hold a different opinion on the
value of those objections. That may be because of a different set of
expectations. I know these discussions are always painful for everyone, and
I'm confident that AffCom does not enjoy suspending chapters. While this is
no legal procedure, it is their job to make the best decision both for the
movement as a whole and the Wikimedia movement in India.

Anyhow, I was unable to find the resolution that explains this decision, so
it's hard to really understand it. I do hope that you and affcom will be
able to work towards a solution together - probably by addressing the
underlying concerns.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 4:19 PM ravinder jadeja  wrote:

> It is such a long message and what I understand a very painful one for the
> writer. Asking Affcom to come in public with data is a right demand
> everyone can read then.
>
> I know FCRA is very tough thing today and I feel sorry reading that point
>
> What is this problem with CIS I am new and would like to know.
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 00:04, Subhashish Panigrahi 
> wrote:
>
>> Forwarding esp. for those Indian Wikimedians who are on the Wikimedia-l
>> list
>>
>> Subha
>>
>> -- Forwarded message -
>> From: Abhinav srivastava 
>> Date: Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 2:20 PM
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Affiliations Committee : Wikimedia
>> India's Demand For A Fair And Transparent Hearing
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>>
>>
>> Dear Friends From Affcom,
>>
>> I am posting an open public request for your notice of Suspension moved at
>> Wikimedia India (WMIN) which we continue to contest and to our ignored
>> demand of having a public hearing as shared with you all over mail and
>> shared again here under Annexure [A]. You have taken an official position
>> on suspension without even hearing us even once, unexplained accusations
>> have been provided and we continue to believe Affcom has been
>> insufficiently investigating facts before making judgements. We repeatedly
>> over and over again provided justifications over Mail but you never took
>> them to your notice and only over calls you heard us, provided your
>> rationale for expectation gaps but never took our oral commentary which
>> refutes your claims,in any action, anywhere. Now you say WMIN won’t remain
>> a Chapter after 14th September and be transformed into a User Group.
>>
>> Republic of India happens to be one of the only few countries where
>> besides
>> volunteer driven Chapter and User Groups has a full-time staff based WMF’s
>> Allied Organisation CIS-A2K [1]. Wikimedia India activities [2] may be
>> less
>> due to no source of funds [3] however, Community Members from India put
>> their efforts, strive hard to take the movement ahead.  Whether it be the
>> previous financial year or the present, no Wikimedia Foundation Grants
>> like
>> Rapid Grant, Project Grant etc have been applied by Wikimedia India
>> members
>> to support any Chapter activity. They remain self-financed. We received
>> your notice last year when Wikimedia India was contesting a dispute with
>> CIS-A2K over attribution grabbing for our self-financed projects and
>> ignoring Chapter at important National level initiaves [4]. While working
>> with virtually no source of funds and struggles with WMF’s Allied
>> Organisation, your notice of suspension was the least bad we could have
>> had.
>>
>> We continue to contest your suspension notice. It was Suo Moto (on its
>> own)
>> decision making and as found and re-stated above and below in detail,
>> there
>> were gaps and misunderstanding in your basis. We also continue to contest
>> there has been a Rush-to-decision making. No written responses via Mail to
>> Chapter’s clarification are being provided and invitation for calls are
>> initiated where brief responses are shared on a Cloud Document. It has
>> been
>> subsequently found by both parties on there being gaps in communication.
>> However, even after clarity during call, Affcom has not taken any action
>> over them.
>>
>> The basis of your suspension notice has been shared here for the wider
>> audience.
>>
>>
>>1.
>>
>>Legal Structure : Affcom asked Wikimedia India to resolve and obtain
>> its
>>necessary license in order to obtain funds. At present, as per
>> Government
>>of India restrictions it is difficult to obtain 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Code of Conduct committee candidates

2019-06-21 Thread effe iets anders
Hi Amir,

Thanks. I agree with your assessment.

Probably asking for the obvious: is there someone on the committee that
knows the real world identity (and the other way around, the online
pseudonym) of each member, and could flag a COI/suggest to abstain if need
be? (aside from people refraining themselves)

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:32 AM Amir Sarabadani  wrote:

> Hello,
> (As a member, not talking on behalf of the committee)
> The committee is a body of volunteers and they can't be forced to disclose
> their real identities. There's no such policy in the CoC and if you think
> it should be added, feel free start a discussion on CoC amendment [0] but
> in the mean time, we are not allowed and won't disclose people's real
> identities. The committee itself refrain involving people who have conflict
> of interest with the case (whether it involves them or someone close)
>
> [0] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Amendments
>
> Best
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:43 AM Thomas Townsend 
> wrote:
>
> > Amir
> >
> > May we not know the real names of the committee members, as opposed to
> > their pseudonyms?  Surely that is necessary, both as a matter of
> > general principle, and specifically in case it were ever to turn out
> > that a member of the committee might be involved in a complaint.
> >
> > The Turnip
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 10:39, Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > > The deadline for the public feedback was yesterday. Some objections
> have
> > > raised but committee decided not to change the structure of committee
> and
> > > its candidates. It means the new committee with the given members
> starts
> > > serving as of today until 19 June 2020.
> > >
> > > Please join me on thanking Nuria and Rosalie for their service and
> > welcome
> > > Tonina and MusikAnimal to the main members of the committee.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:13 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > > The committee has finished selecting new members and the new
> committee
> > > > candidates are (In alphabetical order):
> > > >
> > > >- Amir Sarabadani
> > > >- Lucie-Aimée Kaffee
> > > >- MusikAnimal
> > > >- Tonina Zhelyazkova
> > > >- Tony Thomas
> > > >
> > > > And auxiliary members will be (In alphabetical order):
> > > >
> > > >- Huji
> > > >- Matanya
> > > >- Nuria Ruiz
> > > >- Rosalie Perside
> > > >- Tpt
> > > >
> > > > You can read more about the members in [0]
> > > >
> > > > The changes are:
> > > > * Nuria and Rosalie are moving from main member to auxilary members
> > > > * MusikAnimal is moving from auxilary member to main
> > > > * Tonina Zhelyazkova is joining the main members
> > > >
> > > > This is not the final structure. According to the CoC [1], the
> current
> > > > committee publishes the new members and call for public feedback for
> > *six
> > > > weeks* and after that, the current committtee might apply changes to
> > the
> > > > structure based on public feedback.
> > > >
> > > > Please let the committee know if you have any concern regarding the
> > > > members and its structure until *19 June 2019* and after that, the
> new
> > > > committee will be in effect and will serve for a year.
> > > >
> > > > [0]:
> > > >
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Committee/Members/Candidates
> > > > [1]:
> > > >
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Committee#Selection_of_new_members
> > > >
> > > > Amir, On behalf of the Code of Conduct committee
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Amir (he/him)
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Amir (he/him)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Some goodbye to all

2019-06-20 Thread effe iets anders
Gerard, I think your comment is highly inappropriate. I don't generally
like to pile on, but this needs calling out. When discussing these
sensitive topics, the very least we can expect, is a careful approach to
the matter.

I don't know the underlying situation well enough to establish who's right,
to verify claims or to find whether the actions taken are reasonable (be it
towards Romaine or towards the complainants). I can only assume you have
roughly the same amount of information - and in such a situation a level of
humility would be fitting.

We can discuss process, but should never say that involved parties 'make
this about themselves'. Leave that determination to those who are actually
familiar with all the facts.

Lodewijk

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:03 PM Philip Kopetzky 
wrote:

> Thanks Molly for your thoughtful words, I really hope your words make some
> people think about their own replies in this thread.
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 23:42, GorillaWarfare <
> gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I do not know Romaine, I do not know Caroline, and I do not know much
> about
> > the events that have led up to all of this other than what has been said
> on
> > this mailing list. It is easy to take sides in cases like these, based on
> > who you know best, your past experiences with that person, and a
> multitude
> > of other reasons. I suspect no one truly knows the whole story (even the
> > folks who were directly involved—after all, you can never know the
> > intentions of another person, or how they are interpreting your own
> > actions). But what we do know is that some actions Romaine took led to
> > Trust & Safety deciding they needed to intervene. They are tasked with
> > keeping people within our movement safe, both online and in person at
> > events. In my experience they do an extremely good job.
> >
> > It is extremely disappointing, and *extremely typical* of the Wikimedia
> > movement, to see an entire thread like this dedicated to supporting
> someone
> > who Trust & Safety has found to have acted in such a way that they had to
> > intervene. It is even more disappointing to see a person who was affected
> > by his actions told "this is not your story" and "it may help you when
> you
> > grow some sensitivity and respect this experience, the
> > feelings of others."
> >
> > If you're wondering why women leave the Wikimedia movement, and why
> > Wikimedia has such a bad harassment problem in general, just reflect on
> > this thread.
> >
> > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 6:26 PM Pierre-Selim 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Her POV ?
> > >
> > > Well I can confirm what Caroline said.
> > >
> > > What more do you want ? To verify all other reports ?
> > >
> > > It's sad that things have escalated this far, but may be it's time to
> > > wonder why it escalated like that. There was multiple incidents
> reported.
> > > Things that should have stayed private were told on this mailing list
> by
> > > Romaine... well when do we stop this ?
> > >
> > > Please keep in mind when you cast your support here that people who
> have
> > > reported Romaine might be reading this.
> > >
> > > Le jeu. 20 juin 2019 à 23:12, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > Caroline,
> > > > For me this is not your story. Your insistence of making it so has
> > quite
> > > > the opposite effect. I have known Romaine, the tireless efforts for
> us
> > > all
> > > > he has given us over the years, I grieve for our collective loss. I
> do
> > > not
> > > > know you and you are intruding on what is a feeling shared by many.
> It
> > > may
> > > > help you when you grow some sensitivity and respect this experience,
> > the
> > > > feelings of others. Maybe it is too difficult for you, I do not know
> > as I
> > > > do not know you at all.
> > > >
> > > > What I wonder is to what extend do you know Romaine, to what extend
> are
> > > you
> > > > stuck in your pov.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 19:00, Caroline Becker <
> carobecke...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is such a lost. Not only did you waisted an opportunity to
> learn
> > > and
> > > > > grow from your mistakes the first time, you reiterate here, showing
> > no
> > > > > willingness to grow and learn.
> > > > >
> > > > > But why would you take the difficult path, when by just claiming
> your
> > > > right
> > > > > to "weirdness" (which I guess only apply to you and none to the
> > people
> > > > you
> > > > > hurt), you're rewarding with public support ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Caroline
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Le jeu. 20 juin 2019 à 18:55, Dennis During  a
> > > > écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am ashamed that the movement has a climate that allows this
> > > > unfortunate
> > > > > > outcome
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:15 AM Romaine Wiki <
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

2019-06-17 Thread effe iets anders
The landscape has changed quite a bit since 2012, and there are a number of
players that could offer a service like this by now. It may be worthwhile
exploring them briefly (including but not limited to Google), if we believe
this is important enough to invest time in (and I agree that there is a
number of use cases from the community point of view at least).

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:24 AM James Forrester 
wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> > It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their API
> > for searching images,
> > so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free access
> > for automated search).
> > That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons workflow for
> > years.
> > And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.
> >
>
> Yann,
>
> As you should remember, we asked Google for API access to their reverse
> image search system, years ago (maybe 2013?). They said that there isn't
> such an API any more (they killed it off in ~2012, I think), and that they
> wouldn't make a custom one for us. The only commercial alternative we found
> at the time would have cost us approximately US$3m a month at upload
> frequency for Commons then, and when contacted said they wouldn't do any
> discounts for Wikimedia. Obviously, this is far too much for the
> Foundation's budget (it would be even more now), and an inappropriate way
> to spend donor funds. Providing the service in-house would involve building
> a search index of the entire Internet's (generally non-free) images and
> media, which would cost a fortune and is totally incompatible with the
> mission of the movement. This was relayed out to Commons volunteers at the
> time, I'm pretty sure.
>
> Obviously Google might have changed their mind, though it seems unlikely. I
> imagine that Google engineers and product owners don't follow this list, so
> it's unlikely that they will re-create the API without being asked
> directly.
>
> J.
> --
> *James D. Forrester* (he/him  or they/themself
> )
> 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, 


[Wikimedia-l] Trust & Safety (was: New board for...)

2019-06-17 Thread effe iets anders
(forking the discussion to allow a focus on more general line, rather than
the specifics of who wrote what, why and when)
My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is a
neutral review option for actions by the T team (or the WMF in general),
such as an ombudsperson.

A detailed discussion or evaluation of specific sanctions by the Trust and
Safety team is not the kind of conversation to have publicly - I think most
people agree on this. In conversations like this, there is always at least
one party less comfortable to discuss the matter in public (or even discuss
it at all, indeed).

At the same time, if actions are so severe, it's good if there is
opportunity to have a review of the actions taken by a third party, to
confirm to the person against who sanctions have been laid (or complainants
in case no sanctions were laid), that appropriate processes were followed.

(This is perhaps stating the obvious - and I should acknowledge that I
don't know enough about WMF processes today to know for sure whether this
has maybe already even been implemented in the WMF structures a long time
ago. I do get the impression though that if this is the case, not everyone
is familiar with this option.)

Best,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> 
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:48 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2019-06-14 Thread effe iets anders
For those trying to grasp what's going on, some more links:
- Statement by the SuSa team manager, explaining the WMF viewpoint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Statement_from_Jan_Eissfeldt,_Lead_Manager_of_Trust_&_Safety

- Arbcom case around the desysop/resysop of WJBscribe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WJBscribe

I haven't read everything in detail, but these seem the snippets most
relevant to the global community. I'm still struggling to find a good
summary of what the new (global) processes/policies of SuSa to address
harassment in the broad sense of the word are - Jan only linked to an
annual plan announcing them. But then, given the sheer amount of text, I
probably missed it if anyone posted a link.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:16 PM Dan Rosenthal  wrote:

> Wow, that logs page is something else. Pretty ironic that Bishonen would
> accuse the Office account of "wheel warring", when the wheel warring policy
> explicitly states that reversing an Office Action is indicative of wheel
> warring. So I'm *sure* we'll see suitable discussions of sanctions for the
> knowing, planned, intentional reversal of an office action against policy,
> right?
>
> Possible indications of an incipient wheel war:
>
>- An administrator getting too distressed to discuss calmly.
>- Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a
>unilateral preferred action.
>- Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation.
>- *Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions>.*
>
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> Great, now we have a wheelwar going on (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=Fram
>> ). I
>> have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.
>>
>> A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody
>> really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to lead to
>> any
>> constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and
>> brings
>> together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control.
>> (I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least
>> privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly
>> if it does not).
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
>> > people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
>> >
>> > It also insults the editors who have managed to do both.  I know an
>> > en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
>> > feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
>> >
>> > Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
>> > community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
>> > veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
>> > victims of harassment asking T for help.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
>> admin,
>> > > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
>> ourselves
>> > > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without
>> intervening to
>> > > stop it."
>> > >
>> > > First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
>> > > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
>> > > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
>> > > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of
>> the
>> > > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
>> > >
>> > > Todd
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban <
>> camelia.bo...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I quote David and Isaac.
>> > > > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of
>> any
>> > wiki
>> > > > behavior.
>> > > > Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
>> > admin,
>> > > > all these discussions would not have 

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

2019-06-14 Thread effe iets anders
Great, now we have a wheelwar going on (
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=Fram ). I
have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.

A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody
really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to lead to any
constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and brings
together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control.
(I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least
privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly
if it does not).

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
> people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
>
> It also insults the editors who have managed to do both.  I know an
> en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
> feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
>
> Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
> community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
> veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
> victims of harassment asking T for help.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > "Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> > stop it."
> >
> > First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
> > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I quote David and Isaac.
> > > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
> wiki
> > > behavior.
> > > Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
> admin,
> > > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
> ourselves
> > > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening
> to
> > > stop it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Camelia
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Camelia Boban*
> > >
> > > *| Java EE Developer |*
> > >
> > > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> > > Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> > > Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
> > >
> > > *Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
> > > WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
> > >
> > > M. +39 3383385545
> > > camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> > > *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
> > >  *|* *LinkedIn
> > > *
> > > *Wikipedia  **|
> > > **WikiDonne
> > > UG * | *WikiDonne Project
> > >  *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Fæ
> > > >
> > > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If the English
> > > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > > > suggests
> > > > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to
> happen or
> > > be
> > > > productive.
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing our newest chapter, Wikimedia Korea

2019-04-23 Thread effe iets anders
Refreshing to see some positive development here again, after all the
complications, setbacks etc - welcome to your new status WMKR! It was
always a joy to see you at work in activities, looking forward to hearing
even more from you again :)

Lodewijk

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 3:11 PM María Sefidari 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I am happy to share that earlier this year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees approved our newest Wikimedia chapter - Wikimedia Korea!
>
> For more information about our newest Wikimedia chapter, Wikimedia Korea,
> please see the announcement on the Wikimedia Foundation website:
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/23/wikimedia-korea-new-chapter-affiliate-launches-in-south-korea/
>
> I want to congratulate the new chapter and recognize their commitment,
> efforts, and time involved in moving through the chapter recognition
> process over the past year. From their work building partnerships with
> universities, to supporting and training new editors in South Korea, we
> look forward to seeing the impactful work from our community members in
> South Korea as they advance in their new affiliate role.
>
> As many of you know, this is our first chapter approval in several years -
> since the newest Wikimedia affiliate approval processes were put in place.
> This marks a new moment in the history of our Wikimedia movement
> affiliates. The Board appreciates the amazing work coming from these user
> groups around the world, and is inspired to see how far some of these
> groups have come in terms of their impact both on our movement and their
> local communities. Indeed, we should all be proud of the impact our
> affiliates continue to have on our projects, our vision, and the world
> around us.
>
> Any affiliate interested in becoming a chapter or thematic organization
> must have at least two years of activities and experience as a user group
> before applying. Please check out the user group creation guide to get a
> user group started - it is meant to be very easy:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Creation_guide
>
>
> You can find a lot more information about our movement affiliates model on
> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Models
>
> You may also reach out to the Affiliations Committee with questions or to
> begin the approval process for your group:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee
> Please join me in congratulating Wikimedia Korea for this important
> achievement and thanking the members of the Affiliations Committee and
> Wikimedia Foundation staff who supported and worked with them during this
> long process.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> María
>
> --
>
> María Sefidari Huici
>
> Chair of the Board
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changed plus next steps

2019-02-20 Thread effe iets anders
As for process.. While I appreciate that this time, the change was at least
announced before the vote, and that some board members at least engaged in
some conversation - I have yet to see how this was taken into consideration
by the board as a whole. It feels like the board already made up its mind.

What is surprising me most, is that it took a month for this announcement
to be made - especially considering a time sensitive process being impacted
by this decision. Or did I miss a more timely announcement elsewhere?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:19 AM Santiago Navarro <
santiagonava...@wikimedia.es> wrote:

> In fact, I did not participate in the discussion page on meta about
> that, because I guessed that my opinion would not be taken in account,
> neither discussed, and now it seems that, sadly, I was right in that
> thought.
>
> El 2019-02-19 17:25, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel escribió:
> > Antanana and the board,
> >
> > I find it sad and disappointing that after such a long conversation on
> > the
> > talk page, there wasn't any comment on the talk page or in this
> > statement
> > about the problem of double voting by many UG's members. Did the board
> > even
> > discuss that or we just wasted our time giving feedback on it?
> >
> > Ensuring equality in voting is the basis for every democracy and is
> > trampled here completely without any comment from the board about how
> > to
> > ensure it.
> >
> >
> > *Itzik Edri*
> > Chairperson
> > it...@wikimedia.org.il
> > +972-54-5878078
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:18 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all!
> >>
> >> The Wikimedia Foundation Board has unanimously approved the changes to
> >> the
> >> Bylaws [1] during the last Board meeting on January 30, 2019. This
> >> will be
> >> covered in the minutes, and the resolution will be published in short
> >> order.
> >>
> >> This change allows the participation of User Groups [2] in the
> >> Affiliate-selected Board seats (ASBS) 2019 process [3].  The
> >> discussion
> >> about this process should start as soon as possible in order to have
> >> these
> >> two seats selected by Wikimania. This is why we are sending this
> >> letter
> >> now, before the resolution is published.
> >>
> >> There are now over 100 recognized User Groups, covering over 50
> >> countries,
> >> several languages and topics, many of whom represent new and emergent
> >> communities within the Wikimedia movement. The Board believes that the
> >> added perspectives of the User Groups, combined with the voices of
> >> Chapters
> >> and Thematic Organizations, will lead to a richer collection of
> >> guidance
> >> for our movement. The conversation about how User Groups may
> >> participate in
> >> this process has been on for years, it is not a new topic [4].
> >>
> >> Once the facilitators of the Selection process are appointed by the
> >> affiliates, they should work with María Sefidari, who has been chosen
> >> by
> >> the Board as the Board liaison for the ASBS process.
> >>
> >> Given the potential complexity of organizing a process that now will
> >> include over a hundred user groups, the Wikimedia Foundation is
> >> offering
> >> its support to set up infrastructure and help with communications if
> >> requested by the affiliates.
> >>
> >> A page for translation can be found at:
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Wikimedia_Foundation_Bylaws_changed_plus_next_steps
> >>
> >> On behalf of the Board
> >>
> >> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> >>
> >> Chair of the Board Governance Committee
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/December_2018_-_Affiliate-selected_trustees,_term_limits,_and_diversity
> >>
> >>
> >> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups
> >>
> >>
> >> [3]
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019
> >>
> >>
> >> [4]
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/January_2014_-_Amendment_for_Trustees_selected_by_Chapters_and_Thematic_Organizations
> >>
> >> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> >> working
> >> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend.
> >> You
> >> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you
> >> in
> >> advance!*
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Analytics] Farewell, Erik!

2019-02-06 Thread effe iets anders
I have always enjoyed Erik's insightful input - especially the insights
that people don't like to hear at first. I trust that much more of that is
to come in the future, so I'm not ready to say farewells :). I wouldn't be
able to accurately summarize it anyway.

Erik, I hope that you'll find a lot of joy in the beautiful tree project
that you're working on these days (folks, definitely check it out if you're
interested in Leiden's horticulture). It is another beautiful example of
how you manage to visualize the things that sound dull without you
explaining them. Your presentations at Wikimania were for that reason
usually the ones I most looked forward to.

What maybe not everyone realizes, is that Erik is one of the people that
the French Wikipedia would categorize as 'Grand Ancients
',
having been active since 2001. A unique understanding of the history of
Wikipedia combined with dedication and understanding data has clearly
resulted in good work. Thanks for summarizing this so elaborately, Dario :)

Until soon,

Lodewijk

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:54 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Thanks for your work, Erik. I hope that we will see you in the future.
>
> This is the first time that I can recall hearing about a person retiring
> from WMF. Volunteer retirements and semi-retirements happen regularly, and
> the reasons that I hear for those retirements are often sad. It's nice to
> hear of someone who is retiring after years of success and is moving in a
> positive direction.
>
> I think that you leave a good legacy in the Wikiverse, and as you might
> guess from my username, I like what you chose for your next project.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> ___
> Analytics mailing list
> analyt...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
___
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] Questions about proposed new Chapter agreement for Wikimedia Portugal

2019-01-27 Thread effe iets anders
Hi Gonçalo,

Thanks for sharing. I share most of your concerns, reading your explanation
- and they seem reasonable. I find it particularly odd that such major
changes are forced upon the chapter in this situation. If these changes are
necessary, it would be better to discuss them in a global context, and
renew all chapters agreements - not by doing it whenever convenient. This
way the chapters get on unequal footing, and confusion is bound to arise
who has which permissions.

I'm less concerned about the reporting etc, but mostly concerned about the
conditions that reduce the effectiveness of the chapter. The tagline is, if
indeed meaning what you think it does, wholly impractical and something I
remember fighting several years back in the time of Mike Godwin as legal
counsel (yeah, quite a while back). It's a returning theme: it would be
more convenient for the WMF to have chapters put all these restrictions on
themselves, but it makes the work of the chapters less effective.

My big question here is always: how can we best leverage the work of
volunteers. How can we make sure that we use the efforts and resources that
chapters collect - and I'm mostly talking about relationships, goodwill and
volunteer time - to their fullest extent for our joint mission. The
bureaucracy of trademarks and agreements that we create should be there to
serve that mission.

I don't have immediate answers for you because I'm no legal expert and
don't have the time or background to read up on everything this touches on.
I realize that I'm rushing to conclusions probably on limited information.
But this should imho be the compass, and I hope that the WMF can use the
same. Even if that means it is inconvenient.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 5:18 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Gonçalo,
>
> I have limited familiarity with the situation with Wikimedia Portugal, but
> I am glad that there seems to be some movement on a path forward here.
>
> I have had similar questions about WMF trademarks in the past. My quick
> read of the trademark provisions that you included in your email is that
> they may need clarification but I don't think of them as being "red flags"
> that should stop progress.
>
> I don't know what WMF's legal research has revealed regarding WMPT's
> situation. My guess is that WMF is being understandably cautious about WMPT
> until WMF has greater certainty about WMPT's governance. You could ask WMF
> to explain why it made the proposal that it did.
>
> I understand the concern about annual governance reviews. I would support
> WMF providing sufficient (not lavish, but sufficient) grant funding for
> WMPT to hire a contractor to perform the governance reviews that WMF wants.
>
> Overall, I think that your concerns and questions are good and should be
> discussed between WMPT, WMF Legal, and Affcom. I understand why you would
> make these questions public and request input from the wider community.
> Personally, I do not see "red flags" in the language that you quoted, and I
> am glad to see that there seems to be some positive steps happening with
> regards to the situation between WMPT, WMF, and Affcom. WMPT might consider
> asking WMF for more favorable terms for the chapter agreement after a
> period of time, perhaps six months to a few years, if WMPT seems to be
> progressing in a good direction over that longer period of time. In the
> time between now and January 31, I think that you are asking good questions
> but I would not consider these issues to be "red flags" in the short term.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> 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] Hiding versions because of copyright violation

2019-01-14 Thread effe iets anders
Thanks for those questions.

Just as clarification, I'm talking about hiding revisions with the effect
that the revisions are greyed out in the history, but that admins can still
see their content. But I realize that oversight policies (the effect of
oversight is stronger) may be more prominent, and that perhaps the
ecosystem of different options should be considered in such a question :) .

Thanks Anne for clarifying terminology - I am mostly aware with the
terminology we use in Dutch, so may mistranslate some things.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Risker  wrote:

> I think one of the issues here is that we are not all using the same
> terminology.
>
> "Hiding", on English Wikipedia, is generally reserved for some weird
> extensions that had to have special features built in because
> revision-deletion, deletion, and suppression did not work with them.  I
> think all of those extensions are now disabled on English Wikipedia.
>
> "Revision-deletion" (which has the effect of removing a revision from the
> view of the reading public and users who are not administrators or
> equivalent) or complete page deletion is used for most copyright violations
> on English Wikipedia.  Copyright violations should not be publicly
> available, since it does not meet even the most basic requirements of edits
> to the project; I have a hard time seeing why any project would leave them
> in the page history, since that is the equivalent of leaving them in the
> project.
>
> "Suppression" is an even higher-level form of revision-deletion that
> removes the revision from the view of everyone except oversighters.  It
> replaced the old "oversight" extension in 2009, and it is my understanding
> that all of the revisions that were historically removed using the
> oversight tool have now been returned to page history and suppressed.
> (There are some exceptions.) Suppression is used on English Wikipedia for
> most personal information, which can include anything listed in the WMF
> privacy policy.
>
> There are variations in the use of the deletion/suppression tools: for
> example, since 2009 we have been able to either "delete" or "suppress"
> usernames and edit summaries that are highly inappropriate. The ability to
> "suppress" usernames is sometimes used when someone edits while logged out,
> not realizing their IP address will appear in the history.
>
> I suspect that English Wikipedia has lower thresholds for both
> revision-deletion and suppression because it has historically been the
> project that is most abused, sometimes in ways that I'd be hesitant to
> publicly describe.
>
>
> Risker/Anne
> (English Wikipedia oversighter)
>
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 12:29, effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is one of these things that seems particularly hard to find, so I'd
>> like to pick your collective brains on this:
>>
>> What are the various policies across our little universe on using the
>> 'hide
>> version' functionality to hide historical versions of articles? I would
>> especially appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit on how it's used in
>> practice with regards to privacy violations (what is the threshold of
>> private information that would justify hiding versions) and copyright
>> violations (when do you actually hide the versions, rather than just
>> remove
>> it from the current version and leave it in the history).
>>
>> Are there any global policies on this? I think not, but always better to
>> double check :).
>>
>> Best,
>> Lodewijk
>> ___
>> 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] Hiding versions because of copyright violation

2019-01-14 Thread effe iets anders
Hi all,

This is one of these things that seems particularly hard to find, so I'd
like to pick your collective brains on this:

What are the various policies across our little universe on using the 'hide
version' functionality to hide historical versions of articles? I would
especially appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit on how it's used in
practice with regards to privacy violations (what is the threshold of
private information that would justify hiding versions) and copyright
violations (when do you actually hide the versions, rather than just remove
it from the current version and leave it in the history).

Are there any global policies on this? I think not, but always better to
double check :).

Best,
Lodewijk
___
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] Proposal regarding norms for meeting/deadline announcements

2018-10-21 Thread effe iets anders
Hi Pine,

I would also suggest not to get overly bureaucratic with this :) If the
public meeting you refer to requires a large attendance, the 14 days makes
sense for example - but I cannot recall many meetings of that style.
Rather, most meetings are either scheduled taking the availability of
participants in mind, or it is to get input (where it is more important to
have a bunch of people show up, than to have everyone participate).

Whether more than one reminder is excessive, is imho quite subjective. I
appreciate most reminders, especially if they stick to the same thread.

On a side note: are there any weekly meetings being announced on this list?
Again, it highly depends on the topic, and whether the reminder may also
contain more information.

My point? Don't worry about it so much :) Be flexible with this, and go
with the flow. People can figure this out quite well if they use their
common sense without added bureaucracy.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:50 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Wikimedia-l and Wikitech-l,
>
> Keeping in mind the large numbers of subscribers on some Wikimedia email
> lists, the endless valuable uses for the time of knowledgeable volunteer
> Wikimedians, the significant financial costs for the time of many of the
> staff and contractors on these mailing lists, and how packed calendars can
> be, I propose that we implement a few social norms/guidelines for
> Wikimedia-l and Wikitech-l in particular.
>
> 1. When planning to have a one-time public meeting, announce it at least 14
> days in advance to give everyone who might like to participate that much
> lead time to clear space on their calendars. Rarely is a one-time public
> meeting so urgent that it cannot wait 14 days from the day that it is
> announced.
>
> 2. Send a maximum of one reminder email regarding a one-time public
> meeting, and also send a maximum of one reminder email regarding events
> with deadlines such as Wikimania scholarship submissions or conference
> presentation proposals. More than one reminder about a meeting or deadline
> is excessive.
>
> 3. If extending a deadline, send only an announcement of the extension with
> no additional reminder.
>
> 4. Send only one email to announce a recurring weekly meeting, with no
> additional reminders. Meetings which recur less often, such as biweekly or
> monthly, may continue to be announced with one additional reminder.
>
> At this time these are proposals only. Comments are welcome. If the
> comments become extensive then I may request that we move the conversation
> to Meta.
>
> 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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedians of Chicago User Group first annual report submitted

2018-10-10 Thread effe iets anders
Wow congratulations :)

I'm guessing this is the link you wanted to include:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Chicago_User_Group/2018_Annual_Report

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:51 PM Brian Choo  wrote:

> Fellow Wikimedians,
>
> Wikimedians of Chicago User Group has put together their first annual
> report!
>
> Cheers,
> Brian Choo
> (User:Airplaneman )
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-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] Call for Proposals to Host Wikimania in 2020

2018-09-28 Thread effe iets anders
Perhaps stating the obvious, but please remember there were some
significant flaws with the consultation by the WMF that you refer to
(especially with regards to the way questions were phrased and options were
limited beforehand, if I recall correctly).

Wikimania's purpose is mostly pluriform and suits different needs for
different people. That makes it particularly hard to evaluate - I grant you
that. But given the diverse directions that we're trying to bring together,
ranging from individuals to highly professionalized 100+ employee
organizations, this is to be expected. To reduce costs, we have squashed
more and more activities into this one annual event. That further
reinforces the pluriform nature of the event(s). At this point it's hard to
see Wikimania as an event, and it has more become like a piece of
infrastructure that is being used by many events - including the main
conference, but also tons of meetups, preconferences, committee meetings,
strategy processes, consultations and side conferences.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:36 AM Chris Keating 
wrote:

> > > So it seems that the main rationale for an annual Wikimania brought up
> in
> > > the 2016 meeting was that Wikimania was vital for movement governance
> and
> > > accountability. Which wasn't particularly stressed in the WMF's
> > > consultation, but I can see why that kind of issue was very fresh in
> > > peoples' minds in 2016.
> > >
> >
> > As the facilitator of the 2016 session discussing Wikimania, I don't
> recall
> > the "main rationale" of the discussion being about "governance and
> > accountability" and instead remember many more issues that stood out.
> >
> > For example, the prominent phrases from the first part of the meeting
> > include the following, with most of the notes echoing these themes:
> > - inspiring, and connecting
> > - opportunity for different communities to meet
> > - important to use opportunity to do outreach
> > - empower important volunteers
>
> Sorry, previous email sent half-finished.
>
> Sorry, don't think I expressed myself particularly well. Yes, those
> themes appear to have been present in the meeting, but they were also
> very much present in the WMF's consultation, which concluded that they
> could probably be fulfilled just as well by moving to a
> one-year-in-two rotation between Wikimanias and other regional
> gatherings.
>
> The thing that was present in the in-person meeting, but not from the
> consultation exercise, was the statement from all the chapter chairs
> saying that Wikimania was vital for movement governance and
> accountability.
>
> Then of course there was a lot of enthusiasm about the idea of
> continuing Wikimania from people attending Wikimania who have attended
> many previous Wikimanias. Putting a load of people present at an event
> in a room and saying "should this event continue to happen?" is not
> great for rigorous decision-making.
>
> (BTW, I'm not saying I favour the other option - the regional
> conferences seem to be happening anyway)
>
> > 2. The Wikimedia Conference (WMCON) has pivoted to become the Wikimedia
> > Summit. In the process, they announced "learning and capacity-building
> will
> > not be part of the program." [2] Therefore I'd argue that the onus is
> even
> > *more* on conferences like Wikimania to facilitate this.
>
> That would be good! But it kind of returns to the point that
> Wikimania's purpose is still fairly ill-defined. Personally I would
> really welcome Wikimania becoming explicitly focused on learning and
> capacity-building, because currently its focus changes every year and
> often when a focus is articulated it's not necessarily followed
> through.
>
> 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 Conference 2019: New name, new concept, eligbility criteria

2018-09-27 Thread effe iets anders
Hi Cornelius,

a quick sanity check (sorry if this was already discussed): in your
overview, you don't mention any WMF staff members as such. Is that because
they won't be invited in that capacity (i.e. not including staff members
that happen to be in affcom, that are affiliate representatives or as
strategy working group representative, or as 'organizer'), or is their
number just not limited by a quotum like the other groups, and are you
counting on WMF to make sane decisions on who to send?
Secondly, are you also planning to invite people 'à titre personnel' to the
conference/summit/event besides these numbers? (i.e. because they would add
value to the program on a particular topic, or because they have specific
expertise) I'm thinking of volunteer community members that may have input
for certain discussions but are not part of an affiliate or formal
committee, or external experts such as the CEO of Creative Commons, who was
invited in the past.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:35 PM 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 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://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, 


[Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

2018-09-17 Thread effe iets anders
Hi Kirill,

(changing the topic to reflect better the more abstract case: this is no
longer about WMPT, as I don't know enough about that specific instance)

I appreciate your concerns for embarrassing situations. This may be the
least painful approach in many of the cases. I also appreciate that the
Committee is between a rock and a hard place here: if such a situation
arises, there is no approach that makes everyone happy.

However, I think there's another complicating factor, which I'm not sure
whether it is currently considered sufficiently. The system of affiliates
has been designed so that there is always some level of 'democratic'
control: chapters and thematic organizations are required to have a
membership, and also user groups are required to have more participants
than just the liaisons. At least in the case of Thematic organizations and
Chapters, these membership bodies are also legally the highest authority of
the organization. (the user groups are more fuzzy, and I'll focus on
Chapters and Thematic Organizations for now)

If an organization gets suspended, that can be generally for two reasons.
First, there could be a simple misunderstanding. In that case, the board
can probably resolve this quickly, and a public announcement would
definitely do much more good than harm. But there is also the second
possibility: that there is a real problem. In that scenario, the democratic
control that we require, may be needed to manage the problem. Sure, it may
result in some messy questions to the board, and some embarrassment, but it
may also result in more actual resolutions. As a member, I would definitely
not appreciate it to only learn about the problems when there is no way
back (revocation of status).

Affiliation with the Wikimedia Movement is a core 'asset' for the Wikimedia
affiliates, and should not be revoked lightly - as I'm sure the Committee
will agree.

I would suggest that the AffCom reviews its approach here, and considers a
middle way, where the membership (or the whole community, if there is no
way to contact the membership) is informed. Whether that is through the
board or directly, whether publicly or privately will depend on the case.
The most important thing is that the membership can exercise their
responsibility and potentially decide that the board should be replaced, or
instructed to act in a certain manner.

I can imagine an approach where the board is given a week to respond to the
charges to resolve misunderstandings before the step is taken to inform the
membership (while leaving the board full discretion to contact the
membership earlier than that).

Chapters and Thematic Organizations have often a history going back many
years in our movement. They are larger than their boards, and if the
current board is unable or unwilling to resolve an issue, the membership is
at task to interfere.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 7:39 PM Kirill Lokshin 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Affiliations Committee would like to provide some clarification around
> the privacy of affiliate suspension notices, particularly in the context of
> ongoing conflict mediation within and between affiliates.
>
> When we conduct investigations into the behavior of individual editors, we
> strive to maintain privacy for the individual as to the specific concerns
> under investigation.  In the case of affiliate compliance investigations,
> we similarly treat the specific concerns and the details of any
> intermediate measures (including possible suspensions) with an appropriate
> degree of privacy.  This is to avoid undue public embarrassment or ridicule
> for the individuals involved in the conflict mediation process, and to
> ensure that people are able to work with us in good faith to resolve issues
> without feeling that they will be subjected to public shaming during the
> process.
>
> Basic reporting compliance is documented in the reporting table on the
> [[m:Reports]] page, where you can see those groups which have fallen behind
> on compliance [1].  The suspension-remediation-derecognition process is
> also publicly documented on Meta [2].
>
> It is 100% at the discretion of the suspended organization whether and how
> to communicate publicly about their suspension or the details of their
> non-compliance.  Only upon revocation of recognition does the committee
> communicate publicly about the issue; even then, private details are not
> shared except as required to correct misinformation.
>
> As for ways this could be more transparent without causing undue
> embarrassment, perhaps suspension status could be indicated on the reports
> page on Meta; however, even this seems appropriate only if done at the
> discretion of those who have been suspended.  We would be interested in
> hearing more thoughts about this from those who have been through the
> process.  For anyone who wants to share their views without public
> disclosure, please feel free to message the private AffCom mailing list
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] fallout from 2018 Wikimedian of the Year announcement

2018-08-29 Thread effe iets anders
Thanks for picking this challenge up with such enthusiasm!

Lodewijk

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:58 AM Alex Stinson  wrote:

> Thank you Farhard for sharing out the progress that you have been making as
> a benefit of the Wikipedian of the Year! I look forward to continuing to
> support these conversations, and hope that this kind of impact can repeat!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Johan Jönsson 
> wrote:
>
> > Farkhad,
> >
> > It's fantastic to see what you're doing with this. Thank you.
> >
> > //Johan Jönsson
> > --
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
> > f...@yandex.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear colleagues,
> > >
> > > Since yesterday all subdomains hosted @ http://tatarstan.ru/
> (including
> > > websites of the http://president.tatarstan.ru/, the Cabinet
> > > http://prav.tatarstan.ru/, ministries/departments, state-owned
> > > organizations, municipalities and Representative offices of the
> Republic
> > > around Russia and abroad) moved to Creative Commons Attribution. The
> only
> > > exceptions are those of the First (ex-) President & the Parliament,
> that
> > > already had their own unique type free licenses (in Russian,
> > non-standard).
> > >
> > > Russian Wikinews requested me to draft an article & my counterparty at
> > the
> > > Regional Ministry of InfoComm has gladly approved. I will probably need
> > to
> > > find time for that today. That was the easy part. Some context: Russian
> > > President, Executive Branch of the Federal Government, both Chambers of
> > the
> > > Federal Parliament, etc. are using Creative Commons Attribution for a
> > while
> > > now, thanks to Senior Volunteers efforts of Wikimedia Russia members. I
> > > just communicated the benefits of this to the Regional (Republic of
> > > Tatarstan) Deputy Prime-Minister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > Roman_Shaykhutdinov, head of the regional infocomm department & he
> > > championed it far and wide within his area of responsibility.
> > >
> > > I started engaging high-school & university students into helping the
> > > Infocomm ministry people to learn what is Wikimedia like & how it
> works -
> > > Deputy Prime-Minister is interested in anything that can benefit
> > Education,
> > > Heritage Outreach, etc. development in the region & help in making
> > culture
> > > of the Republic better known globally & promote Tatar language use
> online
> > > (Wikidata, GLAM, etc.). Another minister I met is excited with examples
> > of
> > > Greek school children https://outreach.wikimedia.
> > > org/wiki/Education/News/July_2017/A_class_of_26_8-year-old_
> > > Wikipedia_article_creators & youth in Italy
> http://www.rivistabricks.it/
> > > wp-content/uploads/2017/12/BRICKS_4_2017.pdf & other places develop
> > > critical thinking and develop immunity to mass & social media stories
> > > painting the world black & white as they please (stories from any
> > outlets,
> > > including the BBC or New York Times, have to be taken with a pinch of
> > salt
> > > - there's no unbiased human). In parallel, we are starting a
> cooperation
> > > with private Cambridge International school in Kazan
> > > http://school.balacity.ru/ (the founders & the director know me,
> invited
> > > me for cooperation, key contact person was part of the meeting, I
> > provided
> > > necessary initial links). I know that our youth is now inspired to
> > organize
> > > a User Group, report on their Spring & Summer efforts at Wikimedia
> > > Conference Russia this September & take their existing Selet WikiSchool
> > > project even higher. https://outreach.wikimedia.
> > > org/wiki/Education/News/May_2018/Selet_WikiSchool , more stories
> coming.
> > >
> > > Last night WMF Partnerships agreed to support me in organizing a
> > > videoconference type seminar with best practices in
> > Education/GLAM/Heritage
> > > promotion/Wikidata/etc. to explain locals about how great is the
> > Wikimedia
> > > movement (something mainly unheard of in Russia, even though Wikipedia
> is
> > > actually used). I would love to have you, my dear international
> > colleagues,
> > > to find time to connect and give a video talk on some Use Case
> > > implementation during the upcoming public seminar, organized in
> > conjunction
> > > with Tatarstan InfoComm ministry (whenever we get the dates they will
> be
> > > able to gather local crowd in the IT-Park in downtown Kazan). I will
> take
> > > care of the simultaneous interpretation — all the necessary equipment
> is
> > > there, so I'll try to find the funding & qualified people.
> > >
> > > In parallel I'll continue working on organizing a short in-person
> version
> > > at WMF Headquarters for the President of the Republic, if and when we
> can
> > > fit it into his schedule (Tatarstan Deputy Prime-Minister - Regional
> > > Minister for InfoComm wanted this to take place during one of the
> annual
> > > regional government delegation visits to California). 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Inc. working with Go Fish Digital, a company that whitewashes Wikipedia

2018-08-08 Thread effe iets anders
Thanks for sharing, Greg.

As it proves to be quite hard to filter out this kind of companies, it must
be even harder for affiliates that don't have the WMF infrastructure at
hand. I can imagine there exists some kind of 'blacklist' of companies that
the WMF doesn't want to work with for this kind of reasons. Does the WMF
share that list (proactively or passively) with affiliates to avoid that
they unknowingly end up hiring a company with undesired other activities
such as in this case?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:20 PM Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thank you to everyone that has provided thoughtful and constructive input
> on this discussion, and to the volunteers who are investigating the
> possible policy violations. We have some additional information on this
> vendor relationship and on steps being taken that we believe will be
> helpful to this discussion.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation entered into a short-term contract with Go Fish
> Digital to conduct a search engine optimization (SEO) audit on Wikipedia.
> They were contracted to provide information needed by the Audiences
> department to improve how our sites communicate with search engines and
> services which provide data to devices like artificial intelligence (AI)
> assistants. Overall, SEO performance is a strength of our projects, but we
> were able to identify areas for improvement, and the audit was helpful for
> Audiences to more effectively focus their efforts. During discussions about
> Wikimedia values and activities that were held in selecting the vendor,
> they did not disclose anything which raised suspicion, and we failed to
> identify this specific concern and question them about it more.
>
> The Foundation's Legal department received the proposal after it had been
> approved by Audiences and drafted a contract for this agreement following
> standard procedures. This included a privacy review, which resulted in the
> inclusion of extra privacy and security protections in the contract. Their
> activities did not involve reputation management services, and they did not
> request or receive access to any Wikimedia user data. The contract
> concluded last month.
>
> As we are now aware of the vendor's possible violations and feel they
> should have shared this information with us during discussions, we will not
> be pursuing any future working relationship with Go Fish Digital and will
> be requesting that they honor our contractual agreement by not discussing
> their past relationship with us for promotional purposes. Additionally, we
> are reviewing the way that this vendor was selected in an effort to see if
> we can identify what led to this issue and better identify these types of
> concerns when identifying future vendors and executing agreements with
> them. Finally, as they regularly do, our Trust and Safety team in Community
> Engagement are working with the functionaries investigating the possible
> policy violations.
>
> Again, we appreciate the attention provided to this by the functionaries
> and others who raised these concerns. We agree that the Foundation should
> avoid working with vendors who violate our policies, and hope the
> discussion around this will help reduce the chances of this happening in
> the future.
>
> Thank you,
> -greg
>
> ---
> Gregory Varnum
> Communications Strategist
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> gvar...@wikimedia.org
> Pronouns: He/Him/His
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Mario Gómez 
> wrote:
> >
> > I have gathered more evidence and opened a sockpuppet investigation,
> > omitting any parts involving personal data:
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BurritoSlayer
> >
> > Personal data sent to functionaries-en@ is still relevant to verify some
> > details, but I think that it is not crucial anymore to prove Go Fish
> > Digital ongoing and undisclosed paid editing.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Mario Gómez 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of
> >> Sunday are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on
> it
> >> themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet
> >> investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to
> >> continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM,  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here,
> please
> >>> bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to
> do
> >>> it
> >>> on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
> >>>
> >>> i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi Mario,
> 
>  I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
> >>> posted
>  here. I believe the WP:OUTING 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread effe iets anders
it seems my email was rejected, trying to send again:

Maybe I missed something, but could you please explain why the Terms of Use
would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?

As I understand it, the Terms of Use are Wikimedia-wide, and I'm not 100%
certain this is the kind of rule we'd want to apply on all projects the
same way. The community (both language and project) might want to derive
from it - either way.

Kind regards,

Lodewijk


2014-02-19 23:06 GMT+01:00 Stephen LaPorte slapo...@wikimedia.org:

 Hello all,

 We are asking for community input on a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia
 Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing. The amendment is currently
 available in English, German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Japanese, and
 we welcome further translations and discussion in any language.

 For your review, you may find the proposed amendment and background
 information here:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

 Please join the discussion on the talk page:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment

 Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments.

 --
 Stephen LaPorte
 Legal Counsel
 Wikimedia Foundation

 *For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
 Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer
 for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
 capacity.*

 ___
 Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
 directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
 community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ___
 WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
 wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe