I am glad to hear that Luis Villa's department has been thinking about
Innovation. Rather than debate it here, perhaps the team would like
to expose some of their work on Meta. However I might just note that
it would probably have helped the community to help them if the team
had exposed their
The 2015 Call to Action identified the need to Support innovation
* Integrate, consolidate, and pause or stop stalled initiatives.
* Create spaces for future community-led innovations and new
* Facilitate and support new models and structures for
I call on the Board to rectify this situation as a matter of urgency.
I note that the minutes I requested in my posting yesterday were published
two hours later  althought not linked from
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings as one would expect, not were
they announced on the mailing list. While I am glad that this has finally
happened, it is deplorable
It seems that the engagement between the Board and the Community has broken
down, to the point that there may be a crisis of confidence developing.
Perhaps members of this list would care to express their views at
The ostensible rationale for this change, according to the Board chair was
"Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need to do
small and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the whole
resolution process to change a comma."
Perhaps the issue has something to do with whether donors expected their
money to be spent on publicising a political stance. One "privilege" I see
here is the privilege of being able to spend other peoples' money in ways
they did not expect and, possibly, do not support, without recourse.
I think this is a very interesting point. Why is the WMF so dependent on
being able to hire staff in one location? I seem to recall suggesting
some time ago that they should diversify their location globally in the
inerests of innovation and efficiency. It would have done them good to
> Why are proposals to abandon the US being given more consideration than
> those to address the underlying issues?
Because this mailing list is for discussions about the Wikimedia mission,
Foundation and projects; not for the general discussion of the national
politics of the United
> As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to
> visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color.
Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list.
> Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy
On 20 December, you wrote
> Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need to do
> small and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the whole
> resolution process to change a comma.
> Now you write
> the Executive Director
> has authority to set and
Would you let us know how much of the donors' money will be spent on this
legal brief, either directly or in the costs of staff time, please?
It would also be of interest to know why you felt that the input of the WMF
to this brief was essential given that there are 90 other
I am glad to see that the WMF is being rigorous in ensuring that the
donors' money is being spent effectively and accountably by the affiliated
organisations. Of course one does not expect a detailed narrative when the
WMF deems it necessary to take action in this way since named individuals
I propose to challenge your comments "t’s not even about whose at fault
anymore, because we all are. When I talk to people across the movement,
they're all pretty clear that someone other than themselves is the
There is a difference between fault, responsibility and
> What community?
> Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <
> > Anna
> > > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspectiv
> What I explicitly say is that when the whole of the community is seen as
> the community of en.wp then I truly think there is something fundamentally
> wrong with the notions pandered.
I agree, and the more readily since I do not think, and have not said, that
ou be willing to generalize in categories: a
> > spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the
> > communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
> > "But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not for
Is there any special relevance to the mission of the Foundation here, or
this is simply an attempt to use the resources of the Foundation to gain
publicity for a political cause that you personally favour?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:41 PM, James Salsman
There has always been control of travel into the United States. I have had
a colleague arrested at the airport and deported for the "crime" of
admitting that she expected to be paid by a university for a lecture she
had been invited to give. That was a clear interference with the free
I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the least
productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue is what, if
anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and need to
f the fence, but I can't disagree with your
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some way
> > answerable to
When I last spent some time looking at the proposal, I too felt that the
> contributions indicated that the policy had far too little community
> influence. *However*, if you'll entertain a hypothetical with me for a
> moment, let's suppose that the status quo continues and there is
An interesting idea, and if it reduces the survey load on the community
that would be good. But one should never survey for the sake of it. Any
proposed survey question should be able to meet the test "What will you do
with the answer to this question?" In my experience, the response to that
This code has been under discussion at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the summer
of 2015, and is finally nearing completion. The original consensus in 2015
had been that the completed code would be submitted to the community for
ratification and adoption.
The BBC reports http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39035512 on a
controversy involvig Uber and its diversity policies.
*Until now, Uber had been standing firm on not publishing its diversity
figures. Most major technology companies make public their EEO-1 - a
government filing that breaks
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Matthew Flaschen
> However, both volunteers and staff participants have joined the CoC
Matthew is too modest – the discussions has been managed by staff since
late 2015, almost all of the contributions to the
> Sometimes I wonder if hope isn’t at the base of it all. Perhaps hope is
> necessary but certainly not sufficient for it all to transpire. Hope is not
> a strategy. But maybe it's a foundation.
Certainly, but there is an old saying about "the triumph of hope over
> > When you use a proverb, it is dandy but by the same token, I am not a
> > collaborator because that would-be make me a Nazi (that is my cultural
> > heritage).
> > My question to you is plain. Are you willing to argue your case as I am
> > wi
My understanding is that the signficant mention in independent reliable
sources is what is required to write an encyclopaedia article about
something. Passing mention in reliable sources such as peer-reviewed
academic journals establishes that something exists. Passing mention in
These are indeed excellent questions which should be asked before starting
any survey. I wish I could be confident that it is universal practice for
the Foundation to undertake this exercise before each of the rather
numerous surveys they make of the community, and always able to view,
not laughing at your name. What I found funny was that people had a
> series of pronunciations that were different and yet they were all sure
> that they were correct.
I am not at all bothered but thank you for your consideration.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Anna
There are words in other languages that have a rude, upleasant,
disrespectful or pejorative meaning in British English. For an amusing
list of examples, see the Oxford Dictionary blog at
I presume that I'm entitled to be complain
> * Thank you for trying to get and maintain a public list of WMF accounts
> with special permissions. I think that this is helpful for the community to
> know. I also think that WMF should actively maintain the list of WMF
> accounts with special permissions, and the reasons for granting
Thanks for that. I think the point might have been strengthened by
pointing out that the English-language Wikipedia standards for reliability
are so high, that its editors do not even consider Wikipedia itself to be a
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:36 PM, David Gerard
> This is correct, all global bans (after a complaint has been made) go
>- Investigation by Support & Safety team member -->
>- Review and Recommendation by the Manager of Trust & Safety (myself)
>- Approval by the Director of Support & Safety and the Chief of
Perhaps the WMF should drive the paid editing companied out of business by
competition? They could try setting up a subsidiary trading company to
carry out paid editing in a professional and legally compliant manner. I
am sure this could be popular with the community as a way of getting a
Matt Flaschen has declared the final amendment to the code of conduct for
Wikimedia technical spaces approved and although he has not said so
explicitly, I assume that his current position is that it is now in force.
Even asuming that is correct, and previous consensus was against that, andI
Recall that the Foundation have rewritten their values to include "we seek
to continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our
The previous version
Perhaps this need for use cases was addressed in the "report" which the
staff commissioned from consultants over a year ago but which was never
shared with the community at large – assuming that it was ever produced.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Isarra Yos
I don't think the WMF is "trying to exempt itself from its own creation",
it is simpy giving its own staff a privileged position within it. Anyone
who makes a complaint against a member of staff will have the privacy of
their complaint breached by having details sent to the WMF with its
end itself to a WMF/Silicon Valley view of the world. I urge those
responsbile for selection of these important and influential groups to
challenge themselves to look more widely and occasionally choose the
I think Pine's message rather illustrates my point. Pine seems to assume
that the alternative is between people experienced in the WMF ways of doing
things and novices. Actually, there are plenty of people in the world with
experience in being trustees of non-proft organisations, and technical
As a follow-up to my posting yesterday, I have received a response from WMF
staff at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017 which states
"We know that a common challenge for strategy and vision development work
is that people everywhere have a tendency to frame their thinking through
The page at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017 makes it
clear that there are two stages to the strategy consultation being planned
by the WMF: up to December the work is to define the process; from January
the work is to execute that process. It has been a matter of some
Exactly how and where will this engagement take place? Perhaps
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Strategy_Alpha might be a
place to plan the mechanisms for that engagement?
Some recent posts here have provoked what seem to me to be unmerited
rebukes from members of WMF staff and board. In one case comments to the
effect that a Board member's new job might lead to a conflict of interest
led to a rebuke from the Board's chair "I’m really sad to witness the tone
Dear Dr Coleman
Congratulations on your appointment. May I offer some suggestions for
things you might like to pay attention to now tas you embark on your new
job. I suggest that engagement with the volunteer community, especially at
a strategic and early stage in your decision making will be
Chris Keating wrote: "Fortunately the Board isn't required to consider
whether hypothetically infuture some other organisation's interests might
conflict with the Foundation's: only whether in practice they do." This is
not correct: one of the functions of the Board is to assess the risks to
Sam, Thanks you for your views. Referring to the possible conflicts
between Wikimedia and Quora, you say that "there is almost no current
overlap between the organizations' main projects". Whether or not this is
true right now, it is entirely possible that it may not be true in future,
Ellie Young refers to a strategic review of Wikimania. It would be
valuable to know how the community at large, and especially the 99% of
content contributors or the 99.% of readers (all figures estimated) who
do not currently go to such events, will be involved. Will there be any
I quite understand that some members of the Board feel that there are more
important calls on their collective time and resources than engaging
directly with individual members of the community, even though some do feel
that they may be able to as individuals. I note that you feel
Thank you for explaining that there were two meetings involved.
I welcome the assurance that the agenda will be published earlier in future.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues to
board members at any time".
It would be most helpful to know where and how the Board in general would
welcome such issues being raised and how much resource they will have to
sustain those discussions. Attempting to raise
You seem anxious to deflect my question by making an unfounded accusation
of distortion. The plain meaning of the posting I quoted was that Board
members had no more time to devote to engagement with community members
than they were currently allocating, and you clearly have read the
Congratuations to Kelly Battles on her new job at Quora. I believe I'm
correct in saying that this is a company whose business is to make a profit
by pursuing its "mission is to share and grow the world’s knowledge".
Surely that means that in general the more and better the Wikimedia
Christophe writes "suggesting a Board member should resign and at the same
time saying the process was properly followed, is not ok". I am not sure
exactly what he means to convey by this, but I am not aware that anyone
posting to this thread has said anything that can be described in this
nswers and where would satisfactory answers lead us to? My problem
> with the WMF and its community that is that it is stuck too much in things
> we could improve upon. I am actively engaged in getting towards a vision
> that I share in mailing lists and on my blog.
> What is your vis
the issues as we know them.
> Seriously better quality to Wikipedia requires a small change that nobody
> needs to see, that people can opt in to and the people that do will improve
> the quality in all Wikipedias. Again, I challenge anyone to show where my
> arguments fail reality.
>  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product
>  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Overview
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com
> > Thanks to both Lydia and Denny for
e implemented? Or, to put it in other words, what input would you
> give or expect if a document like you are requesting would exist?
> Best Rupert
> On Jan 10, 2017 11:28 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> Dear Wes
Fæ, Surely no grant-giving body would even talk to the Foundation if it
could not show them a plan for the medium to long term. For some reason,
the Foundation is consistently unwilling to share this plan with the
Community (its biggest donor in terms both of money and surplus value). I
> links to previous documents.
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:32 AM Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > Lisa
> > You say that "Structured Data on Commons was in our product roadmap, so
ing of the roadmap for Commons and other Wikimedia
> products, but for a singular Foundation-written document that fixes the
> Wikimedia product roadmap over several years instead?
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail
rewards, while effective project managers are likely to
> remain invisible.
> Thanks for your email, I rarely reply to your stuff on-list or on-wiki,
> but I appreciate your critical thoughts.
> On 29 Dec 2016 22:15, "Rogol Domedonfors" <domedonf..
Sorry, typo: the CAAs serve an average of about 16,000 people a year: see
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
>> Rogol, there a
I was reading Sherry Arnstein's 1969 paper "A Ladder of Citizen
Participation" (JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224)
or at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 and found it remarkably
Considering that the income of the Foundation is attributable to the
voluntary work of the Community, perhaps some of the potential $2.5M
projects could return some of the benefit more tangibly. Let me suggest
1. Fully-paid bursaies to Wikimania 2017 for one person from each of the
The statement by the Board that "The Board is committed to making our
communities safer" is very welcome. Perhaps the Board will turn its
attention to the process for developing the *Code of conduct for Wikimedia
technical spaces* which has been under discussion in draft form at [
o they believe this is a good idea in
general, or compatible with their commitment to transparency in particular?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, you wrote:
> Well, folks are free to ignore invitations to comment; there are indeed a
> lot of discussion notices for various matters, so I don't blame them if
> they world rather volunteer their time in other places.
> But they cannot then also
Thanks for that. You write
we are actively working on trying to reduce
> the mandatory time board members have to allocate to WMF. Goal is between
> this year and next year to lower it down to what we benchmarked as average
> (and I can't find the number again, I'll dig into that).
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:11 PM, you wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation continuously monitors events around the world that
> may impact the Foundation’s ability to support the projects and
> communities. When that capacity is threatened, as in the case of these
By the same argument, then, the Foundation should be compensating the
unpaid volunteers who actually create the content of the projects, and
supporting them with the tools and resources they need to do that work.
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Pine W wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:24 PM, you wrote:
> Please do not twist my words. I said technical considerations are relevant,
> not that customer needs do not come first. If something is incredibly
> difficult to do, that is factored in to prioritisation, alongside the size
> of the audience
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, you wrote:
> [...] your usual
> MO of presenting ideas that only you care about is, yet again, unhelpful
This is both aggressive and fallacious. At least one other person cared
enough about this issue to post a polite, thoughtful and reasoned
Thanks, but I think this is a Board issue, and that the Board Governance
Committee should be invited to consider it. However, as I'm sure you are
well aware, real names are required in a wide variety of contexts. It is
the extent to which they are made public that differs.
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it
On a related note, the Foundation Blog
announces that "the Wikimedia Foundation joined a handful of media
organization at the MIT Media Lab to lend their expertise at MisInfoCon".
That's certainly good to hear, but a little short
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Yaroslav Blanter wrote:
> [...] On the Russian Wikivoyage, all of our active partipants produced
> a document, to be told by the facilitator that this is not what WMF wants
> to see.
This does not strike me as a description of what a
Thank you for that information. It seems that you are happy to introduce
the new members of this Committee to the community under pseudonyms. I
back in July 2016 that, considering that this
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
> And I'm struggling with a process problem (not one of substance) that I
> don't know how to solve. I truly don't. And it's kind of killing me.
> We (people who work and volunteer at the WMF) need a way to get feedback.
> We need a way
ly on the relevant talk page.
> I'm well aware of the challenges with the TCoC, but let's not make it more
> difficult than it is already, OK?
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> On 2 March 2017 at 17:16, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not asking Matt. I'm asking the Community – here, now, on this very
> > list.
> > "Rogol"
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Pine W <w
We were asked for help. I posted a message asking how we could help in
this process. We got a reply saying the process "already took place". I
interpret that as meaning that our help is not needed after all. Perhaps
you read it differently. I don't think that makes my response, or yours
ges in good faith.
> Have a lovely weekend. I really need a break.
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > Anna,
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:46 AM, you wrote:
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> Hey Rogol,
> I think Zach's email (above / March 2nd) describes the changes.
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf
>  https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151798
>  https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/consider-the-facts.html
>  http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:47 PM, James Salsman
I am surprised that this discussion would be held now, *after* the work has
been done. Was it really not possible to plan ahead and have this
discussion before doing work that might turn out to be wasted? Was it
really so hard to predict this difficulty? Who was in charge?
On Sat, Mar
I wonder if there's a lesson for other knowledge projects here ...
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:03 AM, carl hansen
> I see dmoz.org is going offline in few days after a couple decades. It is
> community-written project. Will it be absorbed into
It might be as well to understand why ODP folded and whether there is
likely to be volunteer effort available for its continuation before
spending time effort and money on reconstituting it as a WMF project.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:56 PM, James Heilman wrote:
s the relevant Community is here now on this very list,
> > which is an extremely questionable assumption. As has been noted ad
> > nauseam already. At this point this thread appears hard to distinguish
> > from forum shopping.
> > On 2 March 2017 at 1
James, that's very helpful and I see at least one book on that list that
violates the licence, and hence breaches my copyright, in content that I
wrote. What's the best way forward? Should the WMF represent the
community by engaging directly with the company responsible? Or should it
At some point it would be interesting to learn how the external consultants
were selected. I note, for example, that Lake Associates describes itself
as working "side by side with our clients on developing communications and
paid media, targeting supporters, and honing the messages
> 2017-03-05 15:30 GMT+01:00 James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>:
> > Am looking into options. Am going to be discussing things with a lawyer.
> > Might be good to have a number of Wikipedians involved and will ask him.
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 11:45 PM, you wrote:
> The way that you phrase your questions sometimes comes across to me as
> having an edge than is more confrontational than I think is necessary, and
> I am finding the tone to be a distraction from what is, I think, our mutual
Perhaps we could refer this question to the Advancement department. Does
appealing for money for one thing and spending it on another damage the
Foundation's ability to raise funds in the future?
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:13 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> > politics damages our
So is there a Community RFC or not? If so, where?
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Pine W wrote:
> As I'm looking at that talk page, I see a situation which looks like no one
> will "win", which is the opposite of how I would like discussions about
> policy to go
It seems to be in line with the new Values statement: "we seek to
continually improve ourselves, our projects, our communities, our world".
Of course that's political.
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Lodewijk
> I didn't see the banner, but the page
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:10 AM, you wrote:
> Do you think remaining politically neutral is compatible with
> remaining accurate?
I would say yes. Let me put two converse questions to you. Do you believe
truth and accuracy are to be found only at one ppint on the spectrum of
Is it wise for the Foundation to be seen to controlling content in this
way? Would that not jeopardise their legal immunity?
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, at 06:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo