Send email. Thank you. Pada tanggal Min, 15 Mar 2020 19.01, < wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> menulis:
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? (Aron Demian) > 2. Re: Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? (Gerard Meijssen) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Aron Demian <aronmanni...@gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 11:24:51 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? > My 2 cents: Imho the pressure from English Wikipedia on other projects of > the movement is very realistic in many kinds of matters, that I've > experienced myself too. Other projects are not independent socially or > culturally, the rules, practices, expectations and editorial behaviour is > strongly related to that on enwp with all its positive *and* negative > benefits. Often the negative benefits seem to outweigh the positive, > unfortunately. > > Aron > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:17, Peter Southwood < > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> > wrote: > > > It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing > > community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other > > Wikipedias. > > En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply with its > > editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for en:WP. > > Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for content, > > within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they choose to > > emulate en:WP that is their prerogative. > > If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the > > subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince > > other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that > they > > should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence > > from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing > > communities of those projects for consideration. > > If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is > > not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP > > community who have no authority over Commons. > > As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for > > confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are > > sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > > Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? > > > > Hoi, > > By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost > universally > > but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia > > English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address > > English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent > > the sum of all our knowledge to be shared. > > > > Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job > > informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project > of > > a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their > > maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and > > gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia > > conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in > > other languages is frustrated from within WMF. We could do a better > job, a > > job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The > > result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the > > knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia > > conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about > 300 > > > projects and make several good points about how people confuse > Wikipedia > > > with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other > > > projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to > > be > > > highly toxic". Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you > > using > > > the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously > > > objected to? Something else that is not obvious? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > > > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? > > > > > > Hoi, > > > Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as > a > > > unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 > projects > > > and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia. > > > > > > When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that > > > English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative > > > effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with > > > English Wikipedia. > > > > > > * Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for > > projects > > > other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published > > > * New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, > > the > > > notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the > > architecture > > > * It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than > > Wikipedia, > > > specific functionality is hardly ever developed > > > * In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English > > notability. > > > Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly > > requested > > > for use with Wikidata > > > * there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. > > Many > > > Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose > > > because we do not seek an audience for them > > > * even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is > > really > > > good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other > languages. > > > > > > It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may > be > > > that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will > > > welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its > > > consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to > > share > > > in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not > > > what English Wikipedia deems notable. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 11:46:33 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? > Hoi, > Back your pardon. I do not blame the English Wikipedia for the > shortcomings of other Wikipedias. It does a reasonable job at informing an > English reading public. The point that I make is that we do not consider > how the bias towards English Wikipedia prevents us from reaching out and > sharing in the sum of all knowledge. > > There is documentation that Cebuan Wikipedia articles are well presented > and provide a more complete coverage of the knowledge domains it covers. > Also please remember that all US places were added to English Wikipedia by > bot. > > When I document bias, it is for you to understand that this bias exists. I > stopped writing in English Wikipedia because the American perspective was > more relevant that an international perspective. > > At stake in this thread is making Wikipedia a central brand. I indicated > earlier that those living the English Wikipedia reality are not aware of > the negative effects of its bias. In effect you tell me to do something > about it. Well, I have been blogging about Wikimedia for the last 15 years > [1] and I learned that documentation may be relevant but it is unlikely to > make people see what is in front of them. > Thanks, > GerardM > > [1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/ > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:16, Peter Southwood < > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> > wrote: > > > It is grossly unrealistic to blame English Wikipedia and its editing > > community for what you appear to consider the shortcomings of other > > Wikipedias. En: does not require or pressurise other projects to comply > > with its editorial standards, which are those developed by en:WP, and for > > en:WP. Other projects are free to set and use their own standards for > > content, within the general WMF terms of use, and generally do. If they > > choose to emulate en:WP that is their prerogative. > > If you think that Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job of informing on the > > subject matter it covers than other projects, and would like to convince > > other projects that this is a realistic and rational opinion, and that > they > > should follow that example, you are free to produce documentary evidence > > from experts that this is the case, and present it to the editing > > communities of those projects for consideration. > > If Commons are exceeding their remit by refusing to host material that is > > not used on en:WP, that is not the policy or the fault of the en:WP > > community who have no authority over Commons. > > As a general rule, when discussing a topic where there is scope for > > confusion, there is less likely for confusion to occur when you are > > sufficiently specific when referring to the ambiguous entities. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > > Sent: 15 March 2020 08:37 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? > > > > Hoi, > > By making the point that there is no Wikipedia AND that almost > universally > > but particularly people who buy into English Wikipedia consider Wikipedia > > English Wikipedia, I expected that this is understood. I then address > > English Wikipedia specifically because it is its conventions that prevent > > the sum of all our knowledge to be shared. > > > > Just to make that point specific, Cebuan Wikipedia does a better job > > informing on the total of the subject matters it covers, it is a project > of > > a father who wants his children to have access to knowledge in their > > maternal language. From a Wiki point of view he deserves praise and > > gratitude in stead he gets scorn because it is against English Wikipedia > > conventions. Furthermore the approach of using data to bring knowledge in > > other languages is frustrated from within WMF. We could do a better > job, a > > job that will work for any language but it is actively discouraged. The > > result is that we do NOT share in the sum of all knowledge, not even the > > knowledge that is available to us. In other words, English Wikipedia > > conventions prevent us from working towards our stated goal. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 06:19, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Gerard, You start off by correctly specifying that Wikipedia is about > 300 > > > projects and make several good points about how people confuse > Wikipedia > > > with English Wikipedia, how this bias adversely affects various other > > > projects, and then claim that "Wikipedia" is "universally understood to > > be > > > highly toxic". Are you referring to all 300 odd projects, or are you > > using > > > the generic term for the specific project in the way you previously > > > objected to? Something else that is not obvious? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > > > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 2:12 PM > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement? > > > > > > Hoi, > > > Essie, the work done by Snøhetta centres on the notion of Wikipedia as > a > > > unifying brand. The problem is that Wikipedia on its own is 300 > projects > > > and that for many, if not most people English Wikipedia *is *Wikipedia. > > > > > > When we are all to be Wikipedia we will all suffer from the bias that > > > English Wikipedia brings us. The problem with bias is that the negative > > > effects are not felt, considered by those people who self identify with > > > English Wikipedia. > > > > > > * Research centres on English Wikipedia, when research is done for > > projects > > > other than English Wikipedia, it is hard to get research published > > > * New functionality is almost always written for the English Wikipedia, > > the > > > notion of the "other languages" is often not considered in the > > architecture > > > * It is assumed that functionality works for projects other than > > Wikipedia, > > > specific functionality is hardly ever developed > > > * In OTRS, the notions of notability are hard coded for English > > notability. > > > Consequently many pictures have been removed that were explicitly > > requested > > > for use with Wikidata > > > * there has been no marketing for other Wikimedia products - products. > > Many > > > Wikisource books are available in final form. We do not serve a purpose > > > because we do not seek an audience for them > > > * even though internationalisation and localisation for MediaWiki is > > really > > > good, we do not consider how we can make use of data in other > languages. > > > > > > It is universally understood that Wikipedia is highly toxic and it may > be > > > that for external marketing Wikipedia makes sense. Internally I will > > > welcome a unified message only once English Wikipedia accepts that its > > > consensus is not considered as "Wikipedia" consensus.. Our aim is to > > share > > > in the sum of all knowledge and it is not only in English and it is not > > > what English Wikipedia deems notable. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 18:33, Essie Zar <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > > > > > There are some new updates and opportunities to engage with the Brand > > > > project. Thank you to Lodewijk for bringing some attention to a few > of > > > > these opportunities. We were actively drafting this update for this > > group > > > > when your email went out. > > > > > > > > As Zack indicated in September,[1] we have been regularly discussing > > with > > > > the members of the brand network (which people can still join )[2] > > ideas > > > > around an evolved brand system with "Wikipedia" as a center point. To > > > > assist in this evolution of the movement brand, we chose to partner > > with > > > > Snøhetta,[3] an internationally renowned design firm known for > working > > on > > > > complex and multi-stakeholder projects like the modern Library of > > > > Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) and the 9/11 Memorial in New > York > > > > City. Snøhetta has been tasked with figuring out precisely what this > > > > improved brand system will look like. They will release a proposed > > naming > > > > convention for movement-wide feedback in April, and a proposed design > > for > > > > movement-wide feedback in May. [4] The result of this process will > be a > > > new > > > > branding system that will be opt-in for affiliates. > > > > > > > > In order to have enough knowledge and context to arrive at these > > > proposals, > > > > Snøhetta is reviewing feedback from the many points at which it has > > > already > > > > been given, and has created a process with built-in community > > > involvement. > > > > The > > > > process thus far has included workshops in Norway, India and online > > with > > > 97 > > > > volunteers from the brand network (movement affiliates, volunteers, > > > > foundation staff, and board members) reflecting 41 nations. At the > > > > workshops, community participants were asked to break into small > groups > > > to > > > > answer the question "Who are we?". Through these workshops, groups > > > > developed rich concepts* that they think best represent who we are > as a > > > > movement. > > > > > > > > Now, we would like to invite you to review the 23 concepts that came > > out > > > of > > > > the community workshops by “liking” and providing feedback on the > > one(s) > > > > you think best represent the Wikimedia movement. You can click on any > > > > concept to see an expanded explanation and photos of the actual > > concepts > > > > built or selected by workshop participants. > > > > > > > > Approximate time to complete this exercise is around 10-15 min. > > > > > > > > https://brandingwikipedia.org/concepts/ > > > > > > > > Feel free to leave feedback directly on Snøhetta’s website, on the > > > project > > > > talk page on Meta [5], or on the Brand Network [2], which will also > be > > > > available on Meta starting next month. > > > > > > > > Snøhetta will use the feedback from the concepts to develop one > single > > > > concept to act as a tool that will help guide the proposals around > > naming > > > > (expected for April) and around design (expected around May). They > are > > > > scheduled to begin reviewing feedback on Tuesday, 17 March, but can > > > > continue taking feedback for a few more days if there is interest. > > > > > > > > We also invite you to share what free knowledge means to you in > > > Snøhetta's > > > > open exercise. Please take a moment and share your thoughts in any of > > the > > > > channels mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://brandingwikipedia.org/2020/02/17/what-does-free-knowledge-mean-to-you/ > > > > > > > > Finally, we want to acknowledge that we have feedback, from various > > > points > > > > in this process so far, from several communities and in several areas > > of > > > > the wikis, including Meta. We understand that some people believe > that > > we > > > > don’t need this project. Our shared vision is for every single human > > > being > > > > to freely share in the sum of all knowledge -- and that means > billions > > of > > > > people. There are many people and cultures we still need to reach and > > > > include. We will need a strong well known brand to achieve the goals > > the > > > > movement has set for itself and we have a lot of work to do to get us > > > > there. > > > > > > > > Want to learn more? Check out the project hub at > brandingwikipedia.org > > > and > > > > the project page on Meta [5]. Participate in discussions on the > project > > > > talk page, or by joining the Brand Network [2]. Also feel free to > drop > > > us a > > > > note at brandproj...@wikimedia.org if you have questions. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > Essie Zar > > > > > > > > (from the movement brand identity project team) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-September/093382.html > > > > > > > > [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediabrandnetwork/ > > > > > > > > [3] https://snohetta.com/ > > > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#Process > > > > > > > > [5] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project > > > > > > > > * What is a concept? > > > > A tool making the complex more understandable. > > > > > > > > Concepts make complex subjects more understandable. They manage to > > > > consolidate vast amounts of facts, data and details into a singular > > > > definition in its context. By creating concepts we allow ourselves to > > > > acknowledge the complexity yet dare to step away from differences and > > > look > > > > for similarities that binds it all together. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > *Essie Zar* (she/her) > > > > Brand Manager > > > > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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> > > > > -- > > 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, > > <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>
