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

Hi Paulo, As far as I know, the new discussion will happen *after* the harmonization sprint, and will be about the new set of recommendations that comes out of it. Best, Diane On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 7:25 AM Benjamin Ikuta wrote: > > > Could we have a formal RfC already, please? > > > > > On

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

Could we have a formal RfC already, please? > On Sep 13, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > > Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be > taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in > this process is a serious problem, and it

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

Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in this process is a serious problem, and it is exacerbated by trying to push discussions to a private medium. Discussions should take place openly and

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

Hi Diane, If there will be a new discussion (and rightly so), what happens to the "harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September" mentioned by Nicole in her messages? I don't believe there will be much to harmonize between the new discussion with the community takes place. Best, Paulo Diane

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

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:19, Diane Ranville wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:28 PM Andy Mabbett > >

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

Hi Andy, Working groups are currently working off-wiki on a new version that will soon be submitted to discussion again. Current versions are indeed not being updated (I think they are not meant to be). If you want to reach out directly to the diversity working group, I suggest using their

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

The section remains unchanged. Is anyone planning to update it? On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 14:29, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke wrote: > > > >

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

It's now over a month since the appended exchange, when I suggested that the answer "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community", to the question "Could this Recommendation [to, in part, allow material with NC and ND licences] have a negative impact/change?" be rewritten

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

Dariusz It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you mention are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence.

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

Gerard, > > > > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume > > it > > > > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and > > some > > > > clarification would be welcome. > > > > English Wikipe

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

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 10:42, Todd Allen wrote: > > Well then, why aren't you listening? You appear to be addressing an individual. Your top-posting does not make the addressee clear. > We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid > editing. If you actually put something

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

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

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

Hi Dariusz in recent years WMF has emphasized the concepts of diversity and equity that are excellent and desirable but should not forget that Wikipedia today is what it is thanks to a community that for over 18 years has supported these projects and that cannot be forgotten from today to

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

There is merit in discussing that recommendation for what it is about (perhaps in a separate thread or on the Meta talk page), but it was not about paid editing. Best regards, Bence On Sun, 25 Aug 2019, 13:16 Ilario valdelli, wrote: > Hi Bence, > > I think that this recommendation is

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

You are right and this is what it should be. Anyways we must consider that the selection of the working groups followed more the parameters to select the "representatives" of Wikimedia than the "representatives" of Wikipedia's communities. Basically the experience in Wikimedia projects has

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

Hi Bence, I think that this recommendation is ambigous. There is a specific sentence: "We need to pay or otherwise compensate people to participate" which can be opened to any interpretation. I think that this recommendation is quite complicated to be accepted by the community because it

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

The recommendation you link to was about ensuring diversity on decision making committees, and has this part “We are currently not sure about ‘paid editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that. ”. I think it would help the discussion if we did not distort the content of the recommendations,

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

Well then, why aren't you listening? We've been begging WMF for years to come up with a solution for paid editing. If you actually put something in the ToU against it, we can get paid edit requests removed from sites like Upwork, since they will not allow requests that violate another site's

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

with the way you express it. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Todd Allen Sent: 25 August 2019 00:22 To: dar...@alk.edu.pl; Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations

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

- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter Sent: 24 August 2019 23:15 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here! We are not "working for WMF for free". We are actually n

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

. Opinions will differ. This is mine Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dariusz Jemielniak Sent: 24 August 2019 23:07 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations

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

> > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the > > recommendations > > > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or > more > > > effective. > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > >

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

a-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > Sent: 24 August 2019 20:10 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are > here! > > Hoi, > Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your ref

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

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:22, Todd Allen wrote: > When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia > functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF > backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly > backed down, they would have

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

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:01, Todd Allen wrote: > And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of > thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than > a dozen people? > Let's be factual. There are 9 WGs

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

Then, let me rephrase, I guess. Why's it seem those people are being ignored? When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly backed down,

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

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen mailto:toddmal...@gmail.com>> wrote: Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this? My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization,

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

Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this? " However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions (I'd call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between 5 and 10 thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the recommendations. Some

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

Well, "the intention of building an encyclopedia based on a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence" is close to many of us (me including). I think it is quite unlikely that recommendations

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

--- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are > > h

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

the > > recommendations > > > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or > more > > > effective. > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto

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

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:39 PM Jeff Hawke mailto:geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>> wrote: the various projects. I think my question could best have been phrased in terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably

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

Nicole, You say that the harmonisation sprint will take place in Tunis. Why was it decided to hold the sprint in a country in which ihomosexuality is illegal, as are sexual relations outside marriage. Is this going to be a safe space for such community members? Jeff On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at

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

omsa.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Benjamin, > > > Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting > > > that the board might overrule the community in this matter? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -

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

: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here! Hoi, Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter of last

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

fective. > Cheers, > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strateg

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

24, 2019 6:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here! Hoi, May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct opinions.

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

essage- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta > Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are > here! > > > > It is dis

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

2019 07:12 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here! It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way. On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman wrote: > The board will be discuss

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

" I hope the wider community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group" - At the meta pages everybody can see the community is engaging very actively, it's WG and core group engagement there which is very low or null. And we are already only some 3 weeks before the window for

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

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 11:18, Benjamin Ikuta wrote: > It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community. > Benjamin, this is not a clash between two opposing forces, albeit some combative elements try to "divide and conquer", and turn the community into two opposing camps. The

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

Sorry, by "you" I meant the board. It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community. > On Aug 24, 2019, at 1:29 AM, James Heilman wrote: > > @ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the > community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the

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

@ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some

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

It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such a massive way. On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman wrote: > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group > position at this point in time. > > J > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47

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

The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group position at this point in time. J On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke wrote: > James > > Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's > position on whether it is prepared to see the final

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

James Thanks for that. As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community? Jeff On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman wrote: > I for one do not

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

Hello James, If we can do that together, it is not evident from the timeline sent by Nicole. How can we " collaborate with each other", "the wider community engage with the proposals that have been made", and we together "develop a final document that the majority of us in all parts of the

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

To clarify on this, yes we need to make changes as a movement, but we need to do so in collaboration with each other. My hope is that the wider community will engage with the proposals that have been made. And that we can develop a final document that the majority of us in all parts of the

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

Except that this time they don't "hope that all of you will be a part of this next step in our evolution", since Wikimedia community input ceases around 15 September in what has been constantly defined as a very preliminary draft, with very low to null engagement from the WGs, and next time we'll

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

I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position. James On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke wrote: > Paulo, > > You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community > does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that just > five years ago,

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

Paulo, You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community does not approve some of the recommendations". You may recall that just five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board, expressed the opinion

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

If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs 8and their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around December. Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will only be dealing

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

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:48, Jeff Hawke wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett > wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke wrote: > > > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the > > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF > > > > This

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

Dear all, Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building our future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications. DRAFTS As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently

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

And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed out by multiple people from the very beginning) Cheers Yaroslav On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke wrote: > Andy > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett > wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55,

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

- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hawke Sent: 20 August 2019 20:49 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here! Andy On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Mon

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

Andy On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke wrote: > > > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the > > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF > > This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one

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

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55, Jeff Hawke wrote: > the WG then collate them and decide the final form of the > recommendations, to be implemented by the WMF This seems to be missing a rather crucial intermediate step; the one where the recommendations are accepted, or not, by the wider Wikimedia

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

Many Wikimedians have left detailed and logical feedback on the Meta talk pages, as per the request for feedback by Nicole Ebber. No doubt there is no requirement to keep on making this same feedback in other places, especially where not part of the planned feedback process, or where the

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

Chris, There is perhaps some confusion here. Most Wikipedians are accustomed to a process of *discussion*, during which a consensus emerges and is accepted by the community at large, and implemented by community prcesses. It has perhaps not been made perfectly clear that this is a *feedback*

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

Just to follow this up, we in the Roles and Responsibilities working group have now supplemented our recommendations with three potential future structural models for the Wikimedia movement. (These have were being worked on still on in the light of other feedback on Thursday, hence them not being

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

Hi Nicole, I suggest also to harmonize a little bit the reccomandations of the working groups too. I had a quick reading and I found several conflictual points among the different working groups. An example is the technology working group where the first reccomandation is about a

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

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Leila Zia wrote: > * Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages. > Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3 > different options available. > And his option of a dedicated project for non-free content has been

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

Done, Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 15 August 2019 07:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here! Peter, this is a very

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

Hello Leila, Just two quick notes on what you've said: *" We should get comfortable thinking about these trade-offs as we think about how to bring more diverse people and content to the project" - I face this argument constantly in my life as an active Wikimedian. University teachers tell we can

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

ers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andy Mabbett Sent: 14 August 2019 18:08 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here! On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:09, Pine W w

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

. The devil is in the details, and we have no details yet. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: 14 August 2019 16:16 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy

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

Peter, this is a very thoughtful suggestion. I'm not sure the WG members will see it here, maybe you could post on the talk page? I haven't seen it there. Aron On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 12:00, Peter Southwood wrote: > One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free > and

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

Hi Paulo, On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > > If they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for > the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license and > commercializes it anyway. In practice, this can happen. Two points

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

If they don't have legal resources, then it is pointless to use NC ND for the content, as they will not be suing anyone that ignores the license and commercializes it anyway. If such knowledge can't be freely shared, then it has no place in Commons, in my opinion. If that makes it less visible,

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

Also, keep in mind that feedback on what recommendations you wanted / expected to see but did not find is just as much worth as criticism (or praise) of the existing ones. On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 21:31 Chris Keating wrote: > > > > > > I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy

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

I doubt that the communities in question are likely to have the same legal resources available to them as The Coca-Cola Company, so I must admit I don’t find this argument entirely convincing. Asking them to share their content, but then leaving them alone in the face of any problems arising from

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

All this stuff about misappropriation and unwanted commercial use of certain content which is being used to justify the inclusion of NC/ND CC licenses in Commons and other Wikimedia projects, really isn't Wikimedia concern. If some communities object to certain types of use on content produced by

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

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:34, Aron Manning wrote: . > The draft already refers to 2 articles (1 > ,2 > ) > that explain the need for ND. I'll

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

> > > I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and > I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals. > I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed, > nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the

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

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 22:09, Pine W wrote: > I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed I don't want people to feel their genuine concerns are being casually dismissed; not least with glib lines like "All change has negative connotations to some members of the

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

" I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed" - Don't worry, it is not "their ideas. As Nicole Ebber explained, those recommendations resulted from a lot of different inputs, and none of them is supposed to be the brainchild of anyone inside the WGs. If they are

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

" To distribute many of the function now at WMF in SF to different locations in the world (whereof 50% in Global south)" - Distributing work now being paid with US wages to US staff at SF to people at the Global South paying "Global South wages" sounds a lot like moving the factories from San

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

I have what seems to be a minority opinion so far. I think that hosting NC and ND media is worth considering. If the Commons community does not want media with those licenses to be on Commons then I think that Peter's suggestion is good. A tricky issue may be whether to allow NC and NC media on

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

See bottom for reply. -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: 13 August 2019 01:18 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here! On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7

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

. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 13 August 2019 00:41 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here! On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45

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

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 23:40, Aron Manning wrote: > 1st article > is > about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the > images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by >

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

List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here! Hi Yaroslav, > No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept > decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in > the two-way interac

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

Thanks for the update, Nicole. As I have been reading portions of the recommendations, I am finding it helpful to remind myself that these proposals are drafts, and to assume good faith when reading them. I have a variety of thoughts regarding proposals, including "I completely agree", "This is

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

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:18 PM Nathan wrote: > > One counter-argument that doesn't seem to come up that often is that the > movement as a whole may be better placed to decide the needs of the > movement as a whole than smaller, more local communities. I think that idea does come up pretty

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

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:12 PM Pete Forsyth wrote: > Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing" > section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both > text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial > use and no

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

Ziko's original comment appears to derive from the "Terms of Use/Licensing" section of the Recommendations.[1] It says: "Present licensing for both text and photographs should change to allow restrictions for non-commercial use and no derivative works, if those will improve the ability of the

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

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko wrote: The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being > uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded > as "free". I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of uploaders to use

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

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 21:43, Philip Kopetzky wrote: > these are still rather talking points than specific > visions of the future and it would be great to discuss them in that way. Beyond what I have already said, I do not see any merit in discussing glib statements like "All change has

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

Hello Aron, Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 22:34 Uhr schrieb Aron Manning < aronmanni...@gmail.com>: > > Part of this would be the addition of NC and ND licenses. This doesn't mean > that there will be less free content, but instead more material will be > possible to be uploaded, from

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

Hi Andy, the way the recommendations were drafted was not straightforward and they are still drafts, some less defined than might be ideal at this point in time. Personally I would not accept such a statement in a final recommendation, but these are still rather talking points than specific

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

We've been waiting for the moment the WMF starts a conversation of proposed changes. It finally came, and I appreciate this good faith effort. I hope we can give constructive feedback and get involved in a civil manner, without focusing on perceived hostilities. The Terms of Use/Licensing Policy

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

I want to express my appreciation for the work being done and the result. I am not able to get to grips with all parts of the recommendation but as I understand there are two key messages: *To distribute  many of the function now at WMF in SF to different locations in the world (whereof 50%

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

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 16:51, Nicole Ebber wrote: > This is a > process for all of us to shape our shared future, together; let’s keep > engaging and challenging one another in this same spirit. Perhaps it would also be in keeping with that spirit for this: Q4a. Could this Recommendation

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

Ziko and others - please, please provide your feedback to all of the working groups on all of the ideas. Please tell us when you see a draft recommendation that seems to be right. Please tell us when you see a draft recommendation that you think is unreasonable - and tell us what causes your

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

Hi Ziko, There is in fact a rationale within the text of the recommendation. In essence, it's that some communities will never share their heritage if it can then be re-used in a manner they consider disrespectful. Of course one can disagree with that statement on a factual level, or ask for

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

Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 17:51 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber < nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>: > Dear all,. > As such, constructive > feedback and solution-oriented suggestions are welcomed. Hello Nicole, For example, if I say that I am against NC and ND content on Commons, would such a feedback be

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

Hi Yaroslav, > No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept > decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in > the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will > listen to you and then let you know of our

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

No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be

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

Dear all, We would like to offer further clarification that the recommendations for Wikimedia 2030 [1] that were shared earlier with you are indeed drafts. They represent discussions around a wide array of topics that the nine thematic working groups, affiliates and communities had identified

  1   2   >