Re: [Wikimedia-l] Has the underlying level of edits risen or fallen since the Edit Filters came in in 2009?

2013-08-28 Thread
On 28/08/2013, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone come up with a formulae for the ratio between vandalism prevented by the edit filters and lost edits on Wiki? ... Regards Hi WSC, Could you link to where there is a definition of what the edit filters are and what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Labs-l] Wikimedia labs-tools

2013-09-11 Thread
On 11 September 2013 16:45, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: There was a recent mail saying that Labs is not considered production stability. Mainly a disagreement about how many 9s in the 99.9% that represents. tangent A familiar rookie error in adding meaningless

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimania Committee Formed

2013-10-23 Thread
Congratulations to those involved in kicking off this committee. Though we should probably avoid setting up too many committees I know this part of the Wikimedia movement's decision making and learning process has been talked about for quite some time and I'm sure that the WM 2014 UK team will

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

2013-10-24 Thread
... Apparently, legals say that the current policy is too flexible for the board to have really meant approving it, so of course the board will like to change his mind and make it much stricter, while if one wanted to keep it as flexible as it is now one would need the board to change his

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright infringement - The real elephant in the room

2013-11-13 Thread
On 13 November 2013 07:40, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: ... Our biggest issue is copyright infringement. ... Thanks for raising this James. Yes, this is an issue but if you are gunning for elephants this month, I really don't think the copyright elephant is the biggest one in the herd.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 1 are posted!

2013-11-14 Thread
Thank you for the hard work that has gone into the detailed assessments and reports. I like the look of the assessment framework and the thinking that has gone on behind it. If we continue to refine this assessment process, it would be neat if a hierarchical breakdown of the assessment model and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright infringement - The real elephant in the room

2013-11-20 Thread
On 19 November 2013 20:44, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Aside @Fae: the tineye crew are curious quite pro-freeculture, I bet they would be glad to help design a bot that uses their API to check image copyvios. This is an area this spins off from my little experiments with better

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Which Wikipedias have had large scale bot creation of articles this year?

2013-11-27 Thread
As well as finding out where this has happened, it would be good to have some cases of where bots went bad explained. My main concern would be leaving a bot to create thousands of articles but in the process creating a headache for limited numbers of maintainers, such as article copy-editors,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Which Wikipedias have had large scale bot creation of articles this year?

2013-11-27 Thread
On 27 November 2013 13:43, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: ... And even if this only is relevant for far less then 1% of all generated articles it becomes around hundred in total. Many of these cases are quite complicated to fix (area of lakes, depths) and there is a debate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia UK Board update

2013-12-09 Thread
On 9 December 2013 22:39, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: To clarify the term long-serving Wikimedia Commons bureaucrat, Michael had both rights of admin and bureaucrat restored seven months ago... There was indeed a community

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resolution: Media about living people

2013-12-11 Thread
I hope this is a coincidence. I have great difficulty believing that the WMF board of trustees passed a resolution imagining that it would appear to be a good thing that the *very first* action it is used for is to justify the deletion of an artwork of one of its own members. Whatever else is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-29 Thread
On 29 Dec 2013 22:43, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: Can nobody stop the URAA Copyright trolls mass deleting perfect fine files on Commons? I think it would be the best if _all_ URAA affected files would be kept until a DMCA take down notice. Your proposal would be more useful

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright URAA trolls on Wikimedia Commons

2013-12-30 Thread
If anyone wants to suggest useful changes to Commons guidelines, then this is a discussion to hold on Commons. I suspect only a handful of us read this list, and only a few of us have handled or discussed real URAA cases. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

2014-01-06 Thread
On 6 January 2014 10:02, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: ... This would be the community of the project from which you are blocked indefinitely. Throwing around tangential comments about blocks and de-sysops for correspondents on this list neither moves this forward, nor encourages others to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF employee writing articles for $300

2014-01-06 Thread
On 6 January 2014 13:43, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: ... The community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less. Sarah has yet to give her side of events and confirm how much of this is true or whether some of it is spoof or spin. Paid editing, of itself, is not a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Relationship between Wikimedia and oDesk

2014-01-08 Thread
I have not used it but would like to know more. If WMF employees/contractors are free to sell their services as paid Wikipedia editors on oDesk, I think that a how-to-sell-your-services guide would be helpful so that active unpaid volunteers who are not employees know how to go get some money from

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Relationship between Wikimedia and oDesk

2014-01-08 Thread
On 8 January 2014 12:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Because it's feed the trolls week, obviously. Here David, have a cookie. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Relationship between Wikimedia and oDesk

2014-01-08 Thread
+1 to Ting's philosophy. Best WMF trustee ever. ;-) It may be worth illustrating how I might draw the line between my unpaid volunteer work and taking payment for some tasks. To date I have uploaded something like 160,000+ images to Commons and never been paid anything for my time. My work has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

2014-01-09 Thread
On 9 January 2014 00:07, Frank Schulenburg fschulenb...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... The Wikimedia Foundation has recently learned that Sarah has been editing Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients, as recently as a few weeks ago. She did that even though it is widely known that paid editing is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Basic income Wikimedians

2014-01-09 Thread
​The WMF has recently clarified that they frown upon paid editing. Presumably offering basic wage for people to edit Wikipedia is still paid editing? ​ -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Basic income Wikimedians

2014-01-09 Thread
Thanks. I don't see how this relates to Wikimedia projects, by definition it is not. On 9 January 2014 12:40, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote: Le 09/01/2014 13:36, Fæ a écrit : ​The WMF has recently clarified that they frown upon paid editing. Presumably offering basic wage

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Basic income Wikimedians

2014-01-09 Thread
On 9 January 2014 13:13, Seb35 seb35wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: If a basic income is implemented somewhere in the world, people will have more time for themselves in mean (probably more partial-time work), so they will have more time to edit the Wikimedia projects, among other possible

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement Sarah Stierch

2014-01-09 Thread
On 9 January 2014 22:43, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: You are certainly right, Michael. I suppose that WMF and Sarah communicated with each other, and Frank has carefully chosen to use these words. Kind regards Ziko It would not be abnormal in the US for a termination of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-16 Thread
On 16 January 2014 14:14, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: ... it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question about format support. +1 You may want to add to the comment in the RFC:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Speakerthon update

2014-01-18 Thread
The results are delightful, highly evocative. Congratulations to everyone working on these. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

2014-01-18 Thread
On 18 January 2014 13:41, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: The RFC is non-neutral and unnecessarily complex. With so much experience of trying these things, along with full time expertise, I would hope for a more sophisticated

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community consultation + Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director selection process

2014-01-22 Thread
Thanks for the assurance that the community directly and indirectly influences 100% of the board. Could someone point me to where this happened for the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation? Thanks again, Fae On 21 January 2014 17:28, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey I am

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Day We Fight Back

2014-01-25 Thread
Rather than thinking blackouts, it would be good to see proposals of releases of new public domain content in support of these ideals. Fae On 25 January 2014 09:00, Omar David Sandoval Sida omar_sa...@hotmail.com wrote: Few days ago, I was reading about an initiative against mass

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community consultation + Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director selection process

2014-01-29 Thread
On 29 January 2014 12:21, Steve Zhang cro0...@gmail.com wrote: Part of me still thinks we'd be better off and it would be easier to try clone Sue rather than trying to find a suitable replacement for her... Hm, clone armies. Could the WMF strategy extend to creating a Death Star to preserve all

[Wikimedia-l] Earliest known Wiki?

2014-01-30 Thread
Having just uploaded a photograph from the 18th century of Wiki, a Hopi priest, I'm wondering if this is the earliest record we know of for the name Wiki? Presumably this the the earliest photograph of a Wiki, so it would be neat to celebrate him in some way on our projects. I came across this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Earliest known Wiki?

2014-01-30 Thread
On 30 January 2014 18:01, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Having just uploaded a photograph from the 18th century of Wiki, a Oops, I meant *19th* century - photo taken in 1898. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Have your say on Wikimedia UK's strategy

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 11:32, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ... You may also be interested in a related blog post by Simon Knighthttp://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/knight/2014/02/wikimedia-uk-strategy-consultation/, one of the WMUK trustees who has been closely involved in this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: .. The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily working away on English Wikipedia. As someone who has made around 3 million automated edits on Commons and uploaded over 200,000 valuable educational images

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a danger to Wikimedia? I'd

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 16:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo hah...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the ... case by putting him against a slow death that would ultimately end in a year-long ban

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 17:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59: doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list Risker, here's a great tip: If you *really* do not want the case

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 20:03, Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com wrote: A great tip would be to avoid changing this thread into a personal attack on Risker or anybody else. Thank you. Thyge/Sir48 Er, that was the point of my tip to Risker. Fae ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Data mining for media archives

2014-02-06 Thread
On 6 Feb 2014 22:40, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: ... Are we doing any commons analysis like this at the moment? Is any similarity-analysis done on upload to help uploaders identify copies of the same image that already exist online? Or to flag potential copyvios for reviewers Yes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Data mining for media archives

2014-02-06 Thread
On 7 February 2014 04:04, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: That's just beautiful. Thank you, Fae Faebot. I see that job filtered for mobile uploads without EXIF data. What obstacles do you envision for running such a service for all images?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)

2014-02-11 Thread
Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton wool and glib praise, that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] (press release) Frank Schulenburg named executive director of new Wiki Education Foundation

2014-02-13 Thread
On 13 February 2014 06:30, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... Because the director happens to be an extremely valued long time member of the senior staff of the Wikimedia Foundation. This makes for a useful tip for recruiting managers for new Wikimedia organizations or and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] (press release) Frank Schulenburg named executive director of new Wiki Education Foundation

2014-02-13 Thread
On 13 February 2014 13:31, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: ... It's also a good thing for the movement that it's possible to spin off projects like this, which the Foundation has decided are no longer core activity, to other entities. I agree with the sentiment, especially as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use

2014-02-20 Thread
Having led an all day workshop with different GLAM organizations in Cornwall, fresh in my mind are the stories of woe from respected museum professionals who have run into hot water on the English Wikipedia by creating official looking accounts to make edits for their institution and/or using

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)

2014-02-26 Thread
On 26 February 2014 13:51, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it's a cultural issue, does e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter have a geopolitically limited point of view? Open letters are a common tool of *discussion* with the public (= community in our case) in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)

2014-02-26 Thread
On 26 February 2014 17:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 February 2014 16:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons, then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than making a fuss and criticising Commons

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)

2014-02-26 Thread
On 26 February 2014 17:55, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: ... On this, I agree (at least partially) with David. If only some Commons admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete URAA-affected files under false pretences, everything would be much better. If you have the evidence

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UC Berkeley hires Wikipedian in Residence

2014-03-19 Thread
On 19 March 2014 13:11, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote: Neither of these is true: Wikimedia Foundation hired a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, a research center within the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] UC Berkeley hires Wikipedian in Residence

2014-03-19 Thread
Is there an on-wiki description of the WIR project and its planned outcomes? I would have thought that to use the term Wikipedian for an official position, that there should be suitable transparency. If nothing else, this ensures that the Wikimedia community can help make the project a success.

[Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-19 Thread
Re: http://twkozlowski.net/the-pot-and-the-kettle-the-wikimedia-way/ Two questions: 1. Where can I find a response from either the WMF board or WMF funding/finance to the criticisms of a lack of transparency or the apparent failure of the project to deliver value for the donor's money as raised

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-20 Thread
On 20 March 2014 17:49, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae’s) seems to imply that they work directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-20 Thread
On 20 March 2014 19:05, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.org wrote: I am happy to chime in here. WMF served as a fiscal sponsor for the Stanton Foundation and the Belfer Center at Harvard University in this project, which started in 2012 and lasted one year. Stanton, a trusted ... Hi Lisa,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-20 Thread
On 20 March 2014 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta asengu...@wikimedia.org wrote: Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process did not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-20 Thread
On 20 March 2014 19:05, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... ... The Stanton Foundation covered all of the costs associated with it (approximately $50,000). While WMF provided advice and posted the position on the Wikimedia Blog, Belfer made the final hiring decision, which is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-21 Thread
On 21 March 2014 00:56, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... This project was not funded through the individual donations of the general public but rather through a third party foundation that had an interest in seeing this happen, so from an ethical perspective, it's reasonable that the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-21 Thread
On 21 March 2014 07:37, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... needed, to fully expose Harvard's evil agenda and the secret workings of the reptilian order which most WMF senior staff are part of. ... Erik, you are a senior manager within the WMF. If you cannot resist offensive schoolboy

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-21 Thread
On 21 March 2014 11:31, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: ... it seems to have been the Belfer Center directing his actions and not the WMF. If Sandole is a reliable source for his employment during 2012-13, then we must take into account his recent statement which indicates that the WMF had some

[Wikimedia-l] Apology from Fae // was Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-21 Thread
On 21 March 2014 08:20, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... Just after talking about stomping down with its hobnail boots on Wikimedia UK, huh? :-) I'm sorry to have offended your delicate... I apologise for the hobnail boots comment, it was unnecessarily dramatic. This is a slight

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Belfer report - analysis from Russavia

2014-03-21 Thread
Russavia, Thank you for compiling this analysis. In particular the credible sources you have put together should make the Wikimedia Foundation's review a lot easier. I was particularly interested in the role of WMF Fundraising in this project. I look forward to soon being able to compare this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-22 Thread
On 22 March 2014 09:40, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: ... Does anyone believe for one minute that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buck_passingdiff=551697085oldid=549480580took 6 hours to draft? And anywhere between 0 and 3 hours to research? ... Correction to link

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-23 Thread
On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we can't pretend that this is money from general fundraising and decide it should have been spent in a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-23 Thread
On 23 March 2014 08:32, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 3/23/2014 1:08 AM, Fæ wrote: On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updating the typography on all Wikimedia sites

2014-03-26 Thread
As someone with aging eyesight, I am pleased to find readability changes that make it easier to follow a large screen full of text without having to override font styles in my browser or tablet. I even appreciate tying this in to our tradition of tempting fate by rolling out changes on April

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-03-28 Thread
On 21 March 2014 20:23, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... I have a copy of the weekly memos as well, and we've asked for his permission to release them. Hi Erik, A helpful visual table of the weekly reports is available at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

2014-03-31 Thread
On 31 March 2014 12:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Video conferencing is ok-ish.. at best. It does not give you the opportunity that face to face communications gives you. It does not allow you to get through the fog of misunderstanding, Really, when the right

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

2014-03-31 Thread
On 31 March 2014 14:08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [OFFLIST] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

2014-03-31 Thread
I'm even going myself. :-) Fae On 31 March 2014 14:45, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-31 11:47 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: This seems to not be the case looking at the proposed attendee list[1] with the UK sending a massive party of 8 people (excluding Wikimania

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

2014-03-31 Thread
On 31 March 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: ... Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule from the grave? Thanks, Thanks Gerard, I'll return to being dead and buried now. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014

2014-03-31 Thread
On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ... For the record we have people going for four reasons: - CEO and Chair as standard - Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas of strength in the chapter. - Two trustees (we are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Goodbye as the German president of the Dutch chapter

2014-03-31 Thread
Thanks for all your hard work Ziko. It has always been appreciated. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-04-01 Thread
Hi Sue, Thank you for your report at https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment. Could you please clarify if In the future, the Wikimedia Foundation will not support or endorse the creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-04-01 Thread
On 1 April 2014 14:23, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: ... That analysis and examination of that bad move would have been done just and quickly and effectively by polite inquiry than it would have with shrill cries. We're an extraordinarily transparent movement; we don't need

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Purpose of WMConf ( was: Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014)

2014-04-02 Thread
On 02/04/2014, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have! So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference? This has never been clearly defined, in my view. I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

2014-04-03 Thread
I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do you need to take responsibility by yourself. As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash some of the DRs for marginal cases. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files

2014-04-03 Thread
of past notices for files deleted from Wikimedia Commons is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices (As far as I am aware, none has ever relied on the URAA as a rationale for copyright.) Fae On 3 April 2014 21:34, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest avoiding

[Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread
Proposal: Paid volunteers should take care to identify themselves on Wikimedia Projects and discussions related to Wikimedia Projects. Sue Gardner's initial report by the WMF into the Belfer case makes a key decision that there must be effective processes for escalation of employee activities

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread
On 4 April 2014 14:05, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ... It seems to me that the term 'paid volunteer' is an oxymoron. ... Yes, it is oxymoronic, many common terms are, though I am open to an alternative form of words. I understand that volunteers who are also employees

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread
On 4 April 2014 14:33, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote: On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, at 22:14, Fæ wrote: *Definition of paid volunteer:* Paid volunteers are employees, contractors or part time contractors of Wikimedia organizations or other organizations having agreements or partnerships

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread
On 04/04/2014, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Just a quick correction, you say that Even a paid researcher on a university project would not meet this definition, unless the project were part funded or in partnership with Wikimedia. This is not quite accurate: even a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paid volunteers

2014-04-04 Thread
Yann, the nuclear industry controversy was more the issue of control/ownership of content (which can happen on Commons, for example the news today about attempts to restrict reuse of Barack Obama's image). It is a tangent to this proposal. If you have other examples and think current project

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: Transparency for Wikimedia paidvolunteers

2014-04-05 Thread
On 5 April 2014 08:09, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Will you be expecting every supporter of a political party, every member of a religious group, every national of a country, every supporter of a football team and so on ad nauseam... to declare COI when editing a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist. Tomasz Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward publicly and explain what they meant? If this was anything more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
to illustrate the conflict of alignment or the objective of the chapters. The opposing opinions are represented by several Wikimedians on both sides, please do not harp on this single quote. Thanks, Steffen 2014-04-07 12:33 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: If that is indeed the case

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
if a couple of trolls got hold of some out-of-context quotes. Chris On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our movement. If you misquoted please explain

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
won’t help, as it is an entirely self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun. Michael On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

2014-04-07 Thread
No. You may want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said let's keep this secret. The exact opposite is true, if you are in a trusted public position then you must show leadership for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding of decentralized organizational structure

2014-04-10 Thread
On 10 April 2014 16:23, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: ... I do not think that decentralized funding is very good against corruption. ... I would add a far more common issue than fraud, and one that costs us far, far more money. Competent management. Our Foundation and Chapters

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Affiliations Committee leadership

2014-04-10 Thread
Congratulations to Carlos and Cynthia. :-) Bence, the decisions made by Affcom are not always easy or happy ones for volunteers, and I am grateful for the care you take bearing this responsibility. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ASBS sessions update

2014-04-14 Thread
For organizations that pride themselves on openness and transparency, being told that WMF Board Trustee candidates have made speeches, been asked questions and taken part in thoughtful discussion about our Wikimedia Movement in closed sessions that will remain unpublished, seems a long way from

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ASBS sessions update

2014-04-14 Thread
have been a solution, which I believe we lacked to think about sadly. However, I believe the questions were noted to be sent to some of the candidates, perhaps a good way would be to republish them and ask them to answer on meta ? -- Christophe On 14 April 2014 17:15, Fæ fae...@gmail.com

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback on the last 2 years

2014-04-15 Thread
Thanks Christophe, The metrics are easy to understand, I like their simplicity. This makes your goals easy to track, such as both number of volunteer hours and numbers of volunteers being used to analyse volunteer involvement. It would be neat if all chapters were to make these standard, cheap

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

2014-04-16 Thread
On 16 April 2014 15:19, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: ... Apparently, Tim Sandole complains of not having been managed properly by anybody, saying, The person I dealt with at Wikimedia didn't seem to know anything about Wikipedia. I believe it was clear from Sue's frank report and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI editing by WMF staff

2014-04-16 Thread
It would be fantastic if the Foundation were to take *positive action* and make it clear that its employees are immediately directed to not edit Wikipedia articles about each other, ex-colleagues, the Foundation, the Foundation's partners, suppliers and contractors or the Foundation's critics.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI editing by WMF staff

2014-04-17 Thread
On 17 April 2014 08:46, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to their heads, because

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI editing by WMF staff

2014-04-17 Thread
On 17 April 2014 09:40, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: This is not the first time that Erik has been sarcastic and rude in an apparent attempt to close down discussion in public responses to whistle-blowers. Please. You

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI editing by WMF staff

2014-04-17 Thread
2014 09:58, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2014 09:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Every time I see Fae or Russavia in a from: line, I dread opening the email. Fae, posts like this, where any actual point you have is buried under a mountain of your overwhelming bitterness

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI editing by WMF staff

2014-04-17 Thread
On 17 April 2014 12:49, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no wrote: Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr. Seemes that this is at least natural for a chapter. I believe wmf employees should also be encouraged to contribute to the projects. There seems some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Organizational development for the Wikimedia movement

2014-04-27 Thread
Thanks Chris. Interesting you chose to link to my unfinished peer review with WMEE, considering you asked me to halt my inter-chapter governance activities when you were the Chair of WMUK. If you think it is a good idea to allow me to finish the peer reviews I started, perhaps you should check

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

2014-04-30 Thread
On 30/04/2014, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: While this is a compelling interpretation - for the sake of argument - I am not sure the words of the ED of the WMF can bind the Board of the WMF in the decisions they make. I could imagine situations where they could, and normally the ED

[Wikimedia-l] Cracking Wikipedia

2014-05-05 Thread
There seem to be emails going around about possible misuse of images to covertly promote a brand on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, it is a hoax, perhaps to throw mud at a well known company. Discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Cracking_Wikipedia If

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia and Universities

2014-05-06 Thread
On 6 May 2014 15:28, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: Is there one place, perhaps on Meta, where a Wikipedian/Wikimedian could find a summary/briefing on the various different programs that exist? Newyorkbrad Hi Brad, Yes, this is the purpose of https://outreach.wikimedia.org.

  1   2   3   4   5   >