[Wikimedia-l] Re: Next Conversation with the Trustees, 21 March

[effe iets anders]

Hi,

I believe there was a mention that answers to questions that the WMF didn't
get to during the meeting would be posted on meta. Does anyone have the
link to those responses?

Thank you!

Lodewijk

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 1:29 PM Elena Lappen  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A reminder that this call is coming up! Join us: Thursday, 21 March at
> 19:00 UTC (tomorrow or later today, depending on your timezone [1]). The
> call will be recorded for those that can't attend. Agenda and participation
> info on Meta [2].
>
> And as an aside, we'll be working toward an open source option for future
> Conversations with the Trustees. Thanks Valerio for sharing some ideas on
> this.
>
> Hope to see you there!
> Elena
>
> [1] https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1711047600
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2024-03-21_Conversation_with_Trustees
>
> Elena Lappen (she/her/hers)
>
> Lead Movement Communications Specialist
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:18 AM Mike Peel  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The next Conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees
>> [1] will take place on Thursday, 21 March at 19:00 UTC. The 90-minute
>> call will take place on Zoom, with simultaneous streaming to YouTube
>> [2], and the recording will be uploaded to Commons.
>>
>> The agenda for the meeting will include topics such as Board updates
>> after its in-person meeting in NY earlier this month; the Board’s work
>> with the MCDC; and the WMF’s Annual Plan Process, including what was
>> learned during the Talking:2024 initiative [3].
>>
>> Please note that considering feedback received from participants in
>> previous meetings, in this year’s meetings less time will be dedicated
>> to updates, and more time will be allocated to free-flow conversation
>> with Trustees.
>>
>> As in last year, we’ll be hosting these meetings every quarter (March,
>> June, August - during Wikimania, and November), and will be rotating the
>> hour of these meetings to accommodate different time zones.
>>
>> If you’d like to join us directly in Zoom, please email
>> ask...@wikimedia.org for the Zoom link. You can also request
>> interpretation, and ask any questions you would like to see answered, to
>> the same address.
>>
>> Hope to see as many of you as possible there.
>>
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2024-03-21_Conversation_with_Trustees
>> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuaNdf_mqSM
>> [3]
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/Talking:_2024
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike, on behalf of the Community Affairs Committee, Board of Trustees,
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7IPBJNLXYUZL2KB67UUPGBSYXY6TWZAA/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BT2PAVSVDD2FYE5EVH7WDHA4RXOYT53Q/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/INCI2AIRUXLQWHJX3ZJLCN4NWM3VF2ZV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Mopping with the tap open

[effe iets anders]

Thanks Benoit,
This sounds like a good step in the right direction. We'll need to try out
several of these approaches, but also improve our own documentation on
nl.wikipedia. My impression is that it is currently far too hard to add a
reference, to expect that this is done by most new contributors.

Do we know more about:
* How many new contributors know they should add a reference, e.g. when
writing a new article
* If they know that they should add a reference, how many know how to
recognize a good reference from a poor one
* How many new contributors, if they know that they should add a reference,
can figure out how to actually make this happen (assuming they know the url
already)
* Assuming that they can find the reference button, and know their URL, in
how many cases does the auto-convert feature work? (we could test this by
taking a random sample of reference URLs, and entering them in the
reference insertion tool)

These are not just technical problems - some of them are more about
awareness (we can focus for example a little less on copyright, and more on
other quality aspects) or good documentation (how to recognize a good
source?). I also suspect that these numbers might vary quite a bit across
communities/countries.

In my personal experience, it is hard to add references to articles even if
all the 'social' steps work smoothly (they often dont!). Maybe my sample is
biased, but it feels like I get much more often an error in nlwiki when I
try to convert a url to a citation, than in enwiki. Does anyone know if
this is indeed the case? Is anyone tracking statistics on this?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 4:03 PM  wrote:

> Hello
>
> Some wikis have added the requirement to add citations at the edit summary
> step. But it is clearly too late in the process, as users just want to
> publish. Some users will add citations as a second step, but it might be
> too late, as the edit has a great chance of being reverted meanwhile.
>
> You might be interested in the Editing team's current project, Edit check <
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Edit_check>.
>
> This project aims to provide in-context help by checking on the edit. The
> first iteration is "Reference Check": if a user adds a paragraph with zero
> source, they are encouraged to add one. We are currently testing it at 22
> Wikipedias, to verify if the prompt to add citations is not blocking users.
>
> You can test it at your wiki using an URL parameter:
> 1. Edit any article in the main namespace using the VisualEditor.
> 2. Add =1 to the URL in your browser. -- For example in Dutch, as
> Romaine started the thread:
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zon=edit=1
> 3. Reload the page with the new URL.
> 4. Create a new paragraph, that is at least 50 characters long without
> adding a citation
> 5. Press the Publish… Notice the prompt that appears
> 6. Test is completed, don't save your edit unless you know what you are
> doing.
>
> All edits are tagged, so that you can find them in Recent Changes or in
> your Watchlist. If a user selects "no" after the prompt, they have to
> select a reason why. That reason is tagged as well, easing experienced
> users' work on patrolling and improving these edits.
>
> We will soon add a message if the added citation is listed on
> MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json.
>
> As Edit Check only checks the first paragraph added, the next iteration
> will be to add multi-Reference checks. We are currently working on the
> design for multi-checks.
>
> Of course, Edit Check is not limited to adding citations. We can imagine
> other ways to close the tap. Your suggestions are welcomed, as are your
> questions.
>
> Thank you,
> --
> Benoît Evellin - Trizek_(WMF) (he/him)
> Community Relations Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RWQIXLQEBNC62THG5J4TY7OCHCKRAPUF/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Z4Q5NQEEOM4SACUUIBKQRSMM3EVG6WMV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

[effe iets anders]

Thanks Asaf, very true: I can totally see how the copyright issue would
remain a big problem, even if you solve the technical challenges...

I can see one solution to that (albeit farfetched): an analogue to a super
rigorous referencing approach. I am imagining it's possible to verify in an
automated way that an edited video is exclusively constructed out of a list
of cited materials. So if we would be able to build a database of freely
licensed raw materials that can be sourced from (HUGE if, I know!) I
imagine that video editors could possibly limit themselves to that and
credibly claim free licensing that way? But I'm guessing that the typical
youtuber won't be very excited about that prospect with severe limitations
on their creativity. You may still have to deal with a bunch of edge cases,
but it would give a starting point.

Another way would be if we force creators to edit their videos all the way
from the raw materials on a platform controlled by us, rather than upload
the end product - resulting in an edit history that can trace back what
materials were used and that they were freely licensed. This is very much
in line with our traditional Wikipedia approach, but would be impossible to
sell unless we have a pretty awesome video editor. Which brings us back to
the start of this conversation :). In a way, the Kaltura editor felt more
advanced than what we currently make available.

The downside is, as long as we remain copyright sticklers, it'll not be
very 'fun' to develop videos for us, let alone with us. Any solution will
have to be a combination of massive technical improvements, a change of
attitude and an increased library of free raw materials.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:24 PM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:29 PM geni  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 at 05:07, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>
>> > ?   Many creators say they are glad to relicense their existing
>> fantastic work, but don't have time/will to overcome the current obstacles
>> to such reuse that they have to [personally] overcome for each video.  So
>> we only get bulk contributions, through a third-party who is familiar with
>> the wikis, once in a while...  a modest homegrown example: depthsofwiki has
>> a range of great short videos that are partly educational and mainly
>> inspiring to delve into the wikis and learn things. I suspect none of them
>> are on Commons despite obvious relevance to the movement for outreach,
>> illustration, and the like.
>>
>>
>> I suspect we are dealing with Stated vs. Revealed Preferences. Saying
>> no to wikipedia has more of a social cost than talking about technical
>> issues. Converting to something wikipedia will accept is fairly
>> straightforward. Handbrake has a GUI and pops up in creator workflows
>> as a convient way to compress B-roll. Uploading presents more of a
>> challange than most areas but that would be because we care more about
>> copyright than most so probably unavoidable,
>>
>
> A bigger issue with a random YouTuber or other individual video creator
> re-licensing their work is that *very* often, their "own work" is not
> purely "own work"; rather, they use non-free music as background,
> incorporate clips or memes in their video, etc., making the video
> potentially *unacceptable* on Commons, even if the author of the full video
> represents that they are willing to license their work under a free license.
>
> This is a sticky issue, because there is no easy fix, technological or
> otherwise, for clearing those copyright concerns.  If a video creator has
> their contributions wait in some review limbo for weeks (or months), and
> then has, say, four out of five of them rejected on copyright grounds, they
> would be overwhelmingly unlikely to keep contributing.
>
> (I'm just bringing up this issue that doesn't seem to have been mentioned
> as a factor. I do agree and wholeheartedly support the need to accept more
> formats and take on the burden of determining whether videos are usable
> (what SJ above called "a stickier ingenstion process"); even if it won't
> attract hordes of YouTubers to contribute, it could allow those of us
> already involved with and interested in free knowledge/culture to
> contribute more easily and frequently, and that itself could be
> transformative, in terms of the presence of video content on the wikis
> compared to status quo.)
>
>A.
>   (in my volunteer capacity)
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TOBTVCCGIIUIU2AH5MHBM3VZP54HCNN5/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recognition of Wikimedians of Japan User Group

[effe iets anders]

I'm glad to hear there's now a user group active in Japan, and I hope that
it will successfully support the Japanese communities!

Lodewijk

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:02 AM Bobby Shabangu 
wrote:

> Sending my congratulations from Wikimedia South Africa and looking forward
> to collaborating with you in the near future.
>
> Best,
> Bobby Shabangu
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 19:43, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This are so great news!
>>
>> Congratulations and welcome!
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Affiliations Committee 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 18, 2023 5:41 PM
>> *To:* Affiliations Committee 
>> *Cc:* wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org ;
>> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Wikimedians of Japan User Group
>>
>> Hi everyone!
>>
>> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
>> [1] Wikimedians of Japan User Group [2] as a Wikimedia User Group. The
>> group aims to establish a national organization to promote Wikimedia
>> projects and support Wikimedians in Japan.
>>
>> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jeffrey Keefer
>> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_of_Wikimedians_of_Japan_User_Group
>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Japan_User_Group
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FVGWQD5GOJMOXZSECPTJ3POUJRCYCWNF/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YJ2C2BD72CONCEDGCPVTBLXTV3FLPXE7/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PHEI664KSKHE2LSBJ27ABPBIEYCP7Q3U/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimania sessions now on Commons

[effe iets anders]

Thanks for this work - the documentation of these sessions is useful and
not trivial, unfortunately. It's a challenge every year.

I remember trying to help out at some point, and getting stuck, giving up
for the day, returning later and getting stuck in a different way. The
process is definitely intricate (thanks to the , and I feel it might
benefit from a more detailed documentation so that perhaps next year it'll
be a little easier to set up. I'm very glad others did figure it out, but
if there's a way I can help proofread/improve documentation and get it
consolidated on the wiki, let me know.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 12:39 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> Hi Z
>
> Gisca co-ordinated the process using a group of volunteers to cut the
> daily recordings into single events. Some of them did upload to Commons but
> the majority of that effort came from Butch.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 at 15:22, Željko Blaće  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 1:44 PM Johan Jönsson 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> > The videos from the Wikimania sessions are now available on Commons:
>> >
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimania_2023_conference_video_recordings_by_day
>> > Huge thanks to everyone who helped make them available – there were
>> many videos to split, prepare and upload, a lot of work to be done.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Johan Jönsson
>> > Manager, Product Ambassadors
>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> Thank you for the update!
>> Great that it is done...any more info on the process?
>> Who exactly helped and how much work was this to get to this?
>> IMHO these individuals deserve more than just being 'everyone' and
>> 'thanks' - no? ;-)
>> Also if there is capacity it would be desirable for files to get
>> linked data somehow
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimania_2023_-_AfroCROWD_Talk_on_Wiki_Diasporas.webm=history
>> or we just store on Commons as a free alternative to YouTube? Hope not.
>>
>> Best Z.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2W3HSHHM4E4QHPZCT5SDNT3BSEJZAD4G/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> --
> Boodarwun
> Gnangarra
> 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardon nlangan Nyungar koortabodjar'
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GIASHYKPZMO2CVLVZ7MEZBVA7J373PTD/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/URYSJEEUMVMMRKBA6KN7HZL55SOEMT5Z/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Osama and Ziyad

[effe iets anders]

This does indeed seem to make some assumptions:
* That WMF is not already in contact with relevant human rights
organizations
* That including these individuals in a writing campaign is indeed
considered the best approach to help them at this point
* That a public association of this type is considered a best practice
regarding the safety of other Wikimedians who are at risk, both now and in
the future

I'm not sure if I see the benefit of tying a collaboration regarding the
safety of individuals to a writing effort on Wikipedia. Shouldn't we be
interested in improving those articles regardless? Wouldn't human rights
organizations care about individuals such as these regardless? Tying them
together could come across like we're horse trading - which would reflect
poorly on both efforts on such a sensitive topic.

I don't have the insight whether these assumptions would hold - but I
appreciate your thinking along. What I hear throughout the discussion, is a
group of community members that care, and seem to offer to help. I hope
that the WMF human rights team takes that information into account as they
evaluate the options. But I also realize that they do have a full plate,
and responding to these discussions is probably not their first priority. I
hope some of the voices here will participate in the to-be-announced office
hours.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 10:12 PM Lauren Worden 
wrote:

> There are some good ideas in this thread, but nothing concrete,
> actionable, and to which Foundation officials have been able and
> willing to give a clear, simple yes or no answer. Here is a simple and
> concrete proposal which could be started immediately:
>
> Foundation personnel should reach out to Amnesty International
> leadership (i.e.,
>
> https://www.amnesty.org/en/about-us/secretary-general-and-senior-leadership-team/
> )
> asking them to include the jailed Arabic Wikipedia administrators in
> their Write for Rights campaign
> (https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/write-for-rights/) and in
> return offering to fund a Wikipedian in Residence editor position at a
> level sufficient to improve the articles on subjects of their
> campaigns as the availability of reliable sources allow.
>
> This would not require public discussion of individual cases by
> Foundation officials. Presumably the Foundation would be able to act
> on such a plan without additional authorization from the Trustees.
>
> Are there any downsides?
>
> -LW
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 9:37 AM Christophe Henner
>  wrote:
> >
> > Crap I?ve hit sent too early!
> >
> > I am not sure it exists, but in line with Lodewijk comment having a
> guide on how can people help and/or a place where people can list
> themselves to make it known they can be reached to help on those topics,
> could be ways to leverage our communities in those instances.
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> > On Oct 8, 2023, at 6:34?PM, Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ?Bassel was at a time when there was little to none activity on those
> topics.
> >
> > Since then the approach got professionalized.
> >
> > I understand the lack of information is frustrated, but most of the time
> any action taken has to be confidential.
> >
> > Having been on the other side of curtain a bit, it?s one of the toughest
> topic there is.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 8, 2023, at 6:25?PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> >
> > ?
> > Thanks, Lane.
> >
> > The WMF published numerous Diff posts on Bassel. I believe the first one
> was in October 2015, less than a week after Bassel was killed:
> >
> > #FREEBASSEL: Free culture advocate who built 3D renderings of Palmyra
> missing in Syria
> > https://diff.wikimedia.org/2015/10/08/bassel-missing-syria/
> >
> > As for media coverage, in January 2016 Jimmy Wales wrote an article
> about Bassel for CNN:
> >
> > Wikipedia founder: Information can beat oppression
> >
> https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/20/opinions/wales-wikipedia-information-beats-oppression/index.html
> >
> > In March 2016, Jimmy Wales and Orit Kopel published an article on Bassel
> in The Guardian, again suggesting a hashtag:
> >
> > "The world needs to ask: #whereisBassel?"
> >
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2016/mar/16/jimmy-wales-the-world-needs-to-ask-whereisbassel
> >
> > The Foundation's silence on Osama and Ziyad is in marked contrast to
> that.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 3:04?PM Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Have there been any recent cases where community voices were mobilized
> to contribute to national or international campaigns for someone's release?"
> >>
> >> We organized Wikipedia editing events in 2011-12 for Aaron Swartz.
> Events were not so documented back then, but there were wiki meetups in the
> United States before and after his death.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
> >>
> >> In 2016-17 we did events for Bassell, not knowing that he had already
> passed. Here is some of what I can find but the events 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Osama and Ziyad

[effe iets anders]

Thanks for this response - as little content as it may have. I can totally
understand it.

As I was reading the questions in this thread, I felt uneasy with the
questions, because I can imagine that there are people working on these
issues in our movement (whether in the WMF or not) who may have a strategy
in mind where silence is more helpful. Whether Andreas is asking these
questions because he wants to publish a story in the Signpost, or because
he wants to help personally, I do understand that there is a general desire
for more information and can't blame them for asking (as long as they in
turn understand that there may not be a meaningful answer when none can be
provided without harming the cause).

That being said, as a community we often take the approach of trying to
help. So let me ask the elephant-in-the-room question: how can we help
these individual cases as a community? I think what some of the community
members are trying to gauge is whether there is silence because it's
considered the safer thing to do, or that it is because there are not
enough resources available.

I could guess the answers of course, but perhaps it would be helpful to
know:
- If people/affiliates have a specific concern whether someone is on your
radar, where to send the message (I think this is already answered on your
linked meta page: send a private email)
- If people/affiliates want to help, who should they contact to know which
actions are actually helpful (i.e. be quiet or make noise)? Would it be
correct to assume that the community office hours would be the best venue?
- I'm assuming you may have an overview page somewhere with individual
cases you're actively 'making noise' about (e.g. a blog category/label).
Perhaps you could link that overview from the meta page?
- If the WMF sees no scenario where community involvement on this topic
would be helpful, is there another organization you would recommend to look
at instead?

Finally, there may be some Wikimedians who have concerns whether your
strategy is the right one. I'm not sure if you could speak to this, but for
them it might be interesting to know whether the WMF has a standard policy
to never speak about these individual cases, or will do so selectively,
when it's helpful (is it ever? I assume there are such situations, but I'm
no expert). Between the lines, I seem to infer that the WMF has a
'selectively' type of policy, but I also imagine that such communication
would likely come from the communication team, rather than directly from
the human rights team.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 3:51 PM WMF Human Rights <
talktohumanrig...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> In the interest of safeguarding confidential information and ensuring the
> safety of our community members, the Foundation will not publicly disclose
> details regarding human rights cases. The Human Rights Team recently
> updated its meta page  to
> clarify this approach. Our primary concern is to uphold the safety and
> privacy of everyone involved. At the same time, our inability to discuss
> these matters should not be read as inaction. We care deeply about
> volunteer safety and our role, more generally, involves different levels of
> internal support, wider advocacy and partnerships with others depending on
> the circumstances of an event.
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 6:06 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Let's put it a different way then:
>>
>> Is anyone at the WMF doing anything in support of the two jailed Saudi
>> Wikimedians, be it liaising with international or regional human rights
>> organisations, the US State Department, briefing journalists so the wider
>> public is aware of the situation, or anything else to make sure Osama and
>> Ziyad aren't forgotten about as they start (by my calculation) their fourth
>> year in jail?
>>
>> I am asking because the press reports published at the start of this year
>> do not seem to have led to any significant coverage of the two Wikimedians'
>> plight on the websites of major human rights organisations. (If I have
>> missed any, please let me know.)
>>
>> For example, I found nothing at all on the website of Reporters without
>> Borders. Similarly, the most recent Amnesty International report on the
>> "crackdown on online expression" in Saudi Arabia includes several mentions
>> of Twitter users but none of Wikipedians:
>>
>>
>> https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/02/saudi-arabia-alarming-crackdown-on-online-expression/
>>
>> Amnesty's report specifically mentions that a Twitter user was sentenced
>> for supporting women's rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul but fails to
>> mention that one of the jailed Wikimedians uploaded Loujain al-Hathloul's
>> Commons picture, which is used in her Wikipedia articles.
>>
>> I didn't find anything about Osama and Ziyad or, more generally,
>> Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia on the website of the EFF.
>>
>> There is a mention of Osama and Ziyad and the 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

[effe iets anders]

I'm very interested to see this develop further, and can understand some of
the tensions that Steven has articulated. It's tricky to experience that we
can't fund everything we want to do that has direct impact on our own work,
and yet fund projects that don't feel like they directly support other
activities our movement is deploying.

There is one analogy that comes to mind, and I'm not sure how accurate it
is, but I wanted to share it as a thought experiment. In the 20th century,
there was a range of technology companies that depended on scientific
progress. Some of these companies, like IBM and Philips, then started to
support also more fundamental research that did not necessarily always have
a direct feed into their product pipeline. In a way, this kind of program
has the same vibe to me: we're supporting a broader knowledge ecosystem to
develop areas that we know are underserved (which may well be an
understatement), without always having a direct connection to how that will
feed into our projects, into our activities or communities. There is little
doubt in my mind though, that in the long run the ecosystem will benefit
from it, and we depend on that ecosystem for our work in turn.

So honestly, I don't see this program much in the context of 'we need to
help society' but rather an indirect selfish attempt to help improve the
ecosystem that we're operating in. The conversation 'what are donors
donating for' is equally a tricky one: I like to believe that they donate
to us to help achieve the mission and trust us to make the choices that
best serve this big picture.

We can have long discussions whether we're the organization or funder best
situated to fund these activities - but given the large backlog that we're
dealing with in knowledge equity, I'm not very afraid that we'll have to
worry about overcrowding in this space for a while. I personally think we
may be reasonably well located for this - maybe not to be the most
important funder, but we will have the chance to make a difference. I am
however convinced that where it comes to climate change there are many
other organizations that are much better positioned. Of course, this is
likely very subjective :)

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 6:39 AM Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That would be a great discussion indeed to set the line.
>
> But it?s the different from what you started the discussion with where you
> were saying ?we all should want?.
>
> I want us to make things that move the needle regarding knowledge equity
> and that probably require outside of the projects programs.
>
> As to where we draw the line, that would be a terrific strategic
> discussion but I don?t find where we had it.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 16, 2023, at 7:07 PM, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:34?AM Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steven,
>>
>> If I may, I have a different reading on the topic. Knowledge Equity is a
>> topic because for centuries knowledges have been destroyed, banned, etc? as
>> such, and with our current rules with written sources, funding any
>> organisation empowering marginalised communities is critical.
>>
>> If we were funding only direct integration of marginalised knowledges
>> into the project we would actually be missing so much.
>>
>> I actually appreciate the Movement funding initiatives outside the
>> Movement.
>>
>> As Nadee said in her email, and I get a feeling it also is partly your
>> point, what would be critical here would be to ensure the grantees are
>> supported and encouraged in working with local or thematic Wikimedia
>> Organisations.
>>
>> @Nadee out of curiosity, is there any staff in the Knowledge Equity Fund
>> project in charge of working with grantees to increase their relationships
>> with us?
>>
>> Thanks a lot :)
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>
> Christophe,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I think the problem with "I actually appreciate
> the Movement funding initiatives outside the Movement." is where does the
> boundary of acceptable initiatives end?
>
> For instance, should we feel comfortable creating a grants program to
> fight climate change? Extreme weather events obviously threaten the
> stability of the projects, and might disrupt editors from volunteering
> their time. Solving world hunger and global health issues would increase
> the pool of potential volunteers. We could also fund a non-profit
> alternative to Starlink, to increase global Internet access to make it
> possible for more people to edit the projects.
>
> The problem is that none of these things are what donors believe they are
> funding when they give us $5 from a banner on Wikipedia asking them to
> support the projects.
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2023, at 8:36 AM, Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>> This is really really disappointing to see. The lessons noted in the blog
>> post totally miss the point as to why the Wikimedia community has 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[effe iets anders]

Thank you Jaime for this response and for the commitment on making a
further update next quarter.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 9:39 AM Jaime Villagomez 
wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> We have posted an update on the Endowment talk page [
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Response_to_off-wiki_question_on_mailing_list_about_timeline_for_the_move_of_Endowment_assets_out_of_Tides
> ].
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jaime
>
> Jaime Villagomez
>
> Chief Financial Officer
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
> *
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 8:59 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> A full year has now passed since the WMF received IRS approval for its
>> new, transparent 501(c)(3) organisation, set up to take over the Wikimedia
>> Endowment and end almost a decade of financial non-transparency.[1]
>>
>> Let us not forget – Caitlin Virtue told us over two years ago, in April
>> 2021:[2]
>>
>> "We are in the process of establishing a new home for the endowment in a
>> stand-alone 501(c)(3) public charity. *We will move the endowment in its
>> entirety to this new entity once the new charity receives its IRS 501(c)(3)
>> determination letter.*"
>>
>> Said determination letter was received[3] in late June 2022 and
>> announced[4] in late October 2022.
>>
>> Today, more than a year on, the Wikimedia Endowment website still says[5]
>> that the money – an undisclosed nine-figure sum – is with the Tides
>> Foundation. Unlike a standalone 501(c)(3), Tides publishes no audited
>> accounts for the Endowment and releases no figures for the Endowment fund's
>> revenue and expenses.
>>
>> The WMF has been talking[6] about this move to a transparent standalone
>> 501(c)(3) since 2017.
>>
>> When will the move take place?
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/News_and_notes
>> and
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment=prev=21366511
>> [3]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRS_Determination_Letter_dated_6-28-2022_-_Wikimedia_Endowment_(01523354-2xA3536).pdf
>> [4]
>> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/10/26/governance-updates-for-the-wikimedia-endowment/
>> [5] https://wikimediaendowment.org/#contact and https://archive.ph/CjcvW
>> [6]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Endowment=16507295=16503857
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:12 PM Lane Chance  wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> > It's not causing any form of disruption to make these changes in a
>>> deliberate and thoughtful manner.  Everyone can take a deep breath.
>>> > Risker/Anne
>>>
>>> The WMF has never claimed that setting out a fixed timetable that
>>> their CEO and the Endowment "agents" can be held accountable to is
>>> either impossible or bad. They have been talking this change up for
>>> years, and failed to move forward for reasons that have been
>>> obfuscated deliberately, as demonstrated by "thoughtful" tangential
>>> and delaying responses to basic yes/no questions. Considering that the
>>> aim here is ethical accountability, any delay is a choice for
>>> "non-accountability".
>>>
>>> The facts are public, the failure to be transparent or accountable
>>> with many millions of dollars is a public failure. The WMF has damaged
>>> the reputation of the "Endowment Fund" within its own community of
>>> volunteers* and employees, and now risks a loss of public trust in its
>>> own claims to its donors and in the media for a declared value of
>>> transparency. Let's debunk the myth, as this is now playing pass the
>>> parcel with millions of dollars of donated charitable funds, the WMF
>>> can no longer have any credible claim to be transparent. This does not
>>> pass the sniff test, it wouldn't for any other not for profit or
>>> organization that claims to have charitable values or world leading
>>> ethics but chooses to hide millions of dollars from correct scrutiny.
>>>
>>> * Really, do volunteers believe the Endowment Fund is or has done the
>>> things it was set up to do? Do we volunteers have reason to be
>>> confident that in 10 or 30 years time, these monies will be spent on
>>> the original objectives that were claimed for it by Jimmy Wales and
>>> others? I no longer have reason to be confidence in these purposes or
>>> that this very large sum of money will not be chipped away by "agents"
>>> or the careful re-spinning of what the words in the Endowment
>>> incorporation mean by the unelected board of trustees that are
>>> responsible for it.
>>>
>>> As a polite observation on "take a deep breath", I would never say
>>> that to any member of my staff or a customer with a complaint unless I
>>> wanted them to walk out or put the phone down 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: activity around Wikimedia.ru

[effe iets anders]

I think Yaroslav was reasonably open about his conflict with Vladimir
Medeyko. I can appreciate that. Thanks also for the update with links, I
really appreciate it because it's hard to follow these stories/events if
you don't speak the language and don't even know where to start.

Kolya, thanks for the clarifications (I don't think they are contradictory
with Yaroslav's account on the recent events? But correct me if I missed
something), and I hope you'll keep filling in blanks if any appear.

What is not immediately clear to me: what is the status of the domain names
and the trademarks in Russia? If I do a lookup for wikipedia.ru it does not
seem to give a whole lot of information.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:38 AM Коля Красный via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Sorry, Yaroslav, but while I mostly agree with facts you’ve presented
> here, I don’t think that your words are «non personal» since you’ve had
> long-term personal conflict with Vladimir Medeyko and few other members of
> Wikimedia RU. Your view on their activity can be your view, but saying that
> their «main (or even exclusive) activity was to raise money to pay salaries
> to the functionaries» publicly with no real backup of your words can be
> considered as slander.
>
> This situation is, of course, terrible, because while Vladimir
> literally ruined Wikimedia RU with his actions (he was the only person
> who’ve made financial reports and he was making it awfully bad that lead to
> many consequences such as refusal of most sponsors to continue the
> cooperation) and was always busy for personal contacts for weeks, he was
> not working on WM RU problems, but was making his own project while few
> other WM RU members was literally digging through a big pile of problems in
> the organisation. Month ago I’ve had a long talk on this with Stas
> Kozlovsky (who, AFAIK took the president’s place now) and have seen much of
> success in overcoming most of concerns. I hope that under new leadership
> chapter will resume it’s productive work despite the fact that it is one
> leg in the foreign agents list.
>
>
>
> Пятница, 26 мая 2023, 0:13 +06:00 от Yaroslav Blanter :
>
> This story made some headlines in Russian-language media, and I guess it
> could be of general interest here.
>
> Vladimir Medeyko, who has been the president of Wikimedia.ru, the Russian
> chapter of WMF, since its foundation in the 2000s, announced yesterday that
> he is starting a Russian Wikipedia fork [1]. The media on the payroll of
> the Russian government, which for a long time were saying that Wikipedia is
> an anti-government and anti-Russian project and must be blocked in Russia,
> supported the initiative, commenting that this is exactly the start of a
> pro-government encyclopedia which would replace the Russian Wikipedia.
>
> Wikimedia.ru, whose main (or even exclusive) activity was to raise money
> to pay salaries to the functionaries including Mr. Medeyko was suddenly
> pissed off and held a meeting yesterday. Before the meeting, Mr. Medeyko
> said he does not see a problem with his actions, however, being in danger
> of getting expelled from the chapter he resigned and quit the chapter.
>
> The Russian Wikipedia community, which knew that Mr. Medeyko supported the
> Russian invasion of Ukraine, and which was critical against his activity on
> advocacy for his paid editor friends, was pissed off as well.[2] He first
> responded that he has taken the only correct decision, and everybody else
> eventually would understand why the decision was correct. However, later he
> resigned his admin flag, was blocked indef, and now has an arbitration case
> pending against him. The discussions are ongoing whether having a chapter
> in Russia at all is now beneficial, however, the chapter was for many years
> totally disconnected from the community anyway.
>
> I could add my personal perspective, since on- and off-wiki activity of
> Mr. Medeyko was one of the reasons why I stopped editing the Russian
> Wikipedia in 2011, after having served two terms as an arbitrator, and
> never came back, but I do not think this is important at the moment.
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> [1] https://habr.com/ru/companies/ruwiki/articles/737260/
> [2]
> https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC/%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8#%D0%A0%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7D2BB3TNJL5KLIGI5T235P35CSJSTA4U/
> To unsubscribe send an email to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Request for Transparency Regarding WMF Staff in India

[effe iets anders]

Hi Jayantilal,

as I'm reading this, mostly as an outsider from a different community who
has great appreciation for everything that has been accomplished in various
communities in India, I can feel the tension. This is unfortunately nothing
new, and it's an ongoing balance that has to be struck between helping out
as a staff member on one hand, and not undercutting the community to
organize itself on the other. This is a challenge, even with the best of
intentions. This only gets harder when there is a (real or perceived)
struggle for influence/power. I have come to understand that India is an
even more complex situation, due to the influence of CIS.

I noticed that the WCI organizers have put forward
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConference_India_2023/Discussions_and_Feedback
in response to this thread. It might be beneficial for the conversation to
try and follow up with this attempt to conversation, and see how far you
get with regards to the transparency that you seek. If you can achieve this
without the intervention of Maryana, this is probably more advantageous for
everyone involved. That does not mean you have to agree with what is
desirable, but at least you would be able to work from a common base of
facts/information.

If there are aspects on that page that are possibly misleading from your
point of view, or simply information that is missing, you might be
interested in bringing this up on the talkpage.

Just a thought,

Lodewijk

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 2:04 PM Jayantilal Kothari 
wrote:

> Dear Maryana,
>
> Your Listening Tour has been a commendable initiative to understand the
> voice of the community. However, the essence of listening lies in its
> responsiveness.
>
> Over ten days ago, we raised concerns that unfortunately remain
> unaddressed. This isn't a single person sentiment but a collective voice
> from the Indian Wikimedia community, a voice that has grown stronger since
> the recent Wiki Conference India.
>
> We're concerned about the WMF India staff's involvement in community-led
> events, notably the Wiki Conference India. While their participation is
> welcome, there's a growing perception of encroachment on community-led
> initiatives. The community's autonomy is being compromised, and several
> experienced community members have voiced this concern on the public
> mailing list.
>
> Furthermore, we've observed that the WMF India Staff is assisting
> community members in crafting emails and guiding them on how to handle this
> mailing list situation. As a community, we believe in the ability of our
> members to speak for themselves. Currently, it appears that only those on
> the WMF payroll—either through grant salary/contract or through WMF-funded
> CIS salary—are speaking on behalf of Wiki Conference India, seemingly under
> the guidance of WMF Staff India. We urge WMF India Staff to step back and
> allow the community to voice their concerns independently. Check the Wiki
> Conference India Team on Meta. Most of them are drawing salaries from WMF
> or CIS or have been previous employees in the last 5 years. Very few are
> people who have always been volunteers. Many of them have also not written
> WMF against their name because they say they did this conference as
> volunteers. Was there no volunteer to come forward and organize? This means
> WMF staff have not been able to grow the community.
>
> We wish to understand the roles, responsibilities, and contributions of
> the WMF India staff who actively participated in the Wiki Conference India.
> Being paid by funds raised through volunteer-built platforms like
> Wikipedia, their active participation in community spaces calls for higher
> accountability.
>
> WMF has spent so much money on Strategy 2030 but the India Conference had
> no session on it why? India is not important or what?  Sunday there was a
> session on Strategy 2030 but it was removed without telling participants.
> Why?
>
> We would like to clarify that this is not a request for personal
> information—since the identities of these staff members are already
> publicly known—but a call for professional transparency, as we seek to
> understand their specific roles and contributions. If these staff members
> were comfortable taking to the stage and receiving credit at the
> conference, they should be equally comfortable sharing the scope and impact
> of their work with the community that they serve. Their willingness to be
> in the public eye during the conference should extend to their professional
> commitments and achievements. We're keen to know about the partnerships
> they've formed over the past few years that have benefited Indian
> communities, the initiatives the communications team has launched beyond
> financial incentives for Instagram users, the community projects undertaken
> by other staff members, negative response on fundraising and the hiring
> practices aimed at empowering local user groups.
>
> Considering the nature of these questions, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2021-2022 now on-wiki

[effe iets anders]

I'm sure someone at the Foundation will have a better response, and you may
have puzzled this together yourself already, but we've seen in previous
years that the reported salary went up in the last year of someone's
service, possibly due to consulting fees and severance packages. Both Maher
and Uzzell left the Foundation in 2021. Typically the WMF has been cautious
to give much detail on this though (understandably).

Lodewijk

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 10:03 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Page 49 of the new Form 990 (2021) shows the following total compensation
> figures for former CEO Katherine Maher and Janeen Uzzell in that year:
>
> *$798,632 and $515,553 *respectively. Both figures far exceed all prior
> records.
>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/1/14/Wikimedia_Foundation_2021_Form_990.pdf#page=49
>
> The Form 990 now shows a total of *six* executives whose total
> compensation exceeded *$400,000*.
>
> For comparison, the Form 990 for the year before (2020) showed a total of
> *eight* executives whose total compensation exceeded *$300,000*:
>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=48
>
> These are interesting developments.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 4:25 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Today, the Wikimedia Foundation published the Form 990 [1], an
>> informational tax form required annually of all nonprofit organisations
>> based in the US. The Form 990 provides a financial overview of the
>> Foundation, including the balance sheet, revenue and expenses, as well as
>> grantmaking, governance, and other financial policies. It also includes
>> compensation information required for senior executives. This document is
>> reviewed by the Board each year before it is published on the Foundation
>> website.
>>
>> Because of reporting periods, the Form 990 provides a look back at the
>> activities and budget for the Foundation in prior years. This year’s Form
>> 990 covers last fiscal year (July 2021-June 2022), and for compensation
>> related reporting, it covers the 2021 calendar year. Because the Form 990
>> is a tax document with a complicated format, this year the Foundation
>> has also published a Diff post [2] that provides an overview of the
>> different sections of the form; an executive summary [3] of the Form, and
>> an FAQ on Meta [4].
>>
>> This year’s Form 990 contains several key takeaways:
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>>Growth in support of Wikimedia projects: In the 2021-2022 fiscal
>>year, the Foundation invested 77% in Program Services, an increase of 4
>>percentage points as compared to fiscal year 2020–2021 of 73%. This 
>> measure
>>reflects how much of the organisation’s expenses are allocated towards the
>>programs and services that it exists to deliver. This surpasses 
>> third-party
>>standards for how much nonprofit organisations should spend on programs,
>>which should be the majority of their budget (more than 65% according to
>>the Better Business Bureau).
>>-
>>
>>Increase in community grants: During fiscal year 2021-2022, the
>>Foundation’s revenue received through donations and grants, totaled $164.2
>>million, a roughly $9 million increase from the prior fiscal year. The
>>Foundation increased its grants programme by 50%, from $10.1M in the prior
>>fiscal year to $15.2M in fiscal year 2021-2022.
>>-
>>
>>Comprehensive governance policies: The Foundation follows a number of
>>best practices for governance as an established nonprofit organisation. 
>> The
>>Form 990 includes a section confirming written policies regarding our
>>approach to conflicts of interest
>>
>> ,
>>protecting whistleblowers
>>, 
>> guidelines
>>for data retention
>>
>>and governance practices, including those related to the Foundation's 
>> Board
>>structure, voting rights, and independence. These governance policies and
>>practices have helped the Foundation to receive the highest rating from
>>sites like Charity Navigator
>>.
>>-
>>
>>Leadership Transition: This year’s Form 990 also reports on a period
>>of significant leadership transition at the Wikimedia Foundation, 
>> including
>>the CEO stepping down. The Form includes compensation information as well
>>as severance disclosures for Foundation executives who departed in 2021.
>>This January, the Wikimedia Foundation introduced a new standardised
>>severance policy, which was shared in a Diff post [5]. Separation
>>payments to two additional executives that precede the implementation of
>>this standardised policy will be disclosed 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Deror Lin passed away

[effe iets anders]

I have more fond memories of Deror than I can immediately recall - I
remember him as a force of positive energy both on and off stage, usually
in connection to Wikimania. My earliest memories are probably in 2010
Gdansk where Deror was part of the Haifa team trying to soak up as much
experience from previous years' organizers as possible to help pull off
Wikimania in 2011. After that, we kept running into each other, and the
time that we presented the movements' coolest projects and he continued
that series in the years after was probably one of the vivid ones. Always
running around from one odd job to the next, he found time to sit together
and (somewhat chaotically) put a presentation together that brought a smile
on peoples' faces.

Deror, we will miss you and it has been a pleasure and honor to have worked
with you.

Lodewijk

On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 11:31 AM Kat Walsh  wrote:

> I am so sorry to hear this; it was always a delight to meet him (and
> often, in my case, to talk about interesting issues in copyright!) and I
> greatly admired his tireless energy and passion for the movement. A huge
> loss to the community; thank you for sharing the news so we can remember
> him together.
>
> -Kat
>
> On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 3:59 AM itzik Edri  wrote:
>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> I'm sorry to update that our friend and colleague Deror Lin
>> (user:Deror_Avi) passed away this morning.
>>
>> Deror was a truly Wikimedian in blood who poured his heart and soul into
>> the movement in many ways, even in his final days. He joined Wikipedia in
>> 2004 and was one of the founders of Wikimedia Israel. For over 16 years, he
>> served as an active board member.
>>
>> He was the driving force behind Wikimania 2011 in Haifa and a key member
>> of the Wikimania committee ever since. He led countless programs and
>> projects, both locally and internationally, including conferences, WLM
>> competitions, educational programs, photo and editing contests, and many
>> others.
>>
>> More than that, he wrote over 8,600 articles on HEWP (comprising more
>> than 2% of it!), making him the number one article writer in HEWP,
>> alongside more than 37,000 contributions to Commons.
>>
>> For his huge contribution and love for the movement, he was honored last
>> year as the Wikipedia Laureate of 2022.
>>
>> Deror, you were not just a colleague but a true friend. We worked
>> together on many projects, events, and initiatives over the years. No
>> matter the situation, you always had a smile and shining eyes with your
>> love for Wikipedia.
>>
>> *On behalf of Wikimedia Israel, I extend our deepest condolences to
>> Deror's family and friends. You will always be remembered, Deror.*
>> *ברוך דיין האמת. Baruch dayan ha-emet*
>>
>>
>> Itzik.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WUMCWUVMGMHWYPA7KZQEG6F7QBBWIMNH/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/HYSNOHFFFT5DPVDQQLWISW4VZQHTFV6I/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/24VGRJHUZHOOU52QA25ZZLLWJNUJP5N5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards on World Press Freedom Day

[effe iets anders]

Hi Olushola,

thanks for working on efforts like this. I think it's definitely our
African communities that should be the judge of what shape works best for
an award like this. Out of curiosity, as a way for us all to learn and
maybe for Africans among us who want to participate in this conversation
that you refer to, could you link to where this conversation/consultation
is happening?

I hope you can perhaps also clarify whether 'in English' means that the
original article has to be available in English, or that some translation
should be available in English. I think the former would be much more
restrictive than the latter, especially if some translation resources
(including community resources) are available.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:48 PM Olushola Olaniyan 
wrote:

>
> *Dear all, *
>
>
> *My name is Olushola (User: Olaniyan Olushola). I am from Africa and have
> been a Wikimedia since 2014 and passionate about language. I co-lead the
> Oral History documentation of Nigerian indigenous languages ( see more
> about it **here*
> 
> * ). *I am part and parcel of the working group for this Journalism
> Award. Together with other community members and some foundation staff, we
> have co-created the submission guidelines and award criteria, including
> that articles should be English language articles published in a major
> outlet.
>
>
> Everything regarding the rationale for this award is being done in
> consultation with members of our African communities, aligned with our
> goals to increase exposure for the work we love in the region and close
> knowledge gaps.
>
>
> One thing to mention is that articles about Africa, especially written by
> journalists with a local perspective, must be better represented in our
> language Wikipedias, including English.
>
>
> With this being a brand-new initiative, it was the best time to learn.
>
>
> It is a pilot, and we all see this as an experiment to draw more attention
> to journalists' important role as content creators on Wikipedia.
>
>
> You will agree that we need to celebrate existing journalism excellence
> that helps fill knowledge gaps online.
>
>
> The working group conferred, and since this is a pilot, we decided
> together that it was a good idea to consider the need to limit the scope to
> collect data and insights easily. We understand the sentiment behind
> language in Africa and beyond, and we always wanted to keep everything
> simple. We know that no language is superior to the other, so this is a
> pilot. From here, we will likely assess the impact we can have before
> scaling.
>
>
> We wish to expand this initiative with more regional volunteers should it
> succeed - and we hope it will.
>
>
> We already have more than a hundred entries!
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Shola
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UEFHWM4CB5VAQM2IV2UGM65V6FMFYJHQ/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Q6PE2627F35J5Y2EUBIBLJVUCHDQZDFN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Local enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct

[effe iets anders]

Hi Andreas,

interesting questions. I don't think your assumption "As you are no doubt
aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author recently published..."
is true. I was definitely not aware of it, and I doubt many others are
either. I was able to piece together some of your claims, but not all
(simply due to lack of time, I'm sure). Just offering this information so
that you can provide the necessary context as needed. I was unable to dive
deep enough to give this proper attention. One thing I did note was that
you were the person who started the arbitration case. It might be
beneficial for this discussion if someone else familiar with the matter,
could summarize it. If only for the simple fact that they may have more
appreciation of what is and isn't known by the wider community. (For
example, I was unable to verify myself that the workplace and real name
were indeed shared, and that this information could not be assumed to be
public knowledge)

Assuming all your stated facts to be correct, I would actually not be
certain what the right approach would be either. Surely, it can not be the
intent to encourage doxxing off-platform, but we can't attempt to block
academic discussion on complex matters either. Wikipedia does not live in a
vacuum. I would rephrase your question "are [Wikimedians] permitted to
share contributors' private information such as their workplace address in
these various venues, without obtaining explicit consent to do so? " to
something like: "Should Wikimedians be sanctioned when they disclose
private information without explicit consent in the source of academic (or
political, societal) discourse outside of Wikimedia".

I'm however not particularly surprised that this issue eventually arises,
as this was bound to happen. I am also curious for what the intended policy
implications would be (based on the current UCoC) and maybe then there
could a conversation be had if that is indeed what we wanted to achieve.

Lodewijk




On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:01 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia Foundation Trustees and all,
>
> The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) has been in force for some time. The
> Enforcement Guidelines have now been endorsed by the community. But as with
> any new document, shared understandings and clarifications must develop
> over time. Until then, practical enforcement is anything but routine. Here
> is an example.
>
> Section 3.1 of the UCoC states that the following is harassment:
>
> *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
> information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
> without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
> elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
> outside the projects.*
>
> As you are no doubt aware, a Wikimedian and a non-Wikimedian co-author
> recently published an academic essay criticising aspects of the English
> Wikipedia's Holocaust coverage. In their essay, the authors mention the
> legal names and the places of employment of two longstanding Wikipedia
> contributors who, as WMF Trust & Safety will confirm, have suffered years
> of egregious harassment because of their Wikimedia participation. I
> understand this has included threats to their children, calls to their
> workplace asking for them to be fired, etc.
>
> Given this history, the authors' decision to share precise information
> about these contributors' workplaces in their academic essay struck me as
> ill advised. It is hard to justify on scholarly grounds – the Holocaust
> topic area is unrelated to the academic positions held by these two
> Wikipedians. And surely it must have occurred to the authors that providing
> information on their workplaces might exacerbate the harassment they are
> already experiencing, of which the authors were well aware.
>
> Needless to say, neither of the two contributors gave their consent to
> having their names and workplaces shared in the essay, which criticises
> them severely – and in at least some cases very unfairly.
>
> Given that explicit consent is what the UCoC requires for sharing of
> personal information, sharing details of these Wikimedians' workplaces –
> especially in the context of harsh and inflammatory criticism of their
> editing, and a long history of prior harassment suffered by these
> contributors – struck me as a bright-line violation of UCoC Section 3.1,
> specifically:
>
> *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private
> information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address
> without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
> elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
> outside the projects.*
>
> The reason I am mentioning this here is that the English Arbitration
> Committee, which opened an arbitration case soon after publication of the
> essay, appears largely to have taken a different view to date, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Graph Extension

[effe iets anders]

I'm confident that the posters in this thread are already aware of this,
but maybe not all people who read along. The announcement of this disabling
by Seddon included a link to this ticket in case people want to follow
along and be updated: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T334940

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 4:46 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The Basque Wikimedians User Group is working in the deployment of OWID and
> the security review is pending: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T324989.
> As always, we have invested time and money on this, but it seems stalled in
> the Foundation side.
> --
> *From:* Tim Moody 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 19, 2023 12:48 PM
> *To:* wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Graph Extension
>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Yesterday it was announced that the Graph extension has been disabled due
> to security vulnerabilities. Having the ability to visualize data is a
> powerful tool in presenting information within a wikipedia page, so it is
> great to have such an extension.
>
> But this could be the moment to reach out to Our World in Data (
> https://ourworldindata.org/), who have an even better set of data
> visualization tools, based on similar libraries, that are actively
> maintained by a strong community. Perhaps there is an opportunity for
> collaboration. This will not be a short term solution, as forging OWID
> software into an extension will take some time and backwards compatibility
> is essential. But in the medium to long term it will result in better tools
> and more compelling wiki pages.
>
> I hope the community and WMF will support such an approach.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Moody
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BIEEKO2HV5Q7HLQYWZKWJ5QMPOUPQFLY/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VMR4MN6JYQGVJSN5OTYOPPP7DIGM2GHF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Vote

[effe iets anders]

I agree that these are valid concerns, as is the point that we should
consider how the 'homewiki' (or whatever demographic you choose to follow)
distribution across those votes impacts the outcome. I think there will be
general agreement that more participation would be great (although I feel
that I have to admit, that this time around I didn't vote myself: just
didn't get to reading the proposals carefully enough this time.)

There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the
conversation/statistics:
- is the approval rating significantly different among voters from smaller
projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting infrastructure
even allows for such a breakdown.
- are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For
example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors
been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to
the populations in their respective communities.

A turnout this size is maybe not a high percentage of eligible voters, but
note that we intentionally set our eligibility criteria low. A low
percentage is then only a natural outcome. I do wonder: what kind of
percentage would make colleagues more confident? And how could we
realistically achieve those percentages?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:55 PM  wrote:

> مرحبًا، لست معترضًا على النتائج أو السياسة، بل العكس هو أمر جيد من الناحية
> التنظيمية ومكافحة التحرش والإساءة لكن لدي بعض الملاحظات حول العملية وليس
> على المحتوى:
> * نسبة المشاركة تعد ضئيلة جدًا مشاركة 3097 ناخباً  من بين 68745 ناخب مؤهل
> * عدد الموافقين على الإنفاذ 2,290 ناخب بمعنى  بمعنى أقل 4% من المجتمع
> العالمي النشط
> * استحوذت 3 مجتمعات فقط على أكثر من نصف الأصوات وهذه المجتمعات معظمها من
> أوربا الغربية وأمريكا الشمالية
> والتساؤل:
> * لماذا لا يتم ذكر هذه الإحصائيات وتحليلها واستنباط الأثر منها على
> المستقبل؟ وذلك لأن باقي المجتمعات لم تشارك أو كانت  مشاركتها   ضئيلة فهي
> غير مهتمة أو لم يكن هنا حملة قوية لجلب الاهتمام أو غيرها من الأمور مما قد
> يؤدي في الأخير عدم تبني السياسة أصلًا أو قد يتعاملون معها كقانون جبري
> * هل مشاركة المجتمعات القوية فقط  لا يُعزز المفهوم الغربي لطريقة الانفاذ؟
> * هل عدم اهتمام المجتمعات الأخرى نذير بوجود فجوات كبيرة وجب إصلاحها أو
> نستمر وكأن الأمر ليس ذو شأن؟
> تمنيت لو كانت قراءة عميقة نستخلص بها النتائج لتطويلا مستقبلي للحركة ودفعها
> للأمام بدل الجداول والأرقام التي قد لا يفقهها الكثير منا وقد تُعطي انطباعا
> خاطئا
> تحياتي
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BITDAPENFZSAYHRFR3HDPNNLOD54TWWR/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MK2R3FD2LRBGXU5OXB6QMSX57JFL2YHP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[effe iets anders]

Hi Lane,

maybe I'm just reading this differently, but doesn't "we are in the
process" typically mean "no, not yet. But we are going towards that new
situation"? If you don't feel this answers your question, it might be
beneficial to spell out the question a bit more explicitly. Re-reading the
statement of Andreas, I mostly see a statement that he is confused and his
question is "could someone please clarify this please". In Julia's
response, I read a good faith effort (but apparently insufficient for you)
to achieve just that: clarification.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:40 AM Lane Chance  wrote:

> Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on
> Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have
> not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed.
>
> A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for
> any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either
> controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the
> yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that
> they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim
> "holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might
> think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does
> it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like
> for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of
> February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable.
>
> Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions
> and defensive non-answers.
>
> For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in
> the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be
> edited later on a wiki:
> "This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s
> message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia
> Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal
> Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial
> systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the
> direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement
> made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect
> representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification
> was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from
> the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies
> in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation
> and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the
> movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best
> regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)"
>
> Thanks,
> Lane (for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection to Wikipedia
> Signpost)
>
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs  wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1]
> > Regards,
> > Julia
> >
> > [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides
> ?
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Sam,
> >>
> >> Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been
> moved, or it has not been moved.
> >>
> >> The Rai journalists specifically asked "Why the Wikimedia Foundation
> didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?"
> >>
> >> Here is the complete question again:
> >>
> >> Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides
> Foundation. According to SignPost (
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion)
> on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us
> the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches
> $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a
> new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33
> million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia
> Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into
> the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report
> about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information
> and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations?
> >>
> >> If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of
> affairs – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org
> ready, so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I
> feel, have looked something like this:
> >>
> >> A: We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity
> when it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that
> move. We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a
> new organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[effe iets anders]

Hi Andreas,

I will support the underlying questions of this type (it's helpful to have
conversations about our organizational structure, and how it works -
clarifications are great!) but I would really hope that you could leave
aside insinuations of the type "If it isn't, and the money is still with
Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November substantially
misleading?". They are unnecessary and don't actually add any information.
Could we possibly keep it a bit more constructive?

Thanks!

Lodewijk

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 5:02 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The WMF appears to have made contradictory statements about the Wikimedia
> Endowment. Earlier this week, Rai 3, a channel of the Italian national
> broadcaster, aired a program about Wikimedia and Wikipedia.[1] On their
> website, they also link to responses the WMF gave to various questions the
> programme makers asked.[2]
>
> One of these questions concerned the Endowment. I quote:
>
> *Q: The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100
> million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate
> 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to
> the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think
> there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is
> created through worldwide donations? *
>
> *A: Your information is incorrect. The Wikimedia Endowment was established
> as a separate entity and received its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in 2022
> following a 2021 board resolution. *
>
> This answer was given to Rai in November 2022. Now I do recall an October
> 2022 blog post from the WMF reporting that the WMF's application for a
> 501(c)(3) non-profit had received approval and that the WMF was "in the
> process of setting up the Endowment's strategic and operational policies
> and systems".[3]
>
> Has the money actually been moved from the Tides Foundation to this new
> 501(c)(3)?
>
> At the time of writing, the Endowment website continues to tell its
> readers that the funds are held and administered by the Tides
> Foundation.[4]
>
> Is the information on the Endowment website obsolete?[5] If it isn't, and
> the money is still with Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November
> substantially misleading?
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://www.rai.it/programmi/report/inchieste/La-community-8bb003fb-d8cd-42bb-bef0-0063a0e1b1fb.html
> [2]
> http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895524547_RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%2024%20NOVEMBRE%202022_EN.pdf
> and
> http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895525034_TRADUZIONE%20RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%2010%20GENNAIO%202023_ITA.pdf
>
> [3]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_from_the_WMF
> [4] https://archive.ph/S8iI0#selection-2949.0-2949.1007
> [5]
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/01/11/adding-expertise-to-the-wikimedia-endowment-board/
> refers to the "fact that we met – and even surpassed – our expected
> timeline for the Endowment’s maturation into a 501(c)(3)."
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7XYR2NTQQGCP5W5YBEA75JIXT6GOZRPF/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IC32GRFZPR5JRJ43S2GPETUTNZP3JWQW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Tom Lehrer blanket PD declaration

[effe iets anders]

This is really lovely! I hope that we will be able to host all this
material on Commons, it would be a great showcase.

Lodewijk

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 12:45 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> A number of projects could benefit. Doesn't mention CC0 but seems like a
> superset (affirms that he held exclusive © on all songs + lyrics)
> https://tomlehrersongs.com/
>
> Happy holidays. (And thanks, TL!)
>
>
>
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/364HYX4BZVY63KC3EJ5ZD4CNSWOASF6Y/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3XKGGRXSUV7SDDD3VZZYOPZLQQ3NNYOV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] How does the selection of WMF expert board members happen?

[effe iets anders]

Given that the actual appointment is about a year ago, it may make sense to
shift this conversation and these great questions into a more general
domain: what is the current procedure the WMF follows when encountering a
vacancy for an expert board member?

I imagine we could rephrase some of these questions into more general
language (although the original questions from Scann may still be valuable):

- What does the search strategy look like, and is the movement engaged in
it? How? (I would add the same question for the other stakeholders,
including staff)
- How are the elements of the ideal profile determined (e.g. US vs
worldwide, social good vs commercial, etc)
- To what extent are demographic criteria used in setting a profile for a
specific recruitment (rather than at the high level 'we want to be diverse')

I think we could add to that how the WMF does a 'background check' (in the
broadest sense possible), although I doubt everything we discussed would
always come up. But in two or three occasions over the past years we have
had appointments result in some controversy, and it would be interesting to
better understand whether WMF was aware but didn't consider it important
enough, whether WMF feels that these issues are not relevant enough to
begin with or whether WMF would have expected to have been aware, but
wasn't.

I realize that board appointments like this are rare events, and it's hard
to really analyze them for that reason. Each appointment has its own
quirks, and I'm pretty sure nothing you'll say or do will truly satisfy the
entire community. I personally don't think it's realistic to pre-announce
any appointment to the community before formalizing, but it would also be
interesting to think about how we can leverage the community better. I'm
thinking about identifying specific experts, committees or focus groups
(but I'm confident there's more ways available). And maybe the WMF is
already doing all this and we're just under-appreciating it!

All in all, these questions don't necessarily have to reflect on Luis'
appointment - they are interesting in their own right.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 3:02 PM  wrote:

> To add to the conversation, I'm wondering several things.
>
> 1. Was there actually an outreach strategy to recruit for this type of
> technologist profile? Was it communicated to the movement? We could have
> helped.
>
> 2. Why the decision on someone whose only relevant background as
> technologist is on US corporate technology companies? As several people
> have pointed out, Luis doesn't seem to have any relevant experience in
> enterprises that contribute to the larger social good; some of them are
> significantly controversial (Rappi, Loft); and all of them seem to be very
> much US-based.
>
> 3. Why a guy? It would have been significantly better to bring a woman
> into this position. If the problem is retention, I actually think that a
> woman would have been a way better fit to understand what's failing in
> terms of business culture that's creating challenges to make people stay.
>
> There are several other things that could be said about this decision but
> I think others have already said them -- like the whole NFT & blockchain
> thing and the "fintech for young people", which is already a huge, huge,
> huge red flag.
>
> cheers,
> scann
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YXUWK7RHPIYGNC3UH36NFUZ3TEC5JTF6/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YYZPKXJRRDZJ7XRHA4JTIC2SJZIAGUGH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[effe iets anders]

I'm probably missing some context. I've seen earlier references to this NFT
in light of his appointment. What I somehow missed (sorry if I overlooked
it) is a clear indication how he would have supported this NFT, and
especially whether he supported problematic aspects of it specifically.
Also: has he spoken out about it since, or contextualized it in any way?

I hope those of us better informed can help to understand this conversation
a bit better.

Lodewijk

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 7:06 PM Lane Chance  wrote:

> Just to remind you, Luis Bitencourt-Emilio is one of the Wikimedia
> Foundation's unelected trustees. He publicly supported the infamous
> "monkey" NFTs, widely thought to mirror racist tropes,* and used one as his
> social media avatar when first appointed to the board.
>
> In the last 24 hours a class action lawsuit is in the news, suing
> celebrities who were paid to promote the same Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs now
> considered "fraudulently misleading". It remains bizarre that the Wikimedia
> Foundation, considered a technology-leading organization with a core
> commitment to ethical behaviour, is publicly represented by someone who was
> openly part of the BAYC fanbois with such bad judgement they helped this
> alleged pyramid scheme. This background of lousy judgement does not meet
> the requirement for anyone sitting in top-level governance over the
> activities and massive funding for Wikimedia projects and operations.
>
> As was previously remarked in this email thread, "We should have looked at
> that history and trod more carefully." More worryingly the defensively
> circling the wagons at the beginning of the year to brush off the questions
> this raises shows that the Wikimedia Foundation nor the governance
> committee they rely on to "vet" unelected trustee appointments, failed.
>
> * A context here from an analysis by David Gerard "It does seem pretty
> likely that the Ape bros are at least casually racist. For one thing, they
> clearly feel at home in those corners of internet edgelord culture whose
> syncretism includes the troll disposition that has characterised the
> identitarian right since at least the eighties, the performative nihilism
> that has come to characterise disaffected digital natives in the wake of
> the Great Recession, and the ironic hipster racism that somehow always
> stops being ironic after a while. For another, they are shilling crypto, a
> project of the far right since day one." [3]
>
> Thanks,
> Lane
>
> References
> 1.
> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/celebrity-promoters-sued-over-bored-ape-nft-endorsements-1235279115
> 2.
> https://futurism.com/the-byte/celebrities-bored-apes-are-hilariously-worthless-now
> 3.
> https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2022/02/06/bored-ape-yacht-club-and-neo-nazis-so-much-reaching-for-just-four-bananas/
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 16:02, Lane Chance  wrote:
>
>> Dariusz, Chair of the BGC: "Cryptocurrency and blockchains were not a
>> factor here – the Governance Committee, and then the Board, were
>> considering other things..."
>>
>> This is so wrong it's painful to read. The fundamental job of the
>> Governance Committee is to ensure that appointed trustees do not come with
>> the potential to cause harm to the Wikimedia 'brand' and the community.
>>
>> A WMF trustee that promotes Bitcoin and NFTs? Compare with the WMF
>> statement "We at the Wikimedia Foundation strive to ensure that our work
>> and mission support a sustainable world" - now in the bin as it lacks any
>> credibility from here on, as the governance committee and therefore the
>> board of trustees does not believe in these values. This is not a
>> successful appointment, Luis Bitencourt-Emilio is not welcome as they are a
>> controversial and damaging addition to the board.
>>
>> Ref:
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/19/how-the-wikimedia-foundation-is-making-efforts-to-go-green
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 13:40, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Dan,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the feedback!
>>>
>>> The search for a trustee with an expertise in product and technology
>>> began a few months ago. One of the problems we identified was that the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation CTOs (Chief Technology Officer) are usually not
>>> staying for a long period of time, and then there was also a CPO (Chief
>>> Product Officer) transition. It was also important that the new CEO (Chief
>>> Executive Officer) would like to have a trustee with relevant experience
>>> and leadership in the tech world (as would the Board itself), but also with
>>> the understanding and experience of how technology and communities can work
>>> together, so, as you said, Reddit experience is very relevant.
>>>
>>> The other critical factor was diversity – the search was prioritizing
>>> candidates with experience outside of Silicon Valley, in non-English
>>> speaking countries, preferably from the Global South.
>>>
>>> And, of course, we also needed a 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Grants budgets

[effe iets anders]

Hi all,

thanks first of all for the responses both onlist and offlist. I appreciate
the numbers mentioned in the report - they are retrospective and useful
indeed. They are more detailed than I was aware of at the time of my
initial query (my initial query predated the report, I believe). Thank you
for pointing at this.

There is indeed value in the transparency provided after the fact. I
believe however that it would be even more helpful to provide these numbers
before and during the grant rounds: it allows the community to identify
discrepancies and enter a conversation about how it can be improved (I
realize this may be an advantage for some, and imply more work for others)
but maybe more importantly it is an important piece of information for
potential applicants to know how much money there is to distribute. This
importance will grow over time as a better understanding will develop about
how previous rounds ended up. This way, applicants are not left to guess
which regions have increased budget available thanks to strategic shifts,
but they can actually use this information in setting their grant
priorities.

I hope that going forward, this information can be shared before the round
actually starts. There is no harm in adding a few caveats of course (as
these amounts can vary somewhat if the submitted proposals so require), but
I see little reason to shy away from proudly sharing what kind of grant
funds are available in which region - this distribution is something we
should be proud of. If we're not, we should perhaps reconsider them. If
these amounts are already prospectively, I happily will stand corrected!

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 11:18 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Kassia,
>
> Thank you very much. I am currently struggling to square the figures in
> the reports on Meta with the figures provided in the Form 990.
>
> For example, the Form 990 for the 2020-2021 financial year lists
> grantmaking activities for various regions on pages 30–31 (with the same
> figures then repeated on pages 32–35, split into grants for organisations
> and individuals).
>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e4/Wikimedia_Foundation_2020_Form_990.pdf#page=30
>
>
> The grantmaking amounts listed there sum to $3,475,062, don't they? (That
> is the total at the bottom of page 31.)
>
> Could you tell us where we can find that same figure on Meta-Wiki?
>
> Or, if we can't find it, what is the difference in the reporting methods
> used on Meta-Wiki vs. the Form 990?
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:23 PM Kassia Echavarri-Queen <
> kechavarriqu...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Lodewijk,
>>
>> Thank you for the question. We have published on meta the Funding
>> Distribution report
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Reports/Funding_Report_2021-2022>for
>> grants allocation for the past fiscal year as well as the prior two years.
>> There are further regional learnings being shared on diff,  here is the post
>> from the ESEAP region
>> <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/11/03/our-future-success-lies-in-the-investments-that-we-make-today/>.
>> We will also soon be publishing both a regional learning sessions on
>> grantee self reported programming and impact report, as well as, a report
>> on the feedback from applicants and committee members from the second round
>> of funding from the first year of implementation of the new funds programs
>> and regional committees.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Kassia
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 9:29 AM effe iets anders 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Over the past year I've had the pleasure to serve on one of WIkimedia's
>>> regional funding committees
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Committees>. Together, these
>>> committees get to allocate several millions of grant funding on behalf of
>>> our movement.
>>>
>>> As I tried to have conversations about that, I noticed that the actual
>>> amounts that each committee is allowed to allocate in their region, is not
>>> published. I asked about this, and the response I get is that this is
>>> "internal information" and it might make things cluttered (I don't know if
>>> this is because the question got stuck in bureaucracy or because there is
>>> an actual concern for clutter - I do have to admit that the grants pages
>>> can be terribly confusing, but don't see how these numbers would change
>>> that).
>>>
>>> I believe that it is important for transparency reasons, if not
>>> essential, that we all know how much money in grants we are 

[Wikimedia-l] Grants budgets

[effe iets anders]

Hi,

Over the past year I've had the pleasure to serve on one of WIkimedia's
regional funding committees
. Together, these
committees get to allocate several millions of grant funding on behalf of
our movement.

As I tried to have conversations about that, I noticed that the actual
amounts that each committee is allowed to allocate in their region, is not
published. I asked about this, and the response I get is that this is
"internal information" and it might make things cluttered (I don't know if
this is because the question got stuck in bureaucracy or because there is
an actual concern for clutter - I do have to admit that the grants pages
can be terribly confusing, but don't see how these numbers would change
that).

I believe that it is important for transparency reasons, if not essential,
that we all know how much money in grants we are spending and will be
spending over the years in the various regions. Is there a stronger reason
to keep this information confidential/secret?

Thanks!

Lodewijk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4KE2SITV6PBDUIZIUZNQ4BOBEJFJGXKY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia: Community Meetup South Africa 23

[effe iets anders]

Hi Shupai,

thanks for being active in this community. I'm not sure if this is the best
venue to share these announcements, because they are very specific to South
Africa. You may want to consider announcing these on lists that are more
targeted. You're currently sending your announcements to the international
mailing list to discuss Wikimedia-wide matters.

Maybe you were trying to send your email to
https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimediaza.lists.wikimedia.org/
the South African mailing list?

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 1:53 AM Shupai Mchuchu <
shupai.mchu...@wikimedia.org.za> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> This email serves as a quick reminder for our upcoming meetup for the
> South African community that will be happening on Saturday 29 October 2022.
> Below are the details for joining the 23rd online South African community
> meetup. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, the community, what is
> going on generally, or you just want to hang out you are welcome to join
> and participate.
> *Date: Saturday, 29 October 2022*
> *Start time:10:00 AM SAST*
> *End Time: 12:00 PM SAST*
> *Location: Online Meeting*
> We will still be using our new Discord channel as our meeting location
> this time (see the link below). If that does not work for you then don't
> worry, you can still join via Zulip at the link below for a more text-based
> experience.
>
> Link to Join
> 
>
> For a more text-based experience.
>
> Zulip :  Note registration is
> necessary
>
> Best regards,
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3327QZAKWXVBL76CAVIKWPHQ3D4FVXIW/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IAA32Q5HE6PURDMLWIFC43JSTPE4VCLT/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period is now open

[effe iets anders]

I doubt that this would have had any influence on the outcome. Given that
Massly is a member of the oversight committee, it would be good to get a
quick clarification on the record (I'm assuming there's a totally
reasonable explanation).

Lodewijk

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 4:42 PM Envel Le Hir  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> It seems that the vote is now closed. I made a script [1] to check that
> voters comply with some of the rules of voting eligibility [2].
>
> I found two cases of non-compliance:
> * one person voted twice, once with their main account and once with their
> bot account (User:Uziel302 and User:Uzielbot, the latter vote has been
> struck after I reported the case to the elections committee);
> * one person voted twice, once with their personal account and once with
> their professional account as an employee of Wikimedia Deutschland
> (User:Masssly [3] and User:Mohammed_Sadat_(WMDE) [4]).
>
> Note that Masssly is a member of the Wikimedia Foundation elections
> committee [5].
>
> I'm only providing the data, I have no official role in this election and
> I don't wish to comment (I certainly don't have the whole picture), even
> though I'm sad to see some people repeatedly causing concerns at the
> occasions of elections.
>
> [1] https://github.com/envlh/wmf-board-elections
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Voter_eligibility_guidelines
> [3]
> https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:SecurePoll/list/1364=prev=49501=500
> [4]
> https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:SecurePoll/list/1364=45771=500
> [5]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee
>
> Cheers,
> Envel Le Hir
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 7:22 AM Mahuton Possoupe <
> mpossoupe-...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> The Community Voting period for the 2022 Board of Trustees election
>> 
>>  is
>> now open. Here are some helpful links to get you the information you need
>> to vote:
>>
>>- Try the Election Compass
>>
>> ,
>>showing how candidates stand on 15 different topics.
>>- Read the candidate statements
>>
>> 
>> and answers to Affiliate questions
>>
>> 
>>- Learn more about the skills the Board seeks
>>
>> 
>>  and
>>how the Analysis Committee found candidates aligned with those skills
>>
>> 
>>
>> If you are ready to vote, you may go to SecurePoll voting page
>> 
>>  to
>> vote now. *You may vote from August 23 at 00:00 UTC to September 6 at
>> 23:59 UTC.* To see about your voter eligibility, please visit the voter
>> eligibility page
>> 
>> .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Movement Strategy and Governance
>>
>>
>> **This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and
>> the Elections Committee**
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Mahuton POSSOUPE (He/Him)*
>>
>> Movement Strategy & Board Governance facilitator
>>
>> French-speaking communities
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/XXYJNFPMRW3KH4BU2X22SML7OM7PPTYA/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YAEXJUV6L6TRUGXXHFRJIEIZCJDTXDWW/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The new Signpost is out!

[effe iets anders]

Given how few community driven publications there are in our universe, I
actually appreciate these announcement emails. They are pretty sparse and
seem to often contain relevant content to the wider Wikimedia community
too. If it were a daily publication, I would probably feel differently
about this.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 10:36 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> De Signpost is een publicatie van de Engelse Wikipedia. Waarom wordt de
> Wikimedia mailing list daarmee lastig gevallen?
> Vriendelijke groet,
>GerardM
>
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 14:26, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> The Signpost – Volume 18, Issue 9 – 30 September 2022
>> --
>>
>> News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new
>> mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/News_and_notes
>> 
>>
>> In focus: NPP: Still heaven or hell for new users – and for the reviewers
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/In_focus
>> 
>>
>> In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/In_the_media
>> 
>>
>> Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Special_report
>> 
>>
>> Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Discussion_report
>> 
>>
>> Interview: ScottishFinnishRadish's Request for Adminship
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Interview
>> 
>>
>> Opinion: Are we ever going to reach consensus?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Opinion
>> 
>>
>> Serendipity: Removing watermarks, copyright signs and cigarettes from
>> photos
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Serendipity
>> 
>>
>> Recent research: How readers assess Wikipedia's trustworthiness, and how
>> they could in the future
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Recent_research
>> 
>>
>> Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Traffic_report
>> 
>>
>> Featured content: Farm-fresh content
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Featured_content
>> 
>>
>> Gallery: A Festival Descends on the City: The Edinburgh Fringe, Pt. 2
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/Gallery
>> 
>>
>> CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/CommonsComix
>> 
>>
>> From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-09-30/From_the_archives
>> 
>>
>>
>> Single-page view
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single
>>
>>
>>
>> https://facebook.com/wikisignpost
>>
>> https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GN3462XQWXTIWJ76TTVCXLOIUPYVT3IW/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Taiwan’s statement on the office actions of the Wikimedia Foundation on Chinese Wikipedia

[effe iets anders]

Hi Ktsquare,

I'm not sure if I fully understand what you're trying to say. Could you
rephrase it?

If someone else understands the point, thanks to a better knowledge of the
context, could clarify, that would be appreciated too.

Lodewijk

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 11:10 PM ktsquare  wrote:

> Hello:
>
> In a communication on Skype dated [3/7/2011], there were communication
> beyond the zh.wikipedia.org website:
> https://martinoei.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/%E7%B6%AD%E5%9F%BA%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E5%93%A1%E5%98%85%E6%A0%B8%E7%AA%81%E5%B0%8D%E8%A9%B1/
> .
>
> According to that communication in the link above, the user ffaarr who
> started this thread was involved in that 3/7/2011 communication.
>
> So I doubt whether what can be read on www.wikipedia.org is the the full
> story, or not, on contents about users or community affairs. In other
> words, there were some lost trust.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> Ktsquare
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 12:38 PM Nathan  wrote:
>
>>
>>> This is a mailing list to which anyone can post, although non-member
>>> posts are held for approval. Your previous reply does, in fact, appear in
>>> the public archives of the list.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4C7USZ3QWCUREBVX52IRZDDXWOS4ZDQZ/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TCZYJ7UAPULB3D2HSNTMDIIJESDEZC6I/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BVMOKTP3UVLR4CSJ4M5S3TT3JYLVKAXI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Leadership Development Working Group is ready for community feedback!

[effe iets anders]

I definitely acknowledge the need for our movement to better facilitate
capacity development, which feeds into leadership qualities. For many years
I have been part of various working groups and communities that have
struggled to find volunteers that were willing to take up leadership roles
and were at the same time also in possession of the skills and experience
to do so. I have been encouraged to see some of that work take place over
the past years, initiated both by some people at the WMF and some chapter
officers through various pathways.

I'm somewhat struggling to see the use of these definitions in their
current form, and the context in which they should be read. In that sense,
I'm definitely nodding my head while reading the response from Braveheart:
it's easy to read this as some centralist effort. At the same time, I'm
trying to think through how I would expect our movement to address this
alternatively, and that is still hard to wrap my head around. Maybe having
a common vocabulary does help as a step in the direction of developing
these qualities in our movement. It won't get us there, I agree, and any
solutions will require more programs, more efforts and most of those will
have to be volunteer driven and community supported to be effective in a
meaningful way. If I read this list of bullet points as "these are the
qualifications we value in Wikimedian leaders", the list makes quite some
sense.

If we would contextualize this properly with some introduction of how
people are expected to read this, and maybe some conversation guides, it
could offer a starting point for a conversation among a community or
working group to talk about their own shared leadership qualities, and what
is lacking. It could then help us prioritize changing our workflows a bit
(e.g. how can we become more decisive) or recruit someone to add those
qualities. This context and understanding is severely lacking from the
current text though - it feels like a lot of thought, effort and
understanding went into this, and contextualizing it better may be a good
way to ensure that the content actually has an impact. I'm not sure either
what the next steps would be or how we could take such a list and help
people develop some of these skills.

What would help me to contextualize this better would be answers to some of
the following questions:
# If you compare this to academic literature on the topic, how does this
list contrast? What are the leadership qualities that Wikimedia
communities, teams and groups look for but are not necessarily expected in
business, academia or society?
# Does this list of qualities has to manifest itself in a single person, or
in the group as a whole? At what size (ballpark) does this kind of
evaluation become relevant?
# You describe some qualities you're looking for in leadership. What would
the complement look like: a list of signals that can help you identify
ineffective leadership.
# Which of these traits are culturally determined, and which are universal?
# What do you want the Wikimedia world to "do" with this list? What are the
next steps that you have in mind?
# What are you planning to do next?

Thanks for the work on this, but somehow it leaves me with more questions
at this point than answers.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 1:54 AM Ramzy Muliawan 
wrote:

> Pete,
>
> Terima kasih atas pandangan Anda yang menarik. Peran Yayasan Wikimedia
> dalam jagat semesta wiki selalu menjadi suatu topik perbincangan yang
> menarik, dan tentu saja relevan dengan upaya yang sedang berlangsung untuk
> merumuskan peran dan tanggungjawab pemegang-pemegang kepentingan yang ada
> dalam gerakan kita melalui Piagam Gerakan.
>
> Saya kurang sepakat dengan pandangan Anda bahwa ini merupakan satu upaya
> untuk memusatkan kerja-kerja pembinaan kepemimpinan pada Yayasan Wikimedia.
> Sependek pengetahuan saya, mandat Kelompok Kerja secara terang dijelaskan
> di sini
> ,
> yaitu untuk membangun infrastruktur yang diperlukan dalam kerja-kerja
> pembinaan kepemimpinan sembari menunggu haluan yang kelak ditetapkan dalam
> Piagam Gerakan dan nantinya akan diimplementasikan oleh Dewan Global.
> Penjelasan yang lebih rinci mengenai mandat dapat Anda baca di sini
> .
> Dari apa yang dapat saya tangkap secara pribadi, mandat ini sudah jelas
> mengambil berat faktor akan adanya Piagam Gerakan dan suatu badan tata
> kelola global yang akan mengarahkannya -- tentunya, dalam hal ini, meliputi
> implementasi rekomendasi mengenai pembinaan kepemimpinan. Pertanyaan akan
> terjadinya sentralisasi atau tidak akan amat sangat bergantung bagaimana
> Piagam Gerakan nantinya menanggapi isu kepemimpinan ini; tentu saja, semua
> orang dalam gerakan Wikimedia akan memiliki kesempatan nantinya untuk
> memberi masukan, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period is now open

[effe iets anders]

Hi Dariusz,

I appreciate that this is not the best time to have this conversation.
However, at the same time I feel it would be fair to state that this is not
the first time we talk about having a conversation about the election (or
any other periodic process) procedures at a 'more convenient time'.
Unfortunately that seems to rarely actually happen at a time that the
suggestions can actually be implemented.

This just to say... I hope someone at the WMF marks this in their agenda
for a month from now, and that we actually have the conversations this time
in a constructive manner with the elections committee.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 6:49 AM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Hello Florence,
>
> Thank you for voicing your concerns. We are doing what we can to design a
> process that achieves its goals and satisfies everyone, but this is very
> hard - balancing the absolute freedom of action with not privileging people
> who have the luxury of extra time is one of many considerations to make.
> Last year's elections had a very different approach to the campaign, there
> was no hard limit to events or questions to candidates, and that raised
> concerns as well. In some non-profit organizations, elections happen
> without any candidate campaign at all. There are different ways to approach
> democratic elections, and we still need to find the best approach that is
> appropriate for our context and our goals.
>
> In my view, there are really great many improvements we can make to the
> process - including both more detailed parametric evaluation of candidates,
> better understanding of diversity, better organization of the process of
> differentiating candidates and their skills (debates, answering questions
> without the privilege of knowing the answers of other candidates, etc.).
>
> We will ask the foundation to, at a quiet point after the election,
> organize a conversation about lessons learned and improvements to be
> applied next time. The time and the format are yet to be decided.
>
> All processes can be improved, but now we hope those who are eligible will
> take the opportunity to vote in the election and encourage others to vote.
> Participation looks promising so far:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Stats
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dariusz
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 4:18 PM Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>>
>> There were a lot of improvements in that election process and I really
>> think the compass system is an awesome tool and was usefully used during
>> those elections.
>>
>> However, I am very unpleased by the very severe restrictions on
>> candidates freedom of speech and on attempts of restriction on voters
>> freedom of speech regarding those elections.
>> By and large, for the arguments of
>> 1) equity of treatement of all candidates and
>> 2) time and energy requirements of all voters
>> the democratic process is largely impaired.
>>
>> *In fact... an election IS by essence a competition.* And whilst equity
>> of treatment must be in our minds, we should not let it damage the
>> democratic process. And restricting candidates from campaigning and
>> restricting community from discussing and recommanding is a flawed
>> democratic process.
>>
>> So what do we have in the end to decide on a candidate ?
>>
>> 1) Candidate statement. Text-based, translated in various languages.
>> Excellent.
>>
>> 2) An election compass based on 12 questions.  Very interesting, though
>> on a limited number of topics.
>>
>> 3) Videos on a few restricted questions. It saves time to the voters. But
>> it is not very visible. It is in English. And it is on a limited number of
>> questions.
>>
>> 4) A rating provided by the Analysis Committee, which evaluated the
>> candidates against the skills and diversity, equity and inclusion criteria.
>> Well, there could be suscipions over any process where a committee tell us
>> what to vote. If our individual recommandations are considered unfair and
>> bringing inequity, then those recommandations are unfair and bringing
>> inequity too.
>>
>> I found interesting to look at this page :
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Events
>> Sections "Schedules events" and "Tentative events" are completely empty.
>>
>> The restrictions placed over the rights to speak this year really had a 
>> chilling
>> effect .
>>
>> I hope that in the future, the candidates and the community voices are
>> given more liberty.
>>
>>
>> Florence
>>
>>
>> Just in case, I am sharing the last WikiAfrica Hour episode, where all 6
>> candidates finally had the right to speak up *(2 months struggle to get
>> there though)* : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwZ_7Bg1ENk
>>
>>
>> Le 24/08/2022 à 08:54, Mahuton Possoupe a écrit :
>>
>> Hello, Emufarmers and Andreas
>>
>> This was pointed out on Meta as well.
>>
>> The message announcing the opening of the vote was 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimania program is now live

[effe iets anders]

I agree with the mild disappointment with regards to the number of accepted
sessions. The fact that the amount of content went down this much (we have
this year about 75h of content over all content sessions) is a bit sad, and
would suggest that the quality of the proposals was bad this year or a
deliberate choice to give less space to movement exchanges. The drop is
however less steep than the 5 to 3 track change suggests, because on the
bright side, the content is more spread out over time (albeit still very
focused on European timezones).

I can however imagine that the 5-minute grid is confusing, but it is also
very hard to avoid, i know from experience. Wikimedians have a tendency to
be super specific about how much time they want for their session, and how
many presentations they want to split their session into. One way to
address this, would be to not report the individual timeslots at all, but
only report session blocks and who's in the block - rather than how much
time everyone has. That's more a layout matter though.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 1:16 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Hi Sandra,
>
> It's great to see that some proposals were accepted! ;-) I was very
> surprised to hear how many proposals were rejected this year - I guess
> that's related to the decrease from 5 parallel sessions last year to 3
> this year. Was there a reason for that? Will the rejected proposals that
> asked to be shared on-wiki still be posted at some point, for the record?
>
> Also, can I suggest that you break the schedule down in 15 minute
> periods rather than 5 minutes? It's currently a very long page with a
> lot of white space to scroll though!
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 5/8/22 17:36:27, Sandra Aceng wrote:
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> >
> > The Wikimania Festival Edition program
> > <
> https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Program/Schedule>is
>
> > now live. Please take a look and find the sessions you’re most
> > interested in!
> >
> >
> > We are also organising platform practice sessions to give you a quick
> > orientation. The practice sessions are happening on Monday, August 8,
> > andTuesday, August 9at different times to accommodate all time zones.
> > Participation details are on the Wikimania Wiki
> > 
> >
> >
> > Also, a reminder to register if you haven’t already. You can register
> > here: https://diff.wikimedia.org/wikimania-2022/
> > 
> >
> >
> > Happy exploring!
> >
> > Sandra on behalf of the Core Organising Team
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Sandra Aceng*
> > *Wikimedian, Policy Analyst, Writer, & Gender and ICT Researcher*
> > Plot 360,Kansanga-Ggaba Road, Kampala Uganda
> > *Email*: sac...@wougnet.org 
> > *Web:* about.me/saceng 
> > *Twitter:* @sandraaceng
> > *Facebook:* Sandra Aceng
> > *Skype:* sandraaceng
> > *Contact:* +256772355760
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FB4MY6RZDNAO4AOCW2CH5Y32TXTZOEFP/
> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PPXG36KKDCMCNOQ6QCUMP5JZMCU2UURY/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QOBLAI33LHMYRSDC7DHXCEJAVAWZFJ5E/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Announcing the six candidates for the 2022 Board of Trustees election

[effe iets anders]

Thank you Jackie for the update.

I hope (and assume) that you will be able to include this in a list of
decisions to take by the Elections Committee before the next selection
process(es). The level of expected transparency might be a useful standard
decision item anyway?

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 3:03 PM Jackie Koerner 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for discussing this topic. It is clear the publication of this
> information is important to some community members. The Elections Committee
> and Board Selection Task Force approved publishing a complete list of
> which affiliate organizations voted in a table
> 
> .
>
> Best,
>
>
> Jackie
>
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 11:45 AM Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Of course it's like that Ilario,sometimes some usergroups are
>> "userpersons". and as person involved in the previous ASBS election I
>> politely hinted that aspect as much as possible in the past. Also,
>> sometimes even some chapters are mostly few key persons when relationship
>> with WMF is involved, but it's easier to start from UGs to handle the issue.
>>
>> i had some general idea of what you are supposed to facilitate if you
>> want real transparency in these processes and I felt that was not fully
>> there. Instead of building on previous know-how, the process was restarting
>> again and that do not get great functionality in WMF, usually. It's like
>> knowing for sure that these sort of mails would have happened at the end.
>>
>> I had no time to look carefully, but that was kinda of a feeling and as a
>> result, despite being a first contact and having a decent know-how, I
>> decided not to engage the affiliate in the process. The affiliate I
>> represent is small and fragmented and lacks a strong identity yet, I know
>> for sure that getting to a meaningful ranking would have taken a lot of
>> effort and in May and June I simply had no time. Or it would have resulted
>> in me pushing my ideas in a way or another, and that was not correct. Like,
>> many people are ns-0 users and don't now names, so they trust your side of
>> the story.
>>
>> So I decided to skip it. I was asked a contact for the first step and
>> replied by mail that in May I had no time to even start a thread on meta
>> about deciding whom to select (it would have been me, probably, but I did
>> not feel it was correct).
>>
>> my choice was either focusing properly as a UG on the WIkisummit
>> application or that, and I did at least properly the first one. I could
>> have taken part in the process probably representing 90% myself, nobody
>> would have noticed.
>>
>> Alessandro
>>
>> Il sabato 23 luglio 2022 17:59:01 CEST, Ilario Valdelli <
>> valde...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>
>>
>> I think that there is a very sensible point here.
>>
>> Sometimes behind some usergroups there is not a specific community but
>> only few people and sometimes some usergroups are "userpersons".
>>
>> Being more transparent helps to demonstrate that the whole process has
>> been conducted appropriately but also to have an overview that affiliates
>> have voted really on what their community proposed.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 3:28 AM Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>> I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the need
>> to protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members,
>>
>>
>> This is not some functionary volunteer role, nor is it a scholarship to
>> attend some event. The affiliate and the members of the Board of Trustees
>> are both very public facing aspects, when a person is on the Board of
>> Trustees their identity is public
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board/ .  It is obvious that a
>> truly  vulnerable person would not even put themselves into a BOT
>> position.  It's important for members of the community to know who their
>> affiliate chose to represent them because it's a reflection of that
>> community.  I know some affiliates actually didnt consult their communities
>> for input into the decision process before the fact so knowing after the
>> fact is at least pretending to be transparent in the voting.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 06:01, Benjamin Lees  wrote:
>>
>> I don't think there's anything blithe in pointing out that an
>> after-the-fact promise of secrecy serves no one.  Affiliates had to decide
>> whether to vote without knowing whether the list would be published (but
>> hopefully realizing that the username of their voter would be published,
>> although I'm not sure if this was made clear).  The main effect of post-hoc
>> secrecy here would be to sow confusion and set up unrealistic expectations
>> about future votes; in the last affiliate-selected board seat process, not
>> only was the list of voting affiliates published, but *their individual
>> votes were as well*: <
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Maryana Iskander interview in San Francisco Examiner

[effe iets anders]

I have some doubts if it is really this helpful to spell out these
interviews on this list, and point out how certain details were perhaps not
presented exactly to your liking. I don't know if it arrives at the right
people, but it definitely arrives at a lot of people who are probably less
interested in the specifics at this level of detail.

My question to the communications team would be: is this kind of feedback
something that is useful to you in your work, and if so, where would be an
effective location to share that feedback?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 6:55 AM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> Even if I agree with you in most of your points, I completely disagree
> about asking others to try to amend with press editors the already
> published interviews. The fact that the public discourse from the WMF’s
> front line is imprecise is not new at all, but I don’t think that it will
> get solved by asking a newspaper to add community’s refinements over the
> statements from the CEO.
>
> Let’s also be cautious with the number of 5000 paid editors. In my opinion
> they are a scourge of our editing communities, but if we need to talk
> knowledgeably about them, Wikipedia is not only its English version and we
> should really count them across all languages.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Xavier Dengra
>
> Actiu ds, jul 23, 2022 a 15:16, Andreas Kolbe  va
> escriure:
>
> Dear Maryana, Jeff, and all,
>
> Allow me to raise a couple of points with respect to the interview
> published yesterday in the San Francisco Examiner, titled "What does the
> CEO who oversees Wikipedia do? We ask her."
>
>
> https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/what-does-the-ceo-who-oversees-wikipedia-do-we-ask-her/article_a7ab64fe-084d-11ed-830c-77f61ed96d7d.html
>
> I'll quote the relevant passages.
>
> 1. "[Q:] *You said there’s hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors. So
> how many people get paid and are professional editors of Wikipedia?* [A:]
> Wikipedia is written by volunteers, unpaid people helping the rest of us
> make sure that we find information on the internet that is accurate and
> verified and cited and sourced. There are employees of the Wikimedia
> Foundation that provide support to these communities and volunteers, but
> the volunteers themselves are not paid staff."
>
> This is a good statement inasmuch as it makes clear that Wikipedia is
> written and curated by volunteers, countering the widespread but erroneous
> assumption that the WMF's paid staff plays an active role in this. On the
> other hand, that point had already been made, and given that this appears
> to have been a direct question about how many paid and professional editors
> of Wikipedia there are, the article would have benefited from a mention of
> the thousands of editors who *are* paid by individuals and organisations
> (other than the WMF). There are over 5,000 Wikipedia editors who openly
> disclose being paid:
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search=100=0=1=This+user%2C+in+accordance+with+the+Wikimedia+Foundation%27s+Terms+of+Use%2C+discloses+that+they+have+been+paid+by
>
> To these must be added an unknown number of additional paid editors who
> operate without disclosure, or use a different method of disclosure than
> the one searched for by this URL. Could this be added to the article, and
> mentioned in future interviews where this question is asked?
>
> 2. "[A:] ... We have roughly 600 people scattered across over 40 countries
> and every region of the world. ..."
>
> The article would have given a more accurate impression if it had
> mentioned that well over half of these are based in the US. Could this info
> be added, and included in future interviews?
>
> 3. "[Q:] *Why does Wikipedia have banners on its website asking people to
> give money? *[A:] They’re a small invitation for folks who find value in
> Wikipedia to chip in and ensure that this can remain as it is: An
> enterprise that doesn’t rely on selling you anything with ads. I’m not
> incentivizing you to stay longer than you need to stay."
>
> The WMF has never asked for money to ensure that things "can remain" as
> they are, or to avoid having to put up ads. It has asked for money to
> enable exponential growth of the Wikimedia Foundation – whose salary costs
> have increased tenfold over the past decade[1] – and to accumulate vast
> reserves, which have increased by an even greater factor over that time
> period. Last year alone, the Foundation's assets and the Wikimedia
> Endowment together grew by about $90 million dollars, a surplus that is
> almost the equivalent of one full year's expenses.[2] Seen in this context,
> I find the answer given paints a misleading picture, especially given a
> prior sentence saying that "her 600-employee organization humbly raises
> funds to keep operating ..." – as though there were an acute need for
> donations to keep the WMF going.
>
> I'd love 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Announcing the six candidates for the 2022 Board of Trustees election

[effe iets anders]

I appreciate that there are some concerns for the wellbeing of individuals
and affiliates. I'm sure there are always all kind of accusations about
engaging with foreign organizations, and if that would hold us back, we
could equally not allow ourselves to publish annual reports to the
movement, or what grants have been requested. My intuition would say that
if an affiliate does not feel that they can safely engage in global
governance because they could meet repercussions for this, maybe the wise
thing is not to engage in that global governance, rather than trying to
hide it (which is always vulnerable to breaches). However, I don't know how
widespread or permanent this kind of problem is - I do find it problematic
that we discuss this only after the election, and this kind of transparency
should have been decided up front. But maybe I missed something, and this
has actually been discussed in advance (?).

Jackie, have any commitments/promises been made to voters about secrecy or
transparency? You describe in your email what your facilitators have heard,
but I don't read what they have promised.

Currently there is only a public list of individuals that has voted, rather
than which organizations. This still allows people to kind of puzzle
together which organizations have voted, without the advantage of actual
transparency. Seems the worst of both worlds to me.

I already find it doubtful that we don't publish which organization has
voted what way, given that this is the only way that members of such
organizations can hold their leadership accountable.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 9:14 PM Jackie Koerner 
wrote:

> Hi Alice and Adamw,
>
> Thanks for this question. This has been a question those of us on the team
> supporting the election asked ourselves: do we publish the participants
> publicly, or no?
>
> Movement Strategy and Governance is made up of facilitators from around
> the world. We all have a broad experience with cultures and community
> experiences. Several facilitators said some affiliates from their regions
> decided not to participate to avoid the risk of being labeled and accused
> of engaging with a foreign organization. The aim is to protect those
> organizations and individuals who did participate from extra attention that
> might have real and lasting effects for them.
>
> For the reason above, making the list of participants more obvious is not
> something that we wish to do so we can protect the people in our
> communities who are vulnerable to just how political participating in free
> knowledge still is in much of the world.
>
> If any organization needs to have documentation of their participation, we
> can gladly supply that on an individual basis.
>
> Best,
>
> Jackie
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 6:46 AM Adam Wight 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to this question, and whether we can make the list of voting
>> affiliates public in the same way that we publicize the voting rolls for
>> individuals participating in Community [S]elections.  The results page [1]
>> shows that 112 affiliate organizations each cast one vote.
>>
>> Regards,
>> [[meta:User:Adamw]]
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Results/Affiliate_organization_voting
>> On 7/19/22 21:11, Alice Wiegand wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jackie,
>> Thanks for sharing the result. Where can we find information about how
>> many chapters/thematic organizations and usergroups have casted their votes?
>>
>> Alice.
>>
>> Am 19.07.2022 um 19:32 schrieb Jackie Koerner :
>>
>> *You can find this message translated into additional languages on
>> Meta-wiki.
>> *
>>  Please help translate to your language
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> The Affiliate voting process has concluded. Representatives from each
>> Affiliate organization learned about the candidates by reading candidates’
>> statements, reviewing candidates’ answers to questions, and considering the
>> candidates’ ratings provided by the Analysis Committee. The selected 2022
>> Board of Trustees candidates are:
>>
>>- Tobechukwu Precious Friday (Tochiprecious
>>)
>>- Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak
>>)
>>- Shani Evenstein Sigalov (Esh77
>>)
>>- Kunal Mehta (Legoktm )
>>- Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom
>>)
>>- Mike Peel (Mike Peel
>>)
>>
>> You may see more 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[effe iets anders]

How is @Wikipedia (and similar accounts) being managed right now? I'm
mostly curious about the process how the tweets are decided upon - is this
a staff-driven process or is there some community engagement? Is it planned
out long in advance, or reactive (or somewhere in between)?

Are there opportunities to better bolster the strengths of our community?

Lodewijk

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:30 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> We should all be answering questions :)  The public interest will only
> grow with the glorious images coming out today.
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 10:45 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Good day,
>> Yesterday, the James Webb telescope published its first image, called
>> "Webb's Frist Deep Field" (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb%27s_First_Deep_Field). An article
>> about the image existis in 14 languages. The tweet announcing it has
>> collected in less than a day more than 77.000 RTs and 275.000 likes (
>> https://twitter.com/NASAWebb/status/1546621080298835970). The main
>> object of the image didn't have any article at any Wikipedia (not an item
>> at Wikidata) yesterday. Now we have an article in 8 languages:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMACS_J0723.3-7327 and a category in
>> Commons.
>>
>> Well, the Wikipedia twitter handle didn't tweet anything about this
>> achievement, and didn't give any contest to the image. (
>> https://twitter.com/wikipedia).
>>
>> We could be answering questions. "By 2030, Wikimedia will become the
>> essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge". We could be
>> centering free knowledge at Wikimedia.
>>
>> Best,
>> Galder
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZOCBTOH4CXJDCV74J7YR6HAVL7EAGOQF/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3GELHG42LCD3K5Z7OJ6CQEYLHGJ764AH/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/HZNWOQLM3ZBMWSQBJNNFTDTQI4HQ7PLD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. design staff

[effe iets anders]

I see, it sounds like you're less genuinely interested in what this team is
doing, but rather trying to look for arguments why WMF would be wasting
money. I'm not sure if that is a terribly constructive approach to start a
conversation. Thanks for being open about it at least. Given this, and the
fact that you're not interested in thinking about what good metrics would
be to make such determination, before jumping to conclusions - I don't
think I'll be a good conversation partner for you, and I'll let this thread
be.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 1:36 PM MZMcBride  wrote:

> On Jun 17, 2022, at 9:08 AM, effe iets anders 
> wrote:
> > How would you propose to measure 'output' in a somewhat objective way?
> It is of course easy to identify that our own pet projects don't get the
> attention we feel they deserve, but given that the priorities of the WMF
> are so much broader than those of you and me personally, that may not be
> entirely fair.
>
> I'm not sure we need an objective measure of output, per se. Lots of
> measures could be sufficient. If "pet" projects—by which I assume you mean
> projects that community members are interested in—are not being worked on,
> then what is being worked on instead? That's essentially my question. (The
> Phabricator link you provided shows a massive backlog and maybe three or
> four tasks currently in development.)
>
> I'm developing a thesis that Wikimedia Foundation Inc., with a budget of
> over $150,000,000 USD per year, "has bloated to become unwieldy,
> unaccountable, and it has little to show for the hundreds of millions of
> dollars it has wasted and continues to waste." I think the design team is
> potentially a good case study for this, but first I need to better
> understand the inputs versus the outputs. I can see the inputs pretty
> clearly, about 25 staff members and a couple million dollars of donor money
> being spent per year. What are the outputs for this recurring investment?
> Is the site user experience improving due to this investment? Are we
> publishing a lot of useful design research due to this investment?
>
> > Especially if you consider that the changes that the WMF comes up with
> often meet a lot of pushback from the community.
>
>
> This framing suggests that Wikimedia Foundation Inc. should be pursuing
> its own agenda and priorities that may not align with the needs or wants of
> the Wikimedia community. I think that's entirely the wrong framing.
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc. should be serving the community's needs and we
> seem to have drifted, over many years, very far from what was an
> established truth. This is partially what I mean by a lack of
> accountability.
>
> > (as a sidenote: it turns out that the team has been roughly this big for
> a while now)
>
> Sure, though if we conclude that too much donor money is being spent per
> year on, for example, design resources, it just means the problem has
> compounded over the course of many years to be even larger. We could be
> talking about $6M or $8M or more. That's a lot of money to spend and I'm
> struggling to understand what the return on investment is.
>
> MZMcBride
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ULEUDQ7SOZBMENICPZMYVKWBM7UKNMGE/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5GMC2T6U35YP2NA3KWTMT2KYYFMLKM4S/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. design staff

[effe iets anders]

How would you propose to measure 'output' in a somewhat objective way? It
is of course easy to identify that our own pet projects don't get the
attention we feel they deserve, but given that the priorities of the WMF
are so much broader than those of you and me personally, that may not be
entirely fair. Especially if you consider that the changes that the WMF
comes up with often meet a lot of pushback from the community. It might be
nice though to make a little more explicit someplace how our environment is
changing over time, because I am sure that there's a lot of things that we
almost don't notice, but make life better, or forget quickly because it's
such a logical improvement. Not so much from accountability perspective,
but more from a historical lens.

(as a sidenote: it turns out that the team has been roughly this big for a
while now)

If your question is asking about 'what are you working on' (which is
related to but different from 'what have you seen as output'), you could
take a peek at their phabricator board
.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 3:06 PM MZMcBride  wrote:

> Hello.
>
> I happened to look at  earlier
> today and I noticed that the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. design team is about
> 24 people these days. I found this very surprising, as that's quite a few
> people. And it's even more perplexing if you have visited Wikimedia wikis
> previously, as they're somewhat infamously not known for cutting-edge
> design. The vast majority of the content is very simple headings, body
> text, and sometimes thumbnails, all wrapped within a site skin that very
> infrequently changes.
>
> If we assume that each design person's salary is $70,000/year USD, which I
> think is a very conservative estimate, that's about $1,680,000 of donor
> money spent per year on just design team salaries. Again, the actual figure
> is probably much higher.
>
> When $1.68M of donor money is spent each year, what are we getting in
> return? Concretely and specifically, what is the return on this very large
> amount of money being spent every year? I see the various titles listed
> such as design researcher and user experience designer, but I can't wrap my
> head around what all of this money is being spent on, having personally
> used Wikimedia sites and services for more than 15 years.
>
> MZMcBride
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6W2OATORZGI3D33GNPU3QXFM3VBTILFW/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MCSNQTE3VYCFDMCIVQWBXVYIMTH3GYJE/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[effe iets anders]

The proposals that you list are a bit double edged. It may be necessary,
but they have downsides. For example, there are in a few cases very good
reasons to go back to the drawing board when we're talking about
foundational documents. It is annoying that it takes so long, but with time
we also should see increased ownership and an increased support base.
Having a single phase reduces the number of messages and time spent, but it
also reduces the process to a single point of failure, making it much
higher stakes. If you don't participate, you're too late. It would be nice
if we can somehow still lower the stakes by making processes more
iterative, and accepting that the outcome does not have to be the same for
a long period of time. But there is a fundamental tension between speed and
perceived pressure.

I'm less concerned about elections, if only one of these rounds involves
the community. If having an additional round of filtering helps to make the
ballot easier to digest (reduced to six candidates for three positions
sounds great to me!) that also means less mental effort for voters. The
real question is: how much cumulative time are we spending on this process
(or rather: should we be spending on this, if we want a good outcome). If
100 people spend an extra 2 hour to trim down from 30 to 6 candidates, that
is worth it, because 10,000 people don't have to read 30 statements, bio's,
Q's etc. If we go from 7 to 6 candidates, maybe less so.
If doing another drafting round means 30 people spend an extra 10 hours
drafting, that may be worth it, if it means that 1000 people don't have to
be frustrated for a year because they constantly run into consequences of
the policy and have to go through protests to get it changed. If the
iteration for things that don't work is more lightweight, maybe we can just
try it for a year, and evaluate after that.

Maybe it's worth it to sometimes take a napkin and do the math: how much
collective time are we going to spend on this?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:12 PM Steven Walling 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Nathan  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
 staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
 results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
 process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
 allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
 for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.

 It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
 are not even a good aim to begin with.

 cheers,
 scann
>>>
>>>
>>> 100% this.
>>>
>>> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
>>> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
>>> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
>>> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
>>> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
>>> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
>>> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
>>> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
>>> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
>>> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
>>> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
>>> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
>>> less than five."[1]
>>>
>>> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of
>>> strong leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or
>>> safety to do things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations
>>> possible. This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no
>>> one really knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck
>>> because we're trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where
>>> it's unclear who is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to
>>> solve that by perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or
>>> council of people. It's turtles all the way down.
>>>
>>> 1:
>>> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
>>>
>>>
>> I think that means we need to acknowledge some culpability for this
>> phenomena - in environments like this list, folks learn that no decision is
>> too benign to spark controversy and any actually controversial decision is
>> guaranteed to garner a vitriolic backlash.
>>
>> Combine that with the normal tendencies of bureaucracies, magnified by
>> the special nature of the WMF, and the result is explosive 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[effe iets anders]

Mostly agree with SJ here, with one exception: I do think that some
standing committee to rule on conduct issues is necessary to be community
elected (not sure if I understood SJ correctly that he was not in favor of
this though). Lets call it some version of separation of powers, and a
necessary process effort to ensure trust in that system.

But in general, I agree that while consultations and community decisions
are important, we have to get smarter at them. This is in part being
selective with how we advertise things (be cautious with the use of your
megaphone), more structured and accessible off-cycle engagement (reducing
the all-importance of formal processes) and indeed better delegation.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
wrote:

> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>
> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>
> cheers,
> scann
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZXLHIUOCI4BCCH4PC5DZT4W2ACIWF5L/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/LNV55WCN745BYLASXR4CUSE3HXWZOEC7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Are you considering running for the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation board elections?

[effe iets anders]

If you want to have a discussion about the term 'diversity' in the context
of Wikimedia (I doubt it will remain limited to the board selections), it
might be helpful to start a new thread for that. The challenge at hand is
to get sufficient high quality candidates for this election that can add
value (with whatever name) to the WMF board of trustees.

Lodewijk

On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 11:38 AM H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Well, let's have a look at what they're looking for. There are some vague
> references to representation, diversity, and expertise, but if you look a
> bit closer at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate,
> they indicate that "most beneficial for new trustees to bring"  are:
> * Organizational strategy and management
> * Enterprise-level platform technology and/or product development
> * Public policy and the law
> * Social data science, big data analysis, and machine learning
>
> I'm not going to propose a new set of criteria, other than to say if you
> really want diversity, inclusion and belonging, let people explain why they
> think they bring something of value, and let the community decide.
>
> And to hell with machine learning. People, not machines.
>
> Sent with ProtonMail secure email.
> --- Original Message ---
> On Saturday, May 7th, 2022 at 2:01 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
> > How do you propose that relevant competencies be recognized, defined, or
> > assessed? Cheers, Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
> > Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 15:52
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Cc: H4CUSEG
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Are you considering running for the 2022
> > Wikimedia Foundation board elections?
> >
> > Yes. We shouldn't define people by what they're not (white, cis-gendered,
> > male, etc.). But we should also adopt an expanded conceptualization of
> > "competency" that is more inclusive. What we think of as competency has
> been
> > defined by people who found their own specific skills particularly
> important
> > (and their own race better than other people's). To be inclusive means to
> > understand and value the competencies that people bring, in stead of
> > requiring that people of colour can join as long as they also have all
> the
> > "white" competencies.
> >
> >
> > Sent with ProtonMail secure email.
> > --- Original Message ---
> > On Friday, May 6th, 2022 at 2:59 AM, Lorenzo Losa ll...@wikimedia.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On mer, 2022-05-04 at 14:36 +, H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can we stop referring to "diverse people" please? It's offensive.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry for that.
> > >
> > > If I understand it right - and correct me if I'm wrong - you are saying
> > > that calling someone a "diverse person" is labeling that person in a
> > > bad way. This is a fair point. Diversity relates to a multitude, not to
> > > an individual.
> > > To rephrase my sentence: we need trustees who are individually skilled
> > > and experienced, forming a board that is collectively diverse - that is
> > > able to express and create space for different perspectives and ideas.
> > >
> > > Lorenzo
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
> guidelines
> >
> > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >
> > > Public archives at
> >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
> > message/IJHKZYD7YDC7KQNAHJRJRSLIUCYANO2Q/
> >
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > Public archives at
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
> > message/2AF725BB7LMS7EFMNHB6ITYFDXBBSW2W/
> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NYWU7OLMF3M5O3JQACO4TMR4XEEDN4JS/
> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[effe iets anders]

Hi Danny,

this is great thinking. There's one more angle that I'd like to offer, but
it would come with plenty of risks and downsides, so I'm not sure if it is
actually viable (I guess it falls in the 'mitigate harm' category). But
just to put it out there:

One of the main reasons that we block open proxies, is because of
sockpuppets and block evaders. What if we would somehow expose to admins
which edits are made by open proxy? That way they can consider the entire
picture (including a history of good faith edits) before blocking their
edits. Down the road, that flag could become more nuanced (open proxy vs
shared connection) but obviously it would have to remain pretty broad
categories. There are plenty of downsides (WMF would need to keep a
database of open proxies for one, but it would also share a small piece of
private information about the user - we could warn them about that as they
are saving their edit).

If we are afraid primarily for rapid open proxy edits, we could use a
tactic that is used by some social media tech companies in other settings:
slow them down when using an identified open proxy. If we build in a 30s
throttle or even wait time before the edit can be saved, or a 5 minute
delay before the edit can become visible, that would take the fun out of it
possibly. Obvious downside is that this is still annoying as hell for good
faith users, but at least they can now request exceptions on-wiki.

This family of methods risks a two class community, but I'm not sure if
that is worse than the current situation. I'm not sure what would be the
'right' path either.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:03 PM  wrote:

> (cross-posted from
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Help_from_WMF
> )
>
> Hi folks, I'm DannyH from the Wikimedia Foundation. I manage the product
> teams that build Contributor Tools -- Community Tech, Campaigns, CheckUser
> improvements and sockpuppet detection, moderator tools on mobile web, and
> the new incident reporting system.
>
> I've been reading all of these conversations, and I'm concerned about the
> people on both sides of the issue -- the admins working to keep the
> projects safe from bad-faith people, and the good-faith people who are
> being blocked because of someone else's rangeblock, or because they're
> using default network proxy features that they're not aware of.
>
> This problem is getting attention within the WMF. Foundation folks are
> really concerned about what we're hearing on Wikimedia-L and in this
> discussion, especially because there seem to be systemic issues that are
> specifically making things harder for new users in Africa. I've got the
> opportunity right now to assign people to make software changes to help
> solve this problem, which is great. But now I'm trying to figure out what
> those software changes could be, and I don't have a clear answer yet for
> what that should be.
>
> So if you don't mind, I'd like to run through what I think the main points
> are, and a list of possible directions that a solution could take, and then
> I would love it if you could help me figure this out.
>
> Here's what I understand about the problem:
>
> * Open proxies are a vector for harassment and vandalism. Bad-faith long
> term abusers use them to disguise their IP and evade detection. The
> projects automatically block open proxies that they know about, to
> discourage the bad-faith vandals.
>
> * There's been a big increase in proxy blocks since July 2021 on English
> Wikipedia (and Oct 2021 on Spanish WP), because ST47ProxyBot has been
> getting trustworthy outside data to help identify open proxies.
>
> * The use of open proxies on the internet is rising, partly because people
> are becoming more concerned about their privacy. Apple has introduced
> iCloud Private Relay, which is disguising people's IP — this is currently
> in beta, but will probably become the default. Google is working on a
> similar project. Our system of using IPs to identify block vandals is
> gradually breaking down, and there will probably be a point when IPs just
> won't be useful anymore.
>
> * There are a lot of good-faith users, including first-time contributors,
> who are getting caught in these blocks. For some people, that's an annoying
> inconvenience; for many others, especially brand new people, it drives them
> away completely.
>
> * There appears to be a systemic issue with how some African ISPs deal
> with IP addresses, which is creating a lot of collateral damage in places
> where campaign organizers are trying to introduce new users to wiki
> contribution. I saw one person mention that the problem was especially bad
> in Ghana and Benin.
>
> * The messages that people get when they're blocked are confusing,
> especially for new people. They only get the message after they've made an
> edit and are trying to publish, which is very frustrating.
>
> * The solution for individuals is to request an IP Block Exemption, which

[Wikimedia-l] Re: UCoC Phase 2 Ratification Results Announcement

[effe iets anders]

Thank you Stella,

Thank you for sharing, I'm looking forward to an evaluation of how this
vote was executed, so that we can use these methods for more
topics/decisions in a constructive way. I'm pleased to see how the process
has seen various types of community engagement, and this seems a good step
in the right direction. I guess it's hard to expect more turnout than this.
(sidenote: the fact that this announcement is being made by a WMF staff
member probably means that this process is less community driven than I
thought. )

For a fundamental document like this, I'm surprised to see that there is
40+% opposition. Is there a good understanding of what in the UCoC is
causing so much opposition?

I'm asking, because this is supposed to be a universal code, and even if
this opposition was randomly distributed in our communities, it would be
quite likely that there is a meaningful number of communities where there
would be a majority against, if we would split up the vote by community. In
such a case, I imagine that understanding the reasons why people are
against, and whether something can be done to mitigate this (or that any
universal document could likely meet similar opposition) is the least we
could be expected to attempt.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:32 PM Stella Ng  wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> We would like to thank the over 2300 Wikimedians who participated in the
> recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
> Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
> .
> At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review
> of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on
> Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:
>
>
>-
>
>58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
>
>
>-
>
>Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
>-
>
>Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot
>
>
> What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to
> review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are
> automatically complete.
>
> From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments
> provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The
> Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their
> consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and
> examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further
> refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki
> and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for
> revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the
> voter’s responses.
>
> In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project
> team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of
> these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C
> Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting
> conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to
> be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.
>
> Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement
> guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively
> work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as
> presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways
> over the last year.
>
> Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the
> Enforcement Guidelines.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team
>
> Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B42TE3IZNGKTEPBMORULKNDVJIXM6AC7/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OINZZ7TJO4Q5H4NUVE2GY5U7NJISXSOY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Emerging human rights concern related to invasion of Ukraine

[effe iets anders]

My thoughts go out to the communities struggling to keep doing their
'work'. It must be incredibly challenging to maintain a neutral
encyclopedia in light of government censorship, split populations, threats
and violence.

I know WMF is trying hard to do the right thing for editors under threat,
and I hope that the worldwide community can do whatever it can, to assist
the communities in these countries to function somewhat. I don't know how
myself (+1 to Pierre-Yves), but I hope at least that displaced Wikimedians
(be it from Belarus, Russia or Ukraine) feel comfortable to contact
affiliates and other Wikimedian groups in their new location for practical
and moral support.

A very practical consideration: I understand that the Russian community is
suppressing history of sensitive articles. I imagine that some features
around this kind of 'emergency obscurity' that go well outside our normal
scope of operation might be considered more of a priority to develop right
now.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 3:02 AM Pierre-Yves Beaudouin via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Thank you Maggie for your message.
>
> Let us know when the movement should communicate about this terrible news.
> I'm sure that a lot of affiliates would be happy to communicate on that
> topic, contact our governments and human rights NGOs, but we don't want to
> make things worse for Pessimist2006 and others editors living in Belarus,
> Russia and Ukraine.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> *Pierre-Yves Beaudouin*
> *Membre du conseil d'administration*
> *-*
> *WIKIMEDIA FRANCE*
> Association pour le libre partage de la connaissance
> *www.wikimedia.fr *
> *28 rue de Londres, 75009 PARIS*
> 
>
> Le 2022-03-11 22:45, Maggie Dennis a écrit :
>
> Hello, all.
>
> I’m writing to update you all on an emerging human rights concern related
> to the invasion of Ukraine. We are concerned that an effort is being made
> to identify Wikipedia editors whose activities are seen as opposing the
> Russian narrative of the war.
>
> I wanted to let you know that we are aware, we are monitoring, and we are
> acting in various ways already. While we cannot discuss the details for the
> safety of all involved, over a year ago, we hired a Human Rights Lead
>  with experience in
> individual safety to help us with such situations. This includes
> partnerships with allied organizations experienced in human rights
> interventions as well as connecting with appropriate community groups and
> functionaries to provide safety support. We care about the safety of
> Wikimedians, and I know that you do, too. We have heard as much from many
> of you directly.
>
> I want to take this opportunity to raise your awareness of the need to
> protect yourselves and each other online. It’s such a cliche that I’m
> almost hesitant to write it, but in this world, sharing information is
> sometimes a radical act. Because of this, we ask you all to please be aware
> of what information you share about yourself on Wikimedia platforms and how
> your Wikimedia activities can be connected to your personal identity. Some
> Wikimedians have chosen to operate transparently. Others have chosen to
> operate under pseudonyms. Whatever path you’ve chosen, there are best
> practices for your personal protection. Some guidance has been gathered
> here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Voices_under_Threat
>
> At the same time as I share these recommendations, I want to firmly assert
> that all who try to get people vital information in times of crisis -
> whether Wikimedian or otherwise - should be celebrated. At the core of our
> movement is the belief that knowledge belongs to everyone, and the
> Foundation is firmly against efforts by anyone to stand in the way of the
> flow of verifiable information in whatever forum it is shared. I believe,
> as is the way with all Wikimedians, that the path to a better world is to
> ensure people everywhere have access to knowledge, and that we, as
> collective societies, should provide them the tools to assess the accuracy
> of the information they encounter. Censorship is not the solution.
>
> If you have information to share about this situation or about other
> potential threats of persecution to the safety of Wikimedia volunteers due
> to their good faith contributions to the projects, please share with
> talktohumanrig...@wikimedia.org. The team is quite busy and may not be
> able to respond to all communications because of that, but they do read
> them, and your emails do matter.
>
> I wish the best for all of you who read this and for all seekers of
> information and sharers of information in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and
> beyond. We will share updates of the situation here as we are able within
> the framework of prioritizing people’s 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[effe iets anders]

Perhaps a conversation about the most optimal location for WMF (which I
imagine is more relevant in a strategy framework) is more constructive in
its own thread. I imagine that this has been part of plenty strategic
conversations over the past years, and will be in the future - meaning that
there are likely some people who have more insightful things to say about
this, than the people who open a thread about form 990 :)

Best,
Lodewijk

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:40 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Bodhisattwa,
>
> I quite agree. A somewhat similar set-up exists in Germany where donations
> are collected by the Wikimedia Fördergesellschaft ("Wikimedia Patron
> Society"), a subsidiary of Wikimedia Germany. The Fördergesellschaft then
> sends a part of its funds to the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States
> and uses the rest to fund Wikimedia Germany:
>
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de/use-of-funds
>
> However, this is the only such arrangement I am aware of. (Wikimedia UK
> used to have a similar one, but this ended when various conflicts of
> interest arose in the chapter, prompting a governance review.[1])
>
> In my opinion, the kind of decentralised arrangement you suggest is much
> more compatible with a worldwide movement. Such decentralisation and
> distributed decision-making also aids diversity, in a far more
> down-to-earth sense than talking about it does. (For example, Wikimedia
> Germany writes and designs its own fundraising banners, and over the years
> they've often been more culturally appropriate – and honest – than the WMF
> ones.)
>
> But, coming back to the question of where staff should be located, to the
> extent that the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States does take on
> global responsibilities (e.g. for keeping the software up to date ... I
> really like the new Reply feature on talk pages, for example), I think it
> would be desirable to have more of its staff outside the United States,
> including places like India.
>
> San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live in the world,
> and if Covid and Zoom have taught us anything it's that it is really not
> necessary to be physically in the same place all the time to work together.
> Hiring more staff abroad rather than in Silicon Valley is another thing
> that would make the WMF culturally more diverse.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/investigation-into-governance-at-wikimedia-uk-launched.html
>
> https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/wikimedia-uk-trustees-have-been--too-involved--to-effectively-govern-charity.html
>
> https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:37 AM Bodhisattwa 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> Regarding the money raised in India, there is actually another option
>> which can be more useful for the Indian volunteers. The money does not need
>> to be transferred out of India to US and then come back through different
>> grants as foreign money under strict regulations from the government. The
>> money can just be kept in India in an organization account which will agree
>> to be the custodian of it. A process can then be initiated to sustain the
>> Indian affiliates and communities for future with that money as per
>> movement strategy recommendation. I think that would be far better an
>> option for us than to increase the number of growing WMF staffs in India or
>> pay them salary with that money.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bodhisattwa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 03:45 Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Strainu,
>>>
>>> The outlier problem is manageable I believe, given that the Form 990
>>> lists the compensation of the dozen highest-paid employees (going up to
>>> just over $400,000 in 2019).
>>>
>>> There were actually more people (four) north of $300,000 in 2018 than
>>> there were in 2019 (two) – a reflection of long-term C-level vacancies, I
>>> believe. So the average does tell us something.
>>>
>>> As for people working at the Foundation easily being able to earn much
>>> more in for-profit companies, the same applies to us, mate. :) Instead of
>>> working for free on Wikipedia, you and me could easily be doing work
>>> elsewhere that pays *much* better. :)) Also, I don't ask people in
>>> second- and third-world countries to give me more money each year –
>>> pretending to be hard up, while earning a burgeoning six-figure salary and
>>> living a first-world lifestyle.
>>>
>>> Levity aside, and returning to the topic of the upcoming fundraisers, I
>>> am aware that there are many reasonably or even extremely wealthy people in
>>> India who can well afford to donate to Wikipedia. And donating can be a
>>> good feeling, for anyone who is able to afford it. On the other hand it
>>> seems to me from watching social media that the people who are most
>>> affected or even distressed by Wikipedia's meretricious claims of poverty
>>> are often those who are *genuinely* not well 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Annual activity report of West Bengal Wikimedians User Group for 2021-2022

[effe iets anders]

Thanks for sharing! This is a very easy to digest report, kudos for that!

Lodewijk

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:34 AM Bodhisattwa 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On behalf of the West Bengal Wikimedians User Group, I am pleased to
> submit and share with you it's 2021 annual activity report, which can be
> found here -
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal_Wikimedians/Reports/Annual_Activities/2021
>
> Regards,
> Bodhisattwa
> ___
> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list -- wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimediaindia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimediaindia-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FMKHE7EHDUUFGQSEPYUHGUDU7LVSNOLC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Learn how to develop bots in small wiki toolkit workshops

[effe iets anders]

I love this idea! Thank you for organizing this!

I look forward to the videos produced for this too.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:07 PM Srishti Sethi  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Thank you all for signing up for the bot workshops! :)
>
> The first workshop on the topic of “Pywikibot framework introduction &
> installation” is coming up - it will take place on *Friday, February 25th
> at 16:00 UTC*.
>
> You can find more details on the workshop and a link to join here <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Workshops#Intro_to_Pywikibot_framework_and_installation>
> [1].
>
> We will record this workshop and update the workshops page with the link
> later. Also, a quick note on the certificate distribution we shared briefly
> in the previous email - out of the eight planned workshops, individuals who
> will complete five and a final assignment will receive a digital
> certificate.
>
> We look forward to your participation!
>
> Cheers,
> Srishti
>
> (On behalf of the SWT Workshops Organization team)
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Workshops#Intro_to_Pywikibot_framework_and_installation
>
>
> *Srishti Sethi*
> Senior Developer Advocate
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 6:52 PM Srishti Sethi 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> TLDR; Want to learn new technical skills to help improve your wiki? Sign
>> up for workshops on scripts and bot development, organized by the small
>> wiki toolkits initiative: <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Workshops> [1].
>>
>> Small wiki toolkits (SWT) is an initiative to build technical capacity in
>> smaller language wikis by developing toolkits, conducting workshops, and
>> providing technical support <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits> [2]. The first set
>> of workshops for 2022 will teach individuals how to automate work in their
>> wiki community by developing, maintaining, and hosting bots. These
>> trainings build upon the lessons learned from two regional initiatives in
>> 2021: 
>> [3].
>>
>> To sign up for a workshop, add your signature under a specific workshop
>> section on this page <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Workshops> [4]. The
>> first workshop is scheduled for February 25th, 16:00 UTC. The organizing
>> team will share more details on mailing lists and on your talk page closer
>> to the date of the workshop.
>>
>> The SWT Organizing Team is also exploring issuing digital certificates
>> and badges to attendees of these workshops. More information on that will
>> be available in the coming weeks.
>>
>> We look forward to your participation!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Srishti
>>
>> (On behalf of the SWT Workshops Organization team)
>>
>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Workshops
>>
>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits
>>
>> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits#Past_events
>>
>> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits/Workshops
>>
>> *Srishti Sethi*
>> Senior Developer Advocate
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>
>> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AEJWS42SRL2GA4VTSRSDD6OXQIG5GK5C/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/R7553DS3MANWGRGS5ELVRNAOP7AIJISK/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month: We are back in 2022!

[effe iets anders]

The list archive probably has an answer to your question on 9 feb 2021.

But regardless, writing about Ukrainian culture is never more prudent than
when it is under threat. Whatever one's personal opinion on this war, I
don't think anyone will deny that Ukrainian cultural heritage is at risk?
Asking people to go outside and take photos, that may be a bit much right
now, but this is a writing exercise. That is the beautiful thing about
Wikimedia: we document things regardless of how much we 'like' them.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 9:59 PM 4nn1l2 <4nn1l2.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a legitimate concern as several users have dared to ask questions
> as you can see at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukraine%27s_Cultural_Diplomacy_Month
>
> We need more transparency regarding this decision. Granted, there was a
> campaign last year around this time, but was it advertised at a global
> scale? At least, I can't remember that.
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 8:28 AM Ariel Glenn WMF 
> wrote:
>
>> This campaign was conducted last year at around the same time:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%27s_Cultural_Diplomacy_Month_2021
>> Let's keep any unwarranted speculations off of this list please.
>>
>> Ariel Glenn
>> ar...@wikimedia.org
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 5:55 AM 4nn1l2 <4nn1l2.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The timing of this campaign is of real concern and not prudent, I think,
>>> especially for those of us who strive for neutrality.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 2:47 AM Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>>
 Thanks for sharing -- a nice idea and gorgeous page; nice to see the 
 *wikigap
 challenge* model proliferating.

 On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:00 PM Valentin Nefedov <
 nefedov.valen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello, dear Wikipedians!Wikimedia Ukraine, in cooperation with the
> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and Ukrainian Institute, has
> launched the second edition of writing challenge Ukraine's Cultural
> Diplomacy Month , which lasts from 17
> February to 17 March 2022. The campaign is dedicated to famous Ukrainian
> artists of cinema, music, literature, architecture, design and cultural
> phenomena of Ukraine that made a contribution to world culture. The most
> active contesters will receive prizes.
>
> We invite you to take part and help us improve the coverage of
> Ukrainian culture on Wikipedia in any language!
>
> Sincerely,
> Valentyn Nefedov a.k.a. Renvoy
> ___
> 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
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> wikimediaannounce-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


 --
 Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529
 4266
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
 guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
 Public archives at
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IBIAITNZ4M42ND7L7743PTHS5X22GEHM/
 To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> Public archives at
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/I3TQ4NVWD4VI3FQTKX53C7YNEFNJGYS2/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GCKL7THS7CWFKWEAWDPYHMRX3BBTXTTW/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JOUVN3RETCAIR4YLQBP5DNUWFJDSELK7/
> To 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Adding Wiki Love Folklore to Wiki Loves Competition Tools

[effe iets anders]

Hi Toni,

I suspect you'll be better able to get a helpful response when you email
the wikilovesmonuments or wikilovesearth mailing list.

Besides the update of the module on commons, I believe this may also
require a change on github (similar to this one

).

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 9:17 AM Toni Sant  wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikimedians -
>
> List members will be aware that Wiki Loves Folklore is taking place right
> now. [1]
>
> I'm not a member of the international WLF team but I'm suggesting that it
> would be really good to centralize basic general statistics/metrics for
> this on the Wiki Loves Competition Tools. [2]
>
> This is controlled through a Scribunto module page written in the Lua
> programming language. So someone who knows Lua well enough (sadly not me)
> can (easily?) add Wiki Loves Folklore on the relevant Commons module. [3]
>
> I've mentioned this to the WLF international team during a meeting for WLF
> organizer that took place today and I proposed asking for help here. Any
> direct action or suggestions on how to go about this will be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Toni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *___User:ToniSantWikimedia Community MaltaWeb:
> http://www.wikimalta.org [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Folklore
> [2]
> https://wikiloves.toolforge.org [3]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Module:WL_data
> *
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TSMA6CS3LIUVTUGVVAXVT7KZVG3SG4G3/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/63FBYVZ3UIDS3ET3PYFUB4SIXPF24HIL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it useful?

[effe iets anders]

The main advantage I can see, is that it requires a conscious decision to
not be transparent, rather than a conscious effort to be transparent. There
are many cases where deletion is warranted, but the content is not of the
type that including a sample would be harmful. So from the point of view of
an early community, I can definitely see why this functionality would be
desirable.

The question becomes how that balance works out by now: do we need
reminders to be transparent to non-admins about our actions? In what
percentage of cases do we want to be transparent? And how likely is it that
the admin forgets the default, and accidentally publishes the summary, when
they wouldn't want to? This trade-off may be different from community to
community.

Just a thought, definitely appreciate it when communities think about these
settings rather than accepting that it is the way it has always been!

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:35 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> If the reason for deletion was to suppress undesirable content, why would
> one want part of it to remain viewable? Cheers, Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Vi to [mailto:vituzzu.w...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 17 January 2022 23:45
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: "content was" when deleting pages - is it
> useful?
>
>
>
> On it.wiki we removed both this and "the only editor was..." which proved
> to be misleading for newcomers, e.g. "I don't think that being the sole
> editor is a valid reason for this deletion".
>
>
>
> Vito
>
>
>
> Il giorno lun 17 gen 2022 alle ore 15:19 Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
>
> Hallo!
>
>
>
> There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a
> bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later
> viewable in deletion logs.
>
>
>
> If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't
> actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis
> essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it
> work.
>
>
>
> In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
>
>
>
> Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
>
>
>
> Here's a Phabricator task about it:
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T299351
>
>
>
> If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> 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 -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZONY3L5LEPO45POJ2SWTPHKFFIJ63UR/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VSGPRXX2MQKPG7PBYZAQHSONNLQAUNWE/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/R7DJ6U5QDSPM3FKPK2OB3RONDA7PJMSD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[effe iets anders]

Just for quick context: I was mostly trying to say that any *simple* system
may have benefits in the scenario when you don't have the resources to make
a complex system work properly (read: userfriendly). A 7-member district
was intended as shorthand for "out of these 70 people, pick 7 favorites".
That does not allow as much nuance as ranking, but it also has much less
mental load. There are more systems that would have been easier on the
voter, most likely. I fear that with the 'rank these 70 people into an
order of 70' will scare away too many participants.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:40 PM Risker  wrote:

> 
> I am curious what is meant by a "7-member district".  Lodewijk, could you
> explain in more detail?
> 
>
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/W3XYWFSUTJ2XSFIUHZAPNMOQPECZTOTV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[effe iets anders]

We are happy to receive the feedback regarding the statement
>>   collection and upvoting, so it would be possible to improve the 
>> process in
>>   the future.
>>   - Election compass has its own user interface and experience
>>   challenges. We have opted for all the candidates being selected as 
>> default
>>   for comparison, as it provides a good comparison across the pool - this
>>   helps to have a good overview of the positions of all the candidates.
>>   However, this makes navigating their rationale statements more 
>> difficult,
>>   as it involves a lot of scrolling. Also, if one is interested in 
>> comparing
>>   2 candidates, there is a lot of deselecting that needs to happen. It 
>> seemed
>>   that selecting candidates manually would bring more personal bias into 
>> use
>>   of the tool, so we have chosen the select all approach as default. 
>> Overall,
>>   it is the number of candidates that is creating the bulk of the 
>> navigation
>>   and comparison issues and we are open to feedback on how to improve 
>> this in
>>   the future.
>>   - The length of the statements made by the candidates in the
>>   compass tool was capped to prevent us from creating another wall of 
>> text.
>>   While it helps to better understand the position of the candidate, it 
>> would
>>   create a further barrier for voter engagement, if the expression is not
>>   clear and concise. I believe that the word limits will be an essential 
>> part
>>   of the future elections and candidate statements, because it reduces 
>> the
>>   access barrier for voters and also facilitates translations to a wider
>>   range of languages, which makes the information even more accessible. 
>> What
>>   can be discussed is the exact limit size and also what information is 
>> the
>>   most helpful to collect from candidates.
>>   - The tool that we used is Open Election Compass
>>   <https://open-election-compass.com/>. We did not do a full code
>>   review for this, but we did not experience any anomalies in weighing 
>> of the
>>   votes during testing. If there are people who are interested in doing 
>> the
>>   code review, here is the link to the tool in GitHub
>>   <https://github.com/open-election-compass/client>.
>>- We are truly grateful to the community members who have stepped in
>>and tried to make the information regarding the candidates more easily
>>digestible. This goes a long way in supporting informed voting in this
>>process! Thank you Dušan Kreheľ and Andrew Lih for your proactive and
>>constructive approach!
>>
>> I apologize for the length of the response - I have tried to break it up
>> so the single points are more clear. I am available to respond to any
>> further questions and specifications, as well as happy to receive any
>> further feedback.
>>
>> Wishing everyone a great week ahead!
>> Kaarel
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:44 AM Mario Gómez 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:57 AM effe iets anders <
>>> effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a horribly problematic election. Not only does it take hours to
>>>> go through the candidates if you actually want to rank them, but you would
>>>> also need to be willing to spend about a lot of time to enter them into the
>>>> broken voting interface (which works great for up to 5 candidates - not for
>>>> 70).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I filled about 14 candidates and it was not extremely bad, but for
>>> anyone looking to rank more candidates, I guess it might have been
>>> daunting. I agree that the dropdowns are a very inconvenient UI for this
>>> kind of votation. I can imagine something more efficient like having chips
>>> for every candidate (no dropdown), and then sequentially click on them to
>>> add them to the ballot in order, then maybe supporting drag and drop to
>>> re-order. Changing the order of candidates once the ballot is prepared is
>>> particularly cumbersome.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Mario
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[effe iets anders]

This is a horribly problematic election. Not only does it take hours to go
through the candidates if you actually want to rank them, but you would
also need to be willing to spend about a lot of time to enter them into the
broken voting interface (which works great for up to 5 candidates - not for
70).

If anyone is planning to go through anyway - after some experimenting i
found out that the silly random order of the ballot dropdown (making it
impossible to find the candidate to input) can be worked around by clicking
the dropdown, and then typing their first letter several times until the
right candidate is selected. Then hit enter.

This interface was non-userfriendly with the board elections but for this
election it is prohibitively so. With this number of candidates, a 7-member
district would have been much more userfriendly (even if it is suboptimal
from the perspective of a mathematical modeling).

Lodewijk

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:34 PM Guettarda  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:04 PM Mike Peel  wrote:
>
>> Cool. How do we find those pages from the advertised tools? Were they
>> shared here before (sorry if I missed them), or can we still vote on
>> them somewhere?
>>
>>
> The underlying problem is that we ended up with 70+ candidates for the
> MCDC. We were allowed up to 400 words for our statements, so there is a lot
> to work through. In a case like that, there's a tendency to only vote for
> people you know, or only based on regional representation, or tenure, or
> something similar. The Compass was an imperfect tool, and one that was put
> together in response to the problem of too much participation (after all,
> there was uncertainty initially as to whether 19 people would actually put
> their names forward).
>
> I think there was a week at the end of September when people could
> suggest statements (the final tally was 108). After that there was
> another week in which people were able to vote for the statements they
> wanted the candidates to answer. Not everyone got it right - there were
> some responses that made it clear that some people were voting based on
> their own opinions about the statement, rather than what they wanted to
> hear.
>
> Once they were narrowed down, Cornelius created a Google sheet where the
> candidates were able to give our opinions on the statements, based on a
> five-point scale. We were also able to add up to 500 characters clarifying
> our stances. (These were interesting, because it's obvious that some people
> who voted "support" and some who voted "oppose" had pretty much the same
> opinion, once you allowed for nuance.
>
> After that the Compass tool was created. But even that output is too much
> to parse. I put together a Google sheet for myself, where I could split
> people into arbitrary groups - for example, only 54 people gave their
> opinions on the compass, so I decided to separate those from the rest of
> the group. I also split Europe/US/Canada from the rest of the world because
> I want to make sure that I wasn't too biased by *who* I knew well. Being
> able to sort people by tenure (thanks to Andrew's table) also allows me to
> be more cogniscent of my biases (as an old-timer, I'm likely to gravitate
> to people just because I've seen them around for the last 17 years).
>
> Dusan's tool is great because it lets you compare responses to individual
> questions, and lets you see the explanatory statements. Again, as I work my
> way through the list and try to decide between people it helps me check
> responses to individual questions.
>
> I think confirmation bias would be to pick people you know and like (or
> and maybe not like so much, but think the committee could use some
> bomb-throwers). I'm grateful for the tools and summaries that people have
> created. Now if there was only some way to compare pairs of candidate
> statements side-by-side
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>> Or would it be fairer now to the candidates to let their statements
>> stand alone and for people to vote based on those alone, rather than
>> trying to provide 'advanced tools' that are intrinsically biased?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>>
>> On 15/10/21 22:51:21, Guettarda wrote:
>> > Hi Mike
>> >
>> > The questions were selected from this list:
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements
>> >
>> >
>> > People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that
>> > ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data
>> > underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here:
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data
>> >
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel > > > wrote:

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Welcoming the new Wikimedia Foundation CEO

[effe iets anders]

Welcome to the movement, Maryana,

I'm confident that there is much we can learn from your background and
experience. I'm also glad that you take your time to get acquainted, and it
feels right when people take the time to complete their obligations at
their previous organization - even when it's perhaps slightly inconvenient.

Good luck on your listening tour!

Lodewijk

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:20 AM Ankan Ghosh Dastider <
ankanghoshdasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Welcome, Maryana! Really excited to have you in the family. Best wishes
> for the future journey!
>
> Ankan
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:06 PM Brad Patrick  wrote:
>
>> Congratulations and welcome to the best job in the world!
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Nataliia Tymkiv 
>> *Reply-To: *"wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org" <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:53 AM
>> *To: *"wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
>> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org>, "wikimedi...@wikimedia.org" <
>> wikimedi...@wikimedia.org>
>> *Cc: *"miskan...@wikimedia.org" 
>> *Subject: *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Welcoming the new
>> Wikimedia Foundation CEO
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am pleased to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>> has appointed Maryana Iskander as the new CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation
>> [1] [2].
>>
>> Since 2013, Maryana has served as the CEO of Harambee Youth Employment
>> Accelerator [3], a South African non-profit social enterprise focused on
>> building African solutions for the global challenge of youth unemployment.
>> Prior to this, she spent six years as Chief Operating Officer of Planned
>> Parenthood Federation of America [4], a volunteer-led social movement
>> focused on access to women’s healthcare. Maryana has also worked in
>> academia as the Advisor to the President of Rice University [5], an
>> international research university based in the United States.
>>
>> Her professional career has been motivated by breaking down systemic
>> barriers, creating opportunities for collaborative solution-building, and
>> community empowerment. She has a proven track record for leading complex
>> organisations shaped by shared decision-making.
>>
>> In looking for the next CEO, we on the Board convened a Transition
>> Committee [6], primarily to guide us in finding the right person for this
>> critical role and secondly to oversee the executive Transition Team. The
>> Transition Committee conducted a far-reaching and competitive global
>> search, receiving around 400 recommendations and speaking to about 50
>> potential candidates. Throughout this selection process, Maryana impressed
>> us as someone who is deeply inspired by the Wikimedia vision and who
>> embodies the values of equity and community that inform all Wikimedia work.
>> She has extensive leadership experience working with volunteer-led
>> initiatives and building partnerships across public, private and social
>> sectors. Maryana also brings expertise in technology-led innovation to
>> accelerate meaningful social change. She does this with a global
>> perspective: Maryana was born in the Middle East, educated in the United
>> States and the United Kingdom, and has spent the last decade living and
>> working on the African continent.
>>
>> Maryana joins the Wikimedia Foundation at a crucial time. The movement is
>> larger than ever, and it has never been more relevant or more trusted. This
>> is an inflection point, as decisions need to be made to execute a shared
>> vision for where the Movement wants to be in 2030. We believe that Maryana
>> is the right person to help lead the Foundation at this moment.
>>
>> As Maryana begins, her priorities will include supporting movement
>> efforts to implement the Wikimedia 2030 recommendations, such as the
>> development of a Movement Charter and the finalization of a Universal Code
>> of Conduct. She will continue the Foundation’s focus on knowledge equity
>> and exploring ways to address the gaps in content and the diversity of
>> contributors to Wikimedia projects. She will be supported by the Board in
>> this journey.
>>
>> Maryana will officially start at the Wikimedia Foundation on January 5,
>> 2022, as she transitions from her current job. Until then, the Foundation
>> will continue to be led by the Transition Team, with guidance from the
>> Board. In my conversations with her, I have seen that Maryana is a fan of
>> direct communication and excited to learn from the movement. In the coming
>> weeks, she will share ways to connect. Please join me in welcoming Maryana
>> (CCed) to the Foundation!
>>
>> PS. For translations of this message, or to help translate it into more
>> languages, please visit Meta-Wiki [7]
>>
>> *[1]
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/14/wikimedia-foundation-appoints-maryana-iskander-as-chief-executive-officer/
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Regarding a series of serious office actions / 有关于一系列的办事处行动

[effe iets anders]

Thank you Maggie, for the announcement. It's a sad day, and I'm sure there
were many sad actions that resulted in this.

Two questions from my end:
* Could you commit to making a better translation available (through
community processes or otherwise) for the record? I think this decision may
be referred to quite a bit in the future, so it's valuable to have an
accurate translation available to the Chinese community.
* What countries are affected currently by the NDA decision
?
It is suggested that China and Iran are, but I can't find an authoritative
list (but may be looking at the wrong place). This would be helpful for
volunteers from countries that are wondering if they should even bother to
apply for positions. The definition "blocked access" is a bit fluid. I'm
assuming here that the fact that a country is on this list, is not a secret
in itself.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:06 AM William Chan  wrote:

> Hi Leo,
>
> I think that this is a Google Translation product. But yes, it is in such
> bad shape where even Chinese natives can barely read. But I acknowledge the
> fact that the urgency and secrecy of the matter made consulting external
> parties, to the extent, even contractors working for WMF, impossible.
>
> To Maggie,
>
> May I ask if there is a certain number for the amount of users linked with
> the unrecognized user group being warned? There is no request for the list
> of users, just the number would be fine. The Wikipedia communities in Hong
> Kong need to access the total damage dealt to the user group who had
> persistently engaged in activities harassing the safety of Hong Kong Users.
>
> Regards,
> William Chan
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 01:58, Leo Z  wrote:
>
>> Hi Maggie,
>>
>> Thanks for the prompt response. I do not know who those ‘native speakers’
>> are, perhaps that’s just a way to avoid providing language proficiency
>> certificate. I do not know. Google translation might even do better.
>>
>> I am more than certain that this translation is not just faulty or
>> unsatisfactory, but terrible if not horrifying, disastrous, or outright
>> shocking for an acclaimed international organization. The issue for this
>> specific translation is not with 'movement-specific' terms, but a
>> significant lack of elementary understanding regarding the fundamental
>> grammatical structure of the Chinese language. I will refrain from listing
>> specific examples here (there are plenty), but those mistakes are
>> hilarious, if not outright absurd. Whoever translated this text might
>> barely pass an AP Chinese exam.
>>
>> Please consult a professor in Chinese language at Berkeley or CCSF or
>> even just a language school, or perhaps consult someone from ChinaSF, maybe
>> even a Chinese speaking professional from HSBC or wherever. There are
>> plenty, if you feel it’s necessary. I’m more than certain they will offer
>> similar opinions.
>>
>> Sincere hope for a better translation,
>> Leo
>> On Sep 14, 2021, 1:17 AM +0800, Maggie Dennis ,
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello, all.
>>
>> A few responses.
>>
>> First, Nathan and William, we will share as much information as we can,
>> but will need to be careful about what we say about the individuals
>> involved for legal and safety reasons. This is indeed related to increasing
>> resilience across Wikipedias and not at all specifically for ZhWP. I do
>> think it's important for us to offer some additional support there, given
>> the current situation, but we are looking at increasing safety everywhere.
>>
>> Leo, thank you for your feedback on the translation, which was provided
>> by native Chinese speakers. Since I myself am completely unable to read
>> Chinese, I don't know the nature of the issue, but I do know that in the
>> past we have had some issues with movement-specific terms being translated.
>> I recall once when "free in speech" was mistranslated as "free as in beer"
>> - which we always deliberately try to avoid. :)
>>
>> Best,
>> Maggie
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:45 PM Nathan  wrote:
>>
>>> Maggie,
>>>
>>> Thank you for taking these very difficult actions to protect both the
>>> members of our community as well as the values that it seeks to uphold. I
>>> also appreciate the degree of transparency provided and hope that more
>>> information will be disclosed as it is appropriate. I imagine questions
>>> will be asked about how these individual accounts were selected for office
>>> actions and the contours of the risk both to the individuals behind these
>>> accounts and the wider community. Any information that the WMF is able to
>>> safely share will help all of us understand better what the threats are and
>>> how we may better support the movement's goals in jurisdictions where our
>>> values are not respected.
>>>
>>> Thank you again,
>>> Nathan
>>> ___
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: News about some CTeam transitions in Wikimedia Foundation

[effe iets anders]

Hi Philip,

just to make sure, are you aware of the email under the topic "REPLY TO:
News about CTeam transitions from Wikimedia Foundation" ? I believe that
was sent within the day.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 2:18 PM Philip Kopetzky 
wrote:

> I find it quite worrying that after a month no one has deemed it necessary
> to reply to the concerns voiced by a former chair of the WMF Board of
> Trustees. There isn't even a PR-level denial of there being a crisis.
>
> The C-Suite turnover would be a major challenge for any company or
> organisation. Just describing it as a "natural part of evolution" doesn't
> explain what direction this "evolution" is taking and why so many of the
> C-Suite don't deem this worth sticking around for. In the meantime, the
> "smooth operation" is leading to uncertainty and stagnation that is wasting
> valuable time and momentum for the implementation of the 2030 strategy.
>
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 23:36, Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Heather, you have been someone I have always loved to talk with.
>>
>>
>> I have fond memories with you there, such as talking with you and Zack on
>> Thanksgiving eve having beers in the Foundation office creating the Museums
>> of Things People don't Want To Know. Or crafting my email in Esino Lario to
>> announce my term as chair, everyone sitting on the floor in a room with
>> you, Katherine, Greg, and Juliet. I have so many others.
>>
>>
>> Wherever you will go next they will be as lucky as we have been to count
>> you as part of our movement. Perhaps even more as you take your experiences
>> with you.
>>
>>
>> Most people in the movement might not know you, but you have made a big
>> difference behind the scenes.
>>
>>
>> You reshaped how we are positioning ourselves in the world and provided a
>> speaker to our voices. I am sad to see you leave the Foundation, I only
>> hope we will keep on seeing you around and that, life willing, we will have
>> other drinks.
>>
>>
>> Grant, I left when you joined so I can only remember the job interview I
>> gave you. We never had the chance to create memories allowing me to make an
>> email like I can for Heather. But nonetheless, I can only fare you well for
>> the future.
>>
>>
>> And remembering our discussions and your experiences, I can just hope you
>> will start on your own project!
>>
>>
>> Raju, thank you for the update.
>>
>>
>> Change is natural in an org, but it had been years since we had that
>> level of turnover. I do understand, running orgs myself and being a former
>> chair of the board right after the last crisis, that those are very tough
>> situations.
>>
>>
>> I also know that when you are in the middle of change it is tough to make
>> decisions that can be fully understood.
>>
>>
>> However, it might be good if some better information about the situation
>> were provided.
>>
>>
>> Here one can only have theories about the situation, and remember with
>> concern the the last time such turmoiled happened.
>>
>>
>>  In the span of 6 months the Foundation lost its CEO, COO, CCO, CTO, CoS
>> (Chief of Staff). That is more than half of the C-Suite. When facing such
>> turnover, it usually is a sign of deeper issues.
>>
>>
>> As everyone in org theory loves to say, never waste a good crisis.
>>
>>
>> As usual, we all have the best of the movement at heart. Any criticism
>> comes from a place of deep care about our movement; as members of the loyal
>> opposition. We can be wonderful allies and support if you allow us to be.
>>
>>
>> Le lun. 28 juin 2021 à 9:14 PM, Raju Narisetti 
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> On behalf of the Foundation Board, I’m writing to share with you that
>>> Chief Creative Officer Heather Walls and Chief Technology Officer Grant
>>> Ingersoll will be leaving the Wikimedia Foundation, at the end of July.
>>>
>>>
>>> We, along with the Foundation Transition Team, have been working with
>>> them for several weeks on a smooth transition in their respective
>>> functions. We are grateful to them for their service and dedication to
>>> the Foundation and the movement. In their time with us, both Heather and
>>> Grant have used their unique talents and skills to preserve and provide
>>> free knowledge to the world while also elevating the voices of community
>>> members around the globe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Heather has been with the Foundation for almost ten years, driving
>>> creative and communication efforts. In that time we’ve seen a revolution in
>>> how our projects are perceived by the world. She has played a pivotal role
>>> at the Foundation, shaping its identity and strengthening our mission to be
>>> a trusted and valued resource for sharing and accessing knowledge globally.
>>> Heather brought communities around the world closer together by developing
>>> and executing innovative means of communications and leading campaigns that
>>> helped grow our community and  elevated the voices of our community
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Announcing The New Grants Strategy for the Wikimedia Foundation

[effe iets anders]

Dear Kassia,

thank you for sharing this on the list. I hope that the implementation
phase will help us remove some of the artificial boundaries that we have
created over the years, and rethink them, rather than just inherit from
existing programs.

Recently, we have been talking on this list in a very different context
about holding the WMF to the same standards as affiliates. In the past, the
Wikimedia Foundation has submitted her budget to the same community
scrutiny processes as major chapters had to.

This just makes me wonder: Where will the WMF budget fit into this new
structure?

Thanks,

Lodewijk

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 2:17 PM Kassia Echavarri-Queen <
kechavarriqu...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> The Community Resources team is excited to announce on Diff
> 
> the launch of the new Wikimedia funding strategy focused on decentralized
> decision-making, regional committees and reaching underrepresented
> communities [1]. Over the last 10 months we have worked together with
> communities to discuss, understand and develop an approach that addresses
> their needs and moves us towards the realization of the 2030 strategic
> direction [2]. Thank you for all of your participation to make this a
> reality.
>
> The three new funding programs:
>
> The Wikimedia Community Fund
>
>-
>
>The Community Fund is a unified program with flexible support and
>funding for Wikimedians working on knowledge equity aligned with the
>movement’s strategic direction.
>
>
> The Wikimedia Alliances Fund
>
>-
>
>The Alliances Fund, for mission-aligned organizations in
>underrepresented communities who want to collaborate and amplify our work.
>
>
> The Wikimedia Research and Technology Fund
>
>-
>
>The Research and Technology Fund for improving technology, tools, and
>research to nurture a more responsive and accessible environment for
>contributions.
>
>
> This people-centred approach is built on the principles of equity &
> empowerment, collaboration & cooperation, and the promotion of innovation
> and learning.
>
> Our team has also adapted to provide consistent regional support and the
> establishment of a learning mindset for the funding approach. We know this
> is just the beginning and it will be an iterative process. As we implement
> and learn we will adapt. We also understand the worldwide impact of the
> continuing COVID pandemic and our first priority is to be in solidarity and
> have flexibility with communities around the world.
>
> The three programs will be introduced in a phased approach throughout the
> year. We will first launch with the Wikimedia Community Fund now in July.
> We invite you to learn more about the programs on our meta page [3].
>
> We have hosted a series of office hours throughout June and July [4] and
> will continue in the coming weeks to discuss the new programs. Each program
> officer is also reaching out and answering questions with individual
> grantees as part of the transition process.
>
> Office Hours:
>
>-
>
>03:00 UTC – 2021-07-23 (Asia-Pacific friendly time)
>-
>
>18:00 UTC – 2021-07-23 (Europe-Africa-Americas friendly time)
>
>
>
> We thank you again for all of the collaboration to arrive at this new
> strategy and we are excited to begin this journey together.
>
> Wishing everyone the best,
>
> Kassia on behalf of the Community Resources team
>
>
>1.
>
>
>
> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/07/15/community-resources-announces-new-funding-strategy/
>2.
>
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Overview
>3.
>
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start
>4.
>
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Get_involved
>
>
> --
>
> Kassia Echavarri-Queen (She/Her)
>
> Director, Community Investment
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TNOHQDWEW2ZJQYPB3P2PICD2PIYUHG7H/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UP4SZYX4XG5TNTU3VR7MKL2QNV7AQDBD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

[effe iets anders]

Hi Maggie, Maria,

while I'm sure everything is above board legally, and it follows all HR
policies that the WMF has in place, it does have a weird whiff when I read
this. While I think it's great for Maria to be able to put her experience
to good use and while the WMF board probably benefits from these
experiences being documented, it definitely does give a weird set of
perceived conflicts of interest. I'm afraid that there is not really any
level of assurances that can take this away.

While I'm sure that you thought this through ethically, and consulted
community members how this would be perceived, it leaves an odd stain
because it leaves it up to the imagination of the reader whether there
might have been a trade of some kind. It may well be that the compensation
is 'in line with market rates' (whatever that means) and merely to make
sure that Maria has the actual time to write down these things, rather than
being absorbed in other jobs. To be honest, I don't really care about the
exact amount - it is clear that it is significantly more than a
compensation for out-of-pocket expenses. Whether it is technically a
contractor or consultant (based on the description, you could have fooled
me if you would have said contractor or temporary staff member instead) I
agree with the previous speakers that it at the very least acts against the
spirit of all policies that limit transition between staff and board roles.

It leaves me with this odd feeling: while I'm happy that Maria will
transfer some knowledge, I'm rather sad to see that this strategy process
is even further complicated beyond its already existing complexity.

-- Lodewijk

Lodewijk



On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 3:17 PM Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Hi Maggie,
>
> Thanks for the clarification, but that doesn't really affect anything.
> Staff roles vs contractors/consultants are not that different. And the fact
> that you didn't discuss the post with Maria while she was on the Board
> doesn't mean it isn't a governance problem. First because decisions can be
> made and rules can be bent for people in positions of influence even
> without an explicit discussion. Second because, while I don't doubt your
> word, the appearance matters as well as the substance. Third because I
> really can't believe the WMF would tolerate this from an affiliate who
> received grants.
>
> I'll be quite straightforward, this is a disaster for the credibility of
> the WMF's governance and it must be immediately reversed.
>
> If the WMF Board has no rules to prevent this situation happening, then I
> am amazed - and would really be asking for a refund for whatever was paid
> in the 2019 board governance review.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:01 PM Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello, all.
>>
>> I’m sorry for my lack of clarity! María is *not* Foundation staff. She
>> is an independent consultant. She did not discuss this role with me while
>> she was on the Board. She quite rightly would not. We talked about it after
>> her departure.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Maggie
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 5:53 PM টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> This is an unfortunate situation. In general circumstances I would have
>>> been happy to see the addition.
>>> "to draw clear lines between staff and board members " — I think this
>>> has been a practice in different organisation. In a different organisation
>>> I have seen a director was disallowed to join as a consultant immediately
>>> after his disassociation.
>>> But do we have any documented Wikimedia policy that allows or prohibits
>>> such an appointment? It would be good to know about such guidelines.
>>>
>>> ইতি,
>>> টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
>>>
>>>
>>> বৃহস্পতি, ২৪ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:০৩ AM টায় এ Philip Kopetzky <
>>> philip.kopet...@gmail.com> লিখেছেন:
>>>
 Hi Maggie,

 to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF,
 through it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the
 lines between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures
 (and rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a
 cooldown period before switching between board and being employed by the
 same organisation, the WMF is ignoring all of that governance advice it has
 given over the last few years.

 I feel quite silly now having been on the simpleAPG committee for three
 years and having advised affiliates who wanted to hire staff for the first
 time to draw clear lines between staff and board members, to now have to
 see this exact scenario I warned against play out at the WMF. Maria's
 departure from the BoT, even before her tenure was over and subsequent
 hiring really calls into question what the WMF thinks good governance
 should look like, notwithstanding the fact that the BoT now has one
 community elected seat less at a critical time in the strategy
 implementation process.

 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanks for all the fish! / Stepping down April 15

[effe iets anders]

Thanks Katherine,

it was always a good feeling to see you at work navigating the complexities
of our movement and trying to bring people together with your words. I'm
curious to see what will be your next challenge.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:58 PM Patricio Lorente 
wrote:

> Thank you, Katherine! You did an amazing job. Wish you all the best.
>
> Un gran abrazo,
>
>   Patricio
>
> El jue, 4 feb 2021 a las 18:13, Florence Devouard ()
> escribió:
>
>> Hello Katherine,
>>
>>
>> I like to thank you very much for all what you have achieved, stepping in
>> the role at complicated time and really doing the job beautifully.
>> I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. I will definitely miss
>> you. I think many feel a bit orphans after the announcement.
>>
>> Florence
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 04/02/2021 à 18:47, Katherine Maher a écrit :
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Earlier today, I announced to my colleagues at the Wikimedia Foundation
>> my intention to step down as CEO later this spring. April 15th will be my
>> last day, marking my seven-year anniversary with the Foundation and the
>> movement. This was not an easy decision, but it is the right one. For now,
>> I want to share with you why I’m moving on, and what comes next. I’ll save
>> the customary email with deeper reflections, memories, and thanks for later
>> this spring!
>>
>> In some ways, this was the easiest hard decision I’ve ever made. It’s
>> never exactly a good time to step away -- transitions always have some
>> rough edges -- but it’s always best to do so when the organization is
>> strong, and before you’ve overstayed your welcome. The movement is in a
>> good, strong place. Our communities are growing, our readership is too. Our
>> 20th birthday, the launch of our Universal Code of Conduct, and the
>> movement strategy recommendations are all milestone moments of solidity and
>> strength. I have great hopes and confidence in the upcoming plans for
>> strategy implementation, particularly the work on the movement charter and
>> interim global council. We are healthy and thriving.
>>
>> While we will always have more work to do to become the Wikimedia that we
>> want to be, our movement and our organization is in a phase of renewal and
>> regeneration. We have deepened our practices of consultation,
>> collaboration, and inclusion that will be the foundation of the next decade
>> of our work. We have a deep and stable financial position that will help us
>> grow and protect us from any storm, and the trust in our projects has never
>> been higher. Our communities are poised to take on deeper responsibilities
>> of governance, accountability, and leadership, populating a rich,
>> representative, and leaderful movement for free knowledge.
>>
>> The Foundation is also strong, and filled with passionate, values-aligned
>> leaders at every level of the organization, deeply committed to the work of
>> our movement and mission. Although we don’t always all perfectly agree on
>> absolutely everything, we are working more openly and cooperatively with
>> our movement than ever before. Collaborative strategic planning,
>> sustainable programs to support technical communities and tooling,
>> co-development and consultation on transformative new experiences welcoming
>> newcomers, cooperative partnerships on public health data, bibliographic
>> data, and human rights data -- all of these are signals of much great work
>> to come. Even difficult topics, such as brand and movement governance,
>> continue to bring people together in nothing less than feisty commitment.
>>
>> Together, we have rich resources of brilliant people, deep passion, and
>> compassion. We are making progress on some of our greatest challenges, from
>> editor and readership growth, technical debt, representation and
>> participation, safety and knowledge equity. I am proud of what we’ve done
>> together and grateful for all the ways in which this movement has made my
>> life immeasurably richer: friendships that will last a lifetime,
>> intellectual curiosity and kinship, and so many memories of *so much
>> dancing*, from Accra to Berlin to Chandigarh.
>>
>> As for me, I’m going to take a break, and a research fellowship, as a
>> place to think about what’s next. It’s hard to think about your future when
>> you’re fully in your present, and for the past seven years, I’ve been fully
>> present for this movement. But as I look around, I see global challenges
>> such as polarization, inequality, and climate change, as well as
>> opportunities for generational renewal and optimism. As a Wikimedian, I
>> lean toward optimism, and plan to apply myself in that direction!
>>
>> *What’s next*
>>
>>- We announced this planned transition publicly on our communications
>>channels during a Foundation all-staff meeting today.
>>- A Board Transition Committee composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, who is
>>chair of HR Committee, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustees elections, membership, quorum, and

[effe iets anders]

I would like to suggest to move away from the 'membership organization'
question, and possibly bring that to a dedicated thread. It's a huge topic.

Lodewijk

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 1:37 PM Michael Peel  wrote:

> That the WMF *isn’t* a membership organisation already is rather weird. It
> may be specific to US organisations (in which case, references please), but
> it really isn’t normal on an international basis, nor within the Wikimedia
> movement (most/all affiliates have members).
>
> Having to provide legal names and addresses may be a problem for some, but
> definitely not all Wikimedians. Similar with membership fees, particularly
> if it is set to a nominal value, and if there are ways of waving the fees
> if needed.
>
> Governance issues definitely change - e.g., if you worry about an
> organisational take-over, then it’s no longer the board you have to worry
> about but the membership - but you have larger numbers of membership.
> However, it wouldn’t prevent things like movement-wide elections, they
> would just have to be ratified by a membership rather than the board.
>
> It’s something that is worth thinking more about.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 8 Oct 2020, at 18:55, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > Functionaries (checkusers, oversighters, stewards, OTRS members, and
> people
> > with similar advanced permissions) have not been required to provide
> their
> > personal information - name, DOB, address - for years.  They simply sign
> > off a type of confidentiality agreement with their username.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 13:52, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> Well, you could always do a nominal membership contribution, like a
> penny,
> >> or sponsorships for those who wish to join but don't have the money.
> Since
> >> WMF makes its money primarily from donations, there's really no need
> for it
> >> to actually sustain itself from membership fees.
> >>
> >> So far as requiring non-pseudonymous membership, I don't think there's
> any
> >> requirement that such member lists be made public. So it would work a
> lot
> >> like functionaries giving their information for the private access
> policy;
> >> they are required to verify their identity, but that will be held
> privately
> >> and not available to the public. So for all intents and purposes,
> >> pseudonymous membership would still be possible.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 11:46 AM Risker  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Without needing to go into further detail, it is because to be a
> >> membership
> >>> organization, pseudonyms aren't acceptable; all members must provide
> >> their
> >>> full legal names and addresses.  I also cannot think of a membership
> >>> organization that does not charge a membership fee, although I suppose
> it
> >>> is possible; but anything requiring a financial contribution would
> limit
> >>> the membership to those who have the money to pay to join, which is
> >>> antithetical to the movement's philosophy.
> >>>
> >>> Risker/Anne
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 13:41, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>>
>  Why would we "not want it to be a membership organization"? In fact,
> >> many
>  of us want exactly that, since the WMF seems to think it can lord it
> >> over
>  the communities instead of fulfilling its role of serving them.
> 
>  The new Board rules basically say that the Board itself gets to say
> how
> >>> the
>  community-based members are selected, instead of having actual bylaws
> >> as
> >>> to
>  how it happens. I'd like to see it done very simply: Those eight seats
>  (forming a majority) on the Board should be elected (not nominated,
>  elected) by the community, with the Board having no veto power over
> the
>  results of the election.
> 
>  Todd
> 
>  On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:45 PM Brad Patrick 
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > This is a very, very old and tired argument. If you do not understand
> > United States non-profit corporations, go educate yourself about
> >> those
> > first. If your perspective is non-US based, you may have a different
>  frame
> > of mind which is irreconcilable with the way WMF is. Take all the
> >> time
>  you
> > need to see the differences before attacking WMF for (a) what it is
> >> and
>  (b)
> > why it isn't what you want it to be.
> >
> > WMF exists legally, and has as its foundation organizational
> >> principle,
> > authority vested in a Board. WMF is not a membership organization.
> >> You
> > would not want it to be a membership organization (as a matter of
> >> law).
> >
> > Please temper your criticism accordingly.
> >
> > Brad Patrick
> > Former WMF General Counsel
> >
> > On 10/7/20, 12:47 PM, "Wikimedia-l on behalf of Paulo Santos
> >> Perneta"
> >>> <
> > wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I knew they are theoretically 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution to pause Movement Brand Project through March 2021

[effe iets anders]

Hi Samir,

First of all, thank you for sharing the detailed analysis and for
publishing the raw data after a review. I appreciate the efforts made on
that front.

I wanted to quickly acknowledge (as you are undoubtly aware from open
question responses) that there were a number of reports of people being
confused about the question phrasing, and that they realized after
submitting that their answers would probably be interpreted wrong because
of the phrasings. It might be helpful if you can publish at least the raw
questionnaire structure along the presentation.

Unrelatedly, it's a bit painful to read things like "Refine: Demonstrate
how elevating one project can support the others and help reduce
confusion." and "Refine: Further develop and assess the foreseen legal
concerns so affiliates can have a greater understanding of Wikipedia
centered name." which suggests that you're convinced that this is mostly a
matter of better explaining how this is a good idea, than that you
appreciate the fundamental disagreement that seems to be here, that this is
a good idea. This may be a simple matter of unfortunate phrasing though, or
maybe I'm reading too much into the sentences with the previous
conversations and presentations in mind.

Best,

Lodewijk

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:24 AM Samir Elsharbaty 
wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> I wanted to follow up on Zack’s email with an update and links to the
> naming survey resources published today:
>
> The naming survey report is now available.[1] Thank you to everyone who
> provided feedback. To learn more about what naming elements should be
> removed, refined and recombined please view the full report.[2]
>
> We are looking forward to collaborating with you again next year.
>
> Samir and the Brand Project Team
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_survey_feedback_report
>
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brand_Project_Naming_Survey_Feedback_Report.pdf
>
> Samir Elsharbaty (he/him)
>
> Brand Associate
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:43 PM Olga Lidia Paredes Alcoreza <
> olga.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank U!
> >
> > El mié., 30 de septiembre de 2020 15:55, Zack McCune <
> > zmcc...@wikimedia.org>
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Thank you María!
> > >
> > > Following this Board resolution, the Brand Project team will be
> updating
> > > the project hub. [1]  We will also release the Naming Survey results as
> > > both a report and as the anonymized data by October 6. The publication
> of
> > > those materials will be shared on the project hub and announced here.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > - Zack, Essie, and Samir (the Brand Project team)
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 12:51 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for hearing the voices, María and members of the board.
> > > >
> > > > Defining common goals is the best practice for reaching to the best
> > > > solution.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > Galder
> > > > 
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l  on
> behalf
> > of
> > > > María Sefidari 
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:47 PM
> > > > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org  >
> > > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution to pause Movement Brand Project
> > through
> > > > March 2021
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, following the
> > recommendation
> > > of
> > > > staff, has resolved to pause the Movement Brand Project until the
> next
> > > > calendar year.[1] We recognize that much of the Wikimedia movement’s
> > > > activities, events, and key collaborations have been put on hold or
> > > > restructured due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and we have received
> formal
> > > > requests to pause Movement Brand Project activities to reflect this
> > > > need.[2]
> > > >
> > > > The Board remains persuaded that there is potential value in making
> > > change
> > > > to our branding system in service of our goals of engaging more
> people
> > in
> > > > our mission. However, we also know that change moves at the speed of
> > > trust.
> > > > We have asked staff to meaningfully engage with community concerns
> and
> > > > address the request for equitable decision-making within the process.
> > We
> > > > also ask members of the community to use this pause to consider how
> > > equity
> > > > may ask us to let go of some aspects of our past, in order to create
> > > space
> > > > for what could be. Making these decisions together, with so many
> > > passionate
> > > > perspectives, will be challenging, but building this capacity is
> > > essential
> > > > for how we grow together as a thriving global movement.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime, we 

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 (?)

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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)

[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

[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

[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

[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
>