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

2014-03-20 Thread Pete Forsyth
I'd like to confirm that I am one of the community members Liam considerately declined to name; I agree with Liam's account of what happened; and I agree with Fae's proposed solution (a detailed, public report from the WMF, the Belfer Center, and/or the Stanton Foundation). The report should

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

2014-03-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
Philippe, The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia 1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

2014-03-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: That part of Amy Roth's research has not been published except on-wiki.[1] There was also a followup study after the Public Policy Initiative using the same method, which found found similar results.[2] Thanks

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation

2014-04-04 Thread Pete Forsyth
James, do we need to take Geoff's time up with something so thoroughly documented elsewhere? I'd suggest starting with this web site: http://www.clpi.org/ Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Geoff, Your link to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation

2014-04-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
Based on the message from James Alexander,[1] there is a long history to this line of discussion that I've missed -- so maybe this has been covered. But I'd like to underscore James A's point, from a different perspective. ( tl;dr -- Build a consensus around a desired course of action, *then*

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation

2014-04-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:33 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Pete Forsyth wrote: I think there are very good reasons to be cautious about how much and what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia Foundation engages in, but by and large, the reasons are not *legal* ones. They're related to our

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

2014-04-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
, Siko Bouterse, LiAnna Davis, Frank Schulenburg, Pete Forsyth, Lori Phillips and Liam Wyatt, who tried to guide the project in the right direction and whose voices didn't get heard. We did advise the Belfer Center and the Wikipedian-in-Residence about conflict-of-interest policies on enWP, and so

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedians in Residence -- what makes a good program

2014-04-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
I thought it might be worthwhile to put some attention on what a well planned and effective Wikipedian in Residence program looks like. Especially for anybody on this list whose introduction to the topic was the Belfer Center program, this might be a worthwhile read: Five things a Wikipedian in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wiki Education Foundation website

2014-04-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
Congratulations to the Wiki Education Foundation -- this is a big accomplishment, and should bode well for Wikipedia engagement in the U.S. and Canadian educational systems for a long time to come! The Wiki Education Foundation has documented its progress well on-wiki. Currently its home page is

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

2014-04-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
Sue and all: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: There are no special WMF policies related to this. It might seem that perhaps there should be, but I have thought about it a lot and I believe it'd be a bad idea. This is something I've also thought

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

2014-04-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: The community guidelines are extremely complex, yes. I consider that an argument *in favor* of adopting simpler rules for staff, that exceed

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

2014-04-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: As a former staff member who actively sought out (and received very little) guidance on how to approach my approach to Wikipedia editing

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

2014-04-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 17 April 2014 17:05, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote: For example, others are blasting Victor (whom I may have met, but if I have it slipped my mind in the middle of all the other people I've met) for

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

2014-04-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:53 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2014 15:37, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Such a directive for WMF people would be easy to make, easy to implement, easy to enforce, Easy to enforce? By whom? The foundation? Tracking all edits by

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

2014-04-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:28 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: i do not agree with pete forsyth, I accept Sue's recent statement -- she's right, the final call about what kind of policy the organization will or won't have rests with the organization. and everybody who thinks

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

2014-04-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more responsibly, yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user

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

2014-04-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote: I haven't read this thread, but I'll explain my editing history as Wikitedium: Thanks for the explanation. I think it would have helped if you'd read the actual criticisms, but I understand this is a long thread.

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

2014-04-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:14 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2014 22:05, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: You haven't mentioned it on this list, but you actually accused Zack of violating the sockpuppetry policy on his talk page, and you threaten to pursue further

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The upcoming TOU amendment

2014-04-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
point in his blog post; transparency is tough to successfully mandate, and hardly solves all of the inherent issues surrounding for-profit engagement with Wikimedia content. Again, thanks for the feedback on this. If others have reflections or concerns, I look forward to hearing more. -Pete

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

2014-05-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
Pine, I think you raise some important questions below. Obviously there has been a lot going on in the last week, so I'd like to give this a bump and add a couple points: On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:17 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: Will the Foundation prohibit chapters and other

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

2014-05-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I want to point out something that stands out to me. This is not an outright contradiction, but it's a puzzling contrast. In an unrelated thread

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can't we simplify merge proposals?

2014-05-08 Thread Pete Forsyth
This sounds like a good job for the kind of setup used on Commons, for instance, for deletion requests: a box (Javascript, I believe) shows up in the middle of the screen, with a text entry field, maybe some check-boxes (notify original creator, etc.) and then the script adds the appropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

2014-05-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I've never heard Principle of Least Astonishment used this way. I've only heard it used in the context of software design- specifically user experience- and never to describe content. WP seems to agree:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

2014-05-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: a sizable majority of people who use Wikimedia projects are literally incapable of actually playing the video in question. Kevin -- it's neither a majority, much less a sizable majority, of readers who are incapable of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

2014-05-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_(6th_nomination) Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear the models wanted them off

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

2014-05-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not make

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

2014-05-16 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Don't put words in my mouth, Pete. Commons is broken is a Jimmy Wales quote. It's something many people have said, and I do apologize for my mistake -- I thought you were one of them. I am very happy to learn that I was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

2014-05-16 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: I would caution against a simplistic characterization of technology as a solution for what's inherently a complex socio-technical problem. Please forgive a sentimental moment -- I am so happy to hear this clearly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

2014-05-16 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: The point of I'm trying to make in this discussion is, we do a lot more good by focusing on what's working, and then expanding

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

2014-05-16 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Commons is fundamentally different from Google, Flickr and other image repositories in that it doesn't have safe search, neither as default nor as an option. Have you never had Safe Search features fail? It seems to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons vs. local media search

2014-05-16 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is much more likely that a Wikipedia reader would expect to find those images *used in Wikipedia articles* than a massive

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia in Who has your back EFF transparency report.

2014-05-20 Thread Pete Forsyth
Thanks for posting this, Cristian! I have been a big fan of this campaign for several years, and have urged EFF to include Wikimedia. So pleased to see this becoming a reality! A couple observations: - Most of the companies with 6 stars have been rated for one or more years prior. -

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy

2014-05-23 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: If you intend to focus discussion in one place, rather than on multiple projects, email lists and on non-wikimedia managed websites at the same time, then

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Pete Forsyth
Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten under his skin... What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: If that was not for public eyes, All: My last message to the list was indeed intended for a specific individual, not the list. But there's nothing in it I want to back away from, it's an accurate reflection of my (still

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

2014-05-24 Thread Pete Forsyth
On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest it reflects

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

2014-05-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
Dear Lila, I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the Wikimedia community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics you will employ in seeking those outcomes. Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody with a close

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

2014-05-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
All: I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed on IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: She replied a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety concerns, It seems that Wil has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Signpost is (sort of) published

2014-06-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
Andy, I don't think we're learning anything new here -- the signpost has always been produced by volunteers, and has often had a somewhat irregular publication schedule. I think Pine is trying to do his/her best to get through an immediate challenge, and I'm not sure it's fair to him/her to use

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Signpost is (sort of) published

2014-06-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Jun 1, 2014 4:28 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: I didn't set a deadline for a reply to my question. OK, fair enough. Sorry if I jumped the gun. Pete ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Rethink of observability

2014-06-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Mingli Yuan mingli.y...@gmail.com wrote: * Towards better content and community, what is the most important things we want our user to observe? Mingli, Thank you for raising this excellent and important question. I have long maintained -- and I think many

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Rethink of observability

2014-06-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: Pete's were again primarily social and community-based, but at this level of discussion we should be looking at both social features and technical ones. YES YES YES! However, the current priorities of the Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Rethink of observability

2014-06-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: I also don't believe that social and technical aspects can always be neatly separated. I'm guessing you don't either, Correct, I don't. I'm not looking to pull the discussion immediately toward the WMF's strategic

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

2014-06-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
Thank you Issara. I was not at the conference, but journalism is a world I've inhabited, and this was exactly my impression -- an opportunistic reporter cutting many corners to come up with something that would titillate and entertain. Yes, the choice to use real names, given the way she described

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

2014-06-09 Thread Pete Forsyth
NewYorkBrad, How is your commenting on it better than Russavia commenting on it? I am pretty sure everybody who takes the time to join an email list like this would agree, starting an article for retaliatory reasons is an abhorrent practice. But surely you can't be claiming it doesn't happen? If

[Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation

2014-06-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
All: In other Wikimedia-related forums, recent discussions have focused on some (alleged) comments at the Wiki Conference in New York. Apparently, some people suggested that the WMF's Executive Director should dump her significant other.[1] Many have expressed outrage about this. (For background,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation

2014-06-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: Can you sum up what you're trying to accomplish in one sentence Well, fairly close to one sentence: English Wikipedia is seeing a shift in how many longtime banned users are regarded, commanding substantial valuable

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation

2014-06-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: it doesn't explain what you want. For that part, read this again, which you misinterpreted. Parentheses to clarify, this time: I don't think it's a good idea to [ignore (this apparently escalating situation) on this email

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation

2014-06-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Here are the ethical principles I think you're espousing: I don't think you read my message very carefully. 1) Vicious, hurtful gossip and speculation about a female executive's private personal life is acceptable No,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation

2014-06-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm puzzled of those emails. Christophe, thank you for explaining how this looks from your end. I understand now why this would come across this way, and will put together a more focused summary like

[Wikimedia-l] Why Wil's actions in multiple forums are a matter of significant concern

2014-06-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
Wikimedia has a problem right now, and in the absence of any effective intervention, it appears to be escalating, not receding. The problem, in a nutshell: Wil Sinclair, the partner of Wikimedia's new Executive Director Lila Tretikov, has taken strong, even radical positions on what is needed for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation

2014-06-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 1:19 PM, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote: If making them public is the problem, then the aggressor and one of the victims are one and the same person. You are saying that Sinclair is the aggressor here? Not at all -- you'll note that my statement, quoted above,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship gossip and appropriate conversation

2014-06-16 Thread Pete Forsyth
do feel that I have made a personal attack on them, I hope they will contact me directly. Pete On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: My point was straightforward: I would certainly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:26 AM, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Conflating and comingling our educational role with open content advocacy was always risky and is proving impossible. Insightful point. (We have a similar situation with our competing values of privacy

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:12 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Can you clarify -- who do you intend by we? If your answer is English Wikipedia, I think we already have a somewhat workable

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; George, SJ, and Nathan: In addition to Erik Moeller's initial proposal that Commons be used as a repository for *free* media files (linked previously), there

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Unless you intend to try to roll that back on en.wikipedia and the Foundation policy, Absolutely not. I don't have any real problem with the way fair use is handled on English Wikipedia, and have uploaded some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-06-18 0:55 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com: The people you, Nathan, are accusing of behaving badly, are the ones who are doing the hard, day-do-day work of enforcing the expressed consensus

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: the project and world benefit from [Commons] existing as is. But we need an alternative to support the educational mission, reasonable

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 June 2014 23:17, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: If people are excited about starting up a whole new project, that's fine by me. I think you'll find that donors attracted to the free knowledge aspect

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of potentially non-free content may infect the repository. You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody acts out of such a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The tragedy of Commons

2014-06-27 Thread Pete Forsyth
Several people have replied to my latest message. I'd like to reiterate - I thought I was clear, but just to be certain: I have never claimed that all discussion on Commons is perfect, or that incivility or poor decisions never occur there. I did not intend to open this discussion as a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 24 TB for User:Dispenser on Tool Labs please

2014-07-03 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: I was gobsmacked to find that the reflinks tool had not been carefully transitioned and no plan for it was in place, Me too, to the extent I'm gobsmacked by anything these days. My students love this tool, it's one of the primary

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 24 TB for User:Dispenser on Tool Labs please

2014-07-03 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:20 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: throwing a tantrum because WMF won't give him 24TB of storage for a project that has legal questionablity If society depended on lawyers for determining the parameters of their inverted indices, you would all be using

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Evacuation

2014-07-03 Thread Pete Forsyth
David, thanks for posting that link here. Magnus, it looks like you've made (yet another) excellent tool, and described the problem it aims to alleviate in an eloquent and accessible way. Great to see a step forward in this area! Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, David

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 24 TB for User:Dispenser on Tool Labs please

2014-07-03 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 07/03/2014 07:03 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: Is Reftools FOSS? No, it is not, Thanks Marc. It seems to me that the problem is very simple, in that case: how to come up with a free/libre tool, to be hosted on WMFlabs

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wiknic in the Netherlands a success

2014-07-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
Yes, thanks Romaine! Today we had a nice Wicnic in SF, organized by Saehrimnir, Phoebe, and Stephen. I had a great time talking to old and new wiki friends. We had people from all over the Bay Area, as well as from India, Taiwan, Germany, and probably other places -- and people from Wiktionary,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

2014-07-10 Thread Pete Forsyth
In order to anticipate and meet the needs of readers, you have to have a theory of what those needs are, and what will meet them. The RfC process is one way of getting toward such a theory, and the kind of work done by the WMF's Multimedia Team over the last year or so is another. The pros and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 2014-15 Annual Plan of the Wikimedia Foundation

2014-07-10 Thread Pete Forsyth
As someone who has engaged with several different grants, in different roles, through this program (as a grantee, as an advisor, as an interested volunteer), I would like to wholeheartedly endorse everything Asaf just said. Disagreement is a given when money and broad goals involved; if the grant

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

2014-07-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
Sue, You have gotten your logic exactly backwards here. Of course David is right -- we should all have some humility about things that we don't, and can't, know. But the people who express certainty about what readers need -- the people who assert that those needs are paramount, and trump the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Android Nearby Feature (was: Re: Community RfCs about MediaViewer)

2014-07-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
The current mobile site and the current Android app reflect a major step backward in terms of attributing the authors of Wikipedia content. In February 2012, I initiated discussions that resulted in both the mobile site and the Android app clearly stating in the footer that the content was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Android Nearby Feature (was: Re: Community RfCs about MediaViewer)

2014-07-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Maryana Pinchuk mpinc...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: The current mobile site and the current Android app reflect a major step backward in terms of attributing the authors of Wikipedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Android Nearby Feature (was: Re: Community RfCs about MediaViewer)

2014-07-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
To your specific points: On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Maryana Pinchuk mpinc...@wikimedia.org wrote: (like this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Babe_Ruth). Even once the reader gets there, how many clicks does it take to get to a contributor's User Page, where they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bitcoin now accepted, but there are privacy concerns

2014-07-30 Thread Pete Forsyth
Pine, I think Lisa already answered your question -- it's complicated. It's possible (based on my limited knowledge, anyway) that what you suggest is possible; but she never said it was impossible. She said it was the safest approach, given a complicated scenario. This is her professional

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bitcoin now accepted, but there are privacy concerns

2014-07-30 Thread Pete Forsyth
are possible. Pine On Jul 30, 2014 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Pine, I think Lisa already answered your question -- it's complicated. It's possible (based on my limited knowledge, anyway) that what you suggest is possible; but she never said it was impossible. She said

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Options for the German Wikipedia

2014-08-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Erik is acting as an officer, not as an individual. Brandon, it is not as clear-cut as you suggest, and the lack of clarity originates at the Wikimedia Foundation. The most explicit statement I've seen on this topic

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Options for the German Wikipedia

2014-08-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: A decision about how the public consumes Wikipedia content (e.g., Media Viewer) is an editorial decision, and it's one that the WMF has chosen to make unilaterally. WMF has furthermore moved to give

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

2014-08-12 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: These changes will need to be carefully tested/validated. If you want to take a look at an early early (!) prototype (!!), see

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

2014-08-12 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote: This is serious. WMF really needs to appreciate the expertise of the author community and accept their experience a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

2014-08-12 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:46 PM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote: That the community reacts the way it does now, is because they care very much about the site and they notice something is terrible going wrong on WMF side and too

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

2014-08-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:27 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 10:53, Pete Forsyth wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:46 PM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote: On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote: That the community reacts the way

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

2014-08-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: There is no such thing as the community; we have a huge collection of communities joined loosely over a number of ambigously shared principles that often - but not always - move in more or less the same direction.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

2014-08-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: But the idea that WMF always must slavishly execute the result of a poll or vote is neither rational nor sustainable, While there may be some who suggest that WMF should do so, I am not one of them -- and nor are many of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you

2014-08-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
I think it is also a problem to look at this in terms of bugs. I don't think you can retrofit good design into something that has a variety of substantial problems, by merely squashing bugs. You might say that is the wiki way, but it is widely known that some tasks are better suited than others to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you

2014-08-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Well, hold on here. On 17 August 2014 19:55, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is also a problem to look at this in terms of bugs. I don't think you can retrofit good design into something that has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you

2014-08-18 Thread Pete Forsyth
Risker, some replies below: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: snip Perhaps you should get to know a bit more about bugzilla and its current usage; snip This topic is getting far afield. I have a reasonably good understanding of how bugzilla works, and have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

2014-08-24 Thread Pete Forsyth
Mike -- Did you see the recent discussion about this at [[Talk:Cheetah]]? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheetah#Lead_photo_license Although Erik Moeller recommended in 2008 (with the move to Creative Commons licenses) that we stop permitting new uploads of files on the basis of a GFDL

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

2014-08-24 Thread Pete Forsyth
at 12:21 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Mike -- Did you see the recent discussion about this at [[Talk:Cheetah]]? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheetah#Lead_photo_license Although Erik Moeller recommended in 2008 (with the move to Creative Commons licenses) that we stop

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-09-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sep 1, 2014 3:21 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:45 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: That's contradicted by, among other things, ACTRIAL as mentioned above. The en.wp community came to a clear consensus for a major change, and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2014-09-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
I hope that's not the feature Philippe meant, but maybe. For my clients and students I think it's generally caused more confusion than it's solved, since now they have an additional layer of bureaucracy to navigate (AFC). Is there any data suggesting that's been a net improvement for new users?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

2014-09-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Fundamentally, there's one key question to answer for talk pages in Wikimedia projects: Do we want discussions to occur in document mode, or in a structured comment mode? All else flows from there snip I think there's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

2014-09-08 Thread Pete Forsyth
As an experienced user, the Commons app is tremendously useful (when it doesn't crash). But as a Commons curator, I see a steady stream of test uploads and the like -- things that are utterly and completely unrelated to our educational mission -- that require a great deal of volunteer resources to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015

2014-09-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Alice Wiegand me.ly...@gmail.com wrote: Is this really a discussion about the name of a conference or is it more a discussion about inclusion and exclusion with the underlying question if this conference, which once was set up as a meeting for the organizations

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015

2014-09-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the name. But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with this conference -- surely there's a better resource for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] First Wikipedia Article has been Formally Peer Reviewed and Published

2014-10-03 Thread Pete Forsyth
Big congrats James! And: On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 10/02/2014 07:24 PM, James Heilman wrote: Hope these sorts of efforts will improve the reputation of Wikipedia and the number of contributors. I guess we will see. Beyond this, and (IMO)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] First Wikipedia Article has been Formally Peer Reviewed and Published

2014-10-04 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Oct 4, 2014 1:30 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com wrote: I hope that someone will do something with our etherpad notes. Link? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

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

2015-01-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
, remind the WMF that important things need doing. A little snark, in this case, should be the very least of your concerns. Pete -- Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Nemo, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement: WMF to file suit against the NSA

2015-03-10 Thread Pete Forsyth
(traffic directed to CrossRef) and discuss how other top web properties deal with this issue by adopting a so-called Referrer Policy. I don't know anything about this beyond what I've read on Meta, but I think it offers some useful background for this discussion. Pete -- Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement: WMF to file suit against the NSA

2015-03-10 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not American, but the other co-plaintiffs seem to be civil rights / human rights organisations who are firmly at the left-wing/progressive end of US politics I am an American, and I'm not so sure about that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF-community disputes about deployments

2015-04-23 Thread Pete Forsyth
intended outcomes panned out? If not -- could you outline what you meant by [WMF] proposed and built a set of tools to directly address that problem without compromising the core value of openness? Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I

  1   2   3   >