On 2/21/15, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
(Now continuing this discussion on Wikimedia-l also, since we are
discussing grant policies.)
For what it's worth, I repeatedly advocated for allowing IEG to support a
broader range of tech projects when I was on IEGCom. I had the impression
that
In particular, I wanted to share more about the plans for the Community
Tech team. The creation of this team is a direct response to community
requests for more technical support. Their mission is to understand and
support the technical needs of core contributors, including improved
support
So as part of
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Increasing_article_coverage
, it appears that unsolicited emails have been sent out encouraging
people to translated articles into needed languages.
I am all for improving article coverage, etc, but I'm concerned about
the use of user
To be truly free, access to knowledge must be secure and uncensored. At the
Wikimedia Foundation, we believe that you should be able to use Wikipedia
and the Wikimedia sites without sacrificing privacy or safety.
Today, we’re happy to announce that we are in the process of implementing
HTTPS
I should also mention that while we try to be as transparent as possible in
all our work (including holding community consultations around all major
legal policies and providing frequent updates on our work), there are very
limited situations where public discussions could actually hurt free
Another thought: perhaps more investment could be made in providing career
development support for our volunteers of all kinds. It's relatively common
in the United States for organizations with lots of volunteers to put some
investment explicitly into helping the volunteers develop skills snd
On 12/20/15, James Salsman wrote:
> Were there any objections to my request below?
>
Yes. As MaxSem said earlier[1], its basically being ignored as being
totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. (To be clear: Third-party
does not mean people who are doing work on Wikimedia
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Srishti Sethi wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> I would like to share the first edition of the New Developers Quarterly
> Report that the Developer Relations team has produced. This report covers
> metrics, survey analysis and lessons learned
Fae wrote:
>Does the minus symbol in "-60.0%" mean anything? Being a retention
>percentage, I do not understand how it can be negative unless
>potential volunteers are getting rejected at the door before they can
>sign-up. Could that be corrected?
My understanding is that this means that the