On 23/02/16 22:34, SarahSV wrote:
> Brian, I'd be interested to hear how volunteers could be cultivated and
> supported. We felt under attack by the Foundation until Lila arrived, and I
> think a lot of editors are grateful to her for having improved that
> relationship. But not feeling attacked i
The KPIS is not only quantitave measures.
For instance an anonymous survey may measure the level of satisfaction of
people and it's more qualitative.
The simplicity of KPIS is to agree (all parties) about the indicators and
to cut off discussions about success/insuccess.
Something can be a succe
Hi,
in my opinion there is no need to differentiate and to clarify what
"high-tech" means.
The real problem is to define the KPIs (key performance indicators) and a
balanced relation of those indicators.
A corporation can be a high-tech corporation and take care of the comfort
of all stakeholders
Brion,
Thanks. Our mails crossed, and this answers some of the questions I had.
Please be assured that I wasn't expecting you to "defend" anything – I'm
merely curious.
Regardless, I think the issues Lila summarised in her mail last month[1],
when we were discussing charging for API usage, bear t
If that's the limit of your bespoke work for for-profits, I see no problem.
I'm curious about Andreas's other point. Does the WMF have any formal or
informal agreements with for-profits that aren't yet on the public record?
I realise this is probably a question for the board or chiefs.
On Monday,
On 28 February 2016 at 13:07, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> What originally triggered my curiosity was this: I noticed a couple of
> weeks ago that the Kindle offered a Wikipedia look-up function. I couldn't
> recall -- and cannot find -- any corresponding WMF announcement. So, how
> did this happen?
>
If a tech task is relatively cheap and will expand the spread of free
knowledge then no one would object to you spending a little bit of donor
mony, I'm sure. But don't you see a point where it becomes sensible to
expect the for-profit/s who are expanding their profits thanks to such work
to pay fo
Somewhat off-topic comment:
Andreas, the way you are formatting your messages (especially with that
---o0o--- symbol), it's pretty much impossible to differentiate what you're
saying and what you're quoting from someone else. Could you please be much
more clear on this?
Risker/Anne
On 28 Febru
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
>
> {{cn}}
>
> -- brion
>
Brion,
You tell me. :) For what it's worth, Jimmy Wales has said in this thread
today,
---o0o---
On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help comm
On Feb 28, 2016 12:29 PM, "Anthony Cole" wrote:
>
> Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping
> large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a
> side-project for Amazon.
As far as I know, Wikipedia lookups via Apple's Siri and Amazon Kindle's
lookup
If statements are hard to answer in real life. I don't think this issue is
as black-and-white as you paint it to be.
The question is about impact for your bucks. If it requires a relatively
small investment from WMF for Wikimedia content to be spread among more
people, to reach a wider audience, a
Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping
large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a
side-project for Amazon.
Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a reasonable
place to invest general donation revenue, or should we get the
On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Jimmy,
>
> I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
> transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial re-users,
> and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the community.
> There should be
On 28 February 2016 at 07:31, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
> The relocation does not have to happen overnight. It can easily take
> several years (which is likely longer than the average time a WMF employee
> spends in the organization). But I think discussing this as a strategical
> direction wou
Jimmy,
I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial re-users,
and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the community.
There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected and
availa
On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial
re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board discussions
about this topic. Despite that he takes every opportunity to attack me,
and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is 100%
in agreement
Le 27/02/16 22:41, SarahSV a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard
wrote:
Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
e
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm just
> giving perspective).
>
One thing I've been wondering about of late is how much donor-funded the
work the WMF is doing that is primarily designed to support commerc
On 2016-02-28 16:24, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
wrote:
A direct consequence would be that one should think again whether San
Francisco is the best location for the WMF office, rather than a place
better known for culture and education
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
wrote:
> Actually, in the facebook discussion which was earlier referenced on this
> list someone noticed (unfortunately, without much impact) that WMF is not a
> business company and not a high-tech company, but more like a culture/
> educati
On 2016-02-28 16:10, Guettarda wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Gnangarra wrote:
technology is our tool not our purpose
This should be printed on a banner and hung on the wall every time the
Board meets.
Actually, in the facebook discussion which was earlier referenced on
this
Yes, thanks Florence. That's about my understanding too.
There's editing and there's imposing policy. I can see that WMF, obviously,
can't take on an editorial oversight role (and the entailed responsibility)
because it can't possibly vet every edit.
But it seems to me they can impose editorial a
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Gnangarra wrote:
>
> technology is our tool not our purpose
>
>
This should be printed on a banner and hung on the wall every time the
Board meets.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.
I am not a lawyer so would not have the correct legal words to explain
this. But roughly... the legal responsibility is not the same when you
are simply "hosting" content published by others, as opposed to
"publishing with an editorial role".
For example, when you are simply a host provider, y
Another thread thats digressed from its original question but right through
the discussion not one person raised the concept that that the WMF is a
charity (An organization, the objective of which is to carry out a
charitable purpose) our purpose is to share the sum of all knowledge, think
about th
On 27 February 2016 at 16:41, SarahSV wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard
> wrote:
>
>
> I would love to see the WMF agree never again to discuss trapping editors
> in feedback loops intended to keep them editing,
>
I've never, ever seen the WMF (or any other Wikimedia
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard
wrote:
> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
>
> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
> its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
> editorial process, which allows
I am appalled that anybody is seriously suggesting "paid editing" be
institutionalized.
The real issue to be addressed are the large number of trustees,
staff, Arbcom members, and
administrators who are undisclosed paid editors and who ensure that
uninterested editors are driven away.
What do you
Florence, can you explain to me the actual risk the foundation would be
exposed to if ir got involved in editorial decisions, please? Perhaps some
hypothetical examples would help.
Anthony Cole
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Florence Devouard
wrote:
> Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :
>
: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization
Hoi,
If we want to make a difference, a real difference, we enable refugees in
refugee camps to edit Wikipedia. They have nothing to do, they are often well
educated. It is wonderful when they can because it not only gives them
I loved the healthcare idea, sounded like such a positive thing. Until I
thought about implementation details. Inevitably, there would have to be
some connection to how active the editor was, otherwise we would have to
get healthcare for millions of users. So then, even worse, if someone fell
un
Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth
wrote:
However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The mon
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth
wrote:
>
> However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
> opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
> opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't need
> to flow through
On 2/25/16 2:16 AM, Risker wrote:
> And I'll say that if I was going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying
> qualified translators to
> support smaller projects...
I'd find a pilot project to do something like this very exciting.
___
Wikimedia-
Regarding the Wikimedia Foundation paying editors, brokering paid editing
to displace the role of PR agencies, etc.:
Since 2009, my full time work has centered on this area, in providing solid
advice to companies and other organizations on how to engage ethically and
effectively with Wikipedia. Th
This classic science fiction novel comes to mind...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz
And a shout-out to User:Daniel The Monk, our resident NYC Monastapedian :)
Thanks,
Pharos
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Ed Saperia wrote:
> A Wikimedia monastery! ^_^
>
> Sent from my
We could help them by making Wikipedia pages about registration agencies,
European immigration laws, and/or uploading sample forms that they could
translate into their own languages.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> If we want to make a difference, a real differe
Hoi,
If we want to make a difference, a real difference, we enable refugees in
refugee camps to edit Wikipedia. They have nothing to do, they are often
well educated. It is wonderful when they can because it not only gives them
something to do, it gives them a sense of self-worth and this prevents
On
> Behalf Of Ed Saperia
> Sent: Friday, 26 February 2016 10:51 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization
>
> A Wikimedia monastery! ^_^
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 26 Feb 2016, at 08:39, David Cuenca
With vows of civility and NPOV
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Ed Saperia
Sent: Friday, 26 February 2016 10:51 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization
A
Healthcare!!!
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:39 AM, David Cuenca Tudela
wrote:
> I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them
> cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
> food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
A Wikimedia monastery! ^_^
Sent from my iPhone
> On 26 Feb 2016, at 08:39, David Cuenca Tudela wrote:
>
> I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them
> cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
> food and healthcare. That is how man
I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them
cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
Would it be an accep
Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt the Foundation
altogether. It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. We're
supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting itself
be used as a medium for advertising. It at least hopes to achieve this by
while n
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
wrote:
- Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with
> WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were paid
> arguing with me, and would do
On 2016-02-25 03:09, SarahSV wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers
wrote:
The Foundation could pay that number of workers, especially if it found
imaginative ways to do it.
For example, it could set up a department that accepts contracts from
individuals and groups who wa
Yeah, so, my ultimate point remains: we're talking about hundreds of
Wikimedia projects and how they interact with paid editors, and not just
how a few handle it. LIke everything, it's complicated beyond local
instances ;)
--
~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Keegan Peterzell
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Dan Andreescu
> wrote:
>
>> I'm very new to this concept of paid editing. But from what I understood
>> paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid
>> by on their talk
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Keegan Peterzell
wrote:
> Different wikis have different policies on paid editing, most have no
> policy. There is no global policy.
>
>
That's not exactly true. All Wikimedia projects are beholden to the Terms
of Use (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ter
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Dan Andreescu
wrote:
> I'm very new to this concept of paid editing. But from what I understood
> paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid
> by on their talk page or in edit summaries. I understood this to be
> roughly the idea
I'm very new to this concept of paid editing. But from what I understood
paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid
by on their talk page or in edit summaries. I understood this to be
roughly the idea of the Wikipedian in Residence title. I didn't look this
up on
On 24 February 2016 at 21:16, Risker wrote:
> Well, Sarah, after all of these years I didn't think you'd come up with
> anything that would surprise me. I was wrong, And I'll say that if I was
> going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators to
> support smaller projects
Well, Sarah, after all of these years I didn't think you'd come up with
anything that would surprise me. I was wrong, And I'll say that if I was
going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators to
support smaller projects, and Wikisourcers, and people who may have the
intere
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
> of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.
>
> If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
> monthly active editors (71K), then tak
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:20 PM, pajz wrote:
> Well, we all know about the problems of giving monetary compensation to
> editors. Just thinking aloud here, but I guess if you want to reward
> editors in some way, but don't want to pay them directly, there's some
> middle ground: Don't pay them, bu
Thanks for writing this email Brion. I agree that the movement needs to
invest more in people and the processes that support people.
One of the largest challenges facing the wikimedia movement, including WMF,
is creating good models for how people in the movement can successfully
engage with each
Sarah,
thank you and Brion for some really insightful e-mails. I'll just add one
thought to one of your points.
On 24 February 2016 at 00:41, SarahSV wrote:
> Should the Foundation be paying for that kind of work
> and thinking in those ways? I would say not.
[...]
4. Rethinking Sue's decisio
Sorry, http://mediawiki.org/wiki/Accuracy_review
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:59 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> SarahSV wrote:
>>
>>... how does a tech organization nurture and support its unpaid
>> workforce of mostly writers and researchers?
>
> I remain convinced that http://wikimedia.org/wiki/Accur
SarahSV wrote:
>
>... how does a tech organization nurture and support its unpaid
> workforce of mostly writers and researchers?
I remain convinced that http://wikimedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_review can
solve this problem through a new spinoff such as WikiEd Foundation,
but that's still probably at le
Thanks for the thoughtful response; you've raised some excellent points
that strongly warrant further discussion.
Some more recent initiatives like the Community Tech team have been
specifically meant to help "power users" get stuff done; I hope that's
working out and helping, and that the focus o
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>
> I think first we have to ask: why did many people feel attacked or in
> unwanted adversarial positions before (both among volunteers, and among
> staff)? What sort of interactions and behavior were seen as problematic,
> and what led up t
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:34 PM, SarahSV wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Brion Vibber
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I believe a high-tech organization should invest in smart people creating
> > unique technology. But I also think it should invest in people, period.
> > Staff and volunteers must b
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> I believe a high-tech organization should invest in smart people creating
> unique technology. But I also think it should invest in people, period.
> Staff and volunteers must be cultivated and supported -- that's how loyalty
> and passion
As a humanities person myself, I did read into Lila's post that the
non-engineering aspects of Wikimedia would take a back seat... perhaps a far
back seat to all the shiny new things happening in Silicon Valley. This may not
be the case, but if it is, I can understand it as to an engineer, every
64 matches
Mail list logo