Shouldn't we just freeze this thread? It is not going to do any good.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On 02/07/2017 12:07 PM, Bill Takatoshi wrote:
>> Anyone can go to Recent Changes and send a SurveyMonkey link to the
Well, there were speakers who were not able to attend Wikimanias in Haifa
and Cairo, to start with, because of similar bans, and the general response
then was "Whatever place we choose, someone is always discriminated". I am
not sure whether this is a healthy attitude or not, but I do not see why
Was the procedure always like this? We know that there was one person
banned by WMF in 2012, two in 2014, 8 in 2015, and 6 in 2016. Did they all
go through this procedure?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:15 AM, James Alexander
> On Thu,
Did not we have some mass vandalism from Angola some time ago, and then
measures had to be taken? I do not remember the details.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:57 AM, George William Herbert <
> Have them hit whatismyip.org and tell us what shows
Still, in some cases the WMF global ban sounds like a revenge to an
individual, and when (understandably) WMF refuses to elaborate what was the
motivation for a global ban this impression gets even stronger.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Robert Fernandez
e the convergence and prioritization
> will happen) regardless of whether they were in Berlin.
> 2017-04-06 13:06 GMT-07:00 Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>:
> > The backside seems to be that those who have been to the conference feel
> > incent
document, but this is the way
to get the community input, and, in particular, the editing community.
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:
arxiv.org is a free resource. It is actually one of the earliest free
depositories, and in many fields, including mine (physics) it is customary
to upload preprints at arxiv.org prior to sending for review. It can not be
behind the paywall.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at
Thanks the coordinators. I do not know everybody on the list, but I
recognize there names of many excellent people.
I also see there a name which has rung a bell for me, and the sound of the
bell was somewhat alarming. I checked and found indeed that the coordinator
has a sizable block log on the
n a public list, I happy to discuss them with you privately.
> 2017-03-09 23:48 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>:
> > Thanks the coordinators. I do not know everybody on the list, but I
> > recognize there names of many excellent people.
> > I
This is probably best for a separate topic, but it was raised a couple of
times on this thread, so I respond here.
Concerning the better engagement of WMF with community, not calling any
names here, the best way to engage is, well, you know, to edit Wikimedia
projects. Not to just make two edits
Just to note that I sent a mail to wikimania-prog...@lists.wikimedia.org on
Feb 3 and never received any reply, not even an acknowledgement receipt.
Now it is too late anyway, but the committee may want to check whether they
are actually receiving mail and make sure acknowledgement receipt are
photo thats just the notes from one 2 hours session all of which
> > is being captured and will be reported on shortly.
> > WMF, WMDE and the Strategy team worked wonders with this process in
> > the plans ahead to bring in even more input discussions will be am
strategy discussion, and I had a feeling that we are being
listened to. Now I do not have this feeling anymore, quite the opposite.
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Tomasz Ganicz <polime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-04-08 12:44 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter <ymb.
Actually, on Commons I had photographs deleted on the ground that the
depicted building is a replica of an old building which went out of
copyright, but the replica is copyrighted (despite my objection). When I
myself nominated a photograph on the same grounds, it was kept. I do not
Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by someone
I can not recognize from the username.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher
> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues
Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault <n.ra...@me.com> wrote:
> probably me...
> > Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > Actually, after Cat
For Wikivoyage in 2012, there were two factors which contributed to the
increase of editing activity:
1) Greater visibility as a WMF project;
2) Moving to a new platform without advertisements (I for one joined it at
the very first day it moved for exactly this reason).
However, concerning the
Not sure what action WMF can take to reverse the decision taken by a
dictator which only concerns the territory he has an absolute authority.
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Rogol Domedonfors
> Presumably the WMF will be taking prompt, strong and
I added it on my watchlist and will protect if needed, but the Erdogan
article already exploded from vandalism earlier today, and this one stays
quiet, so I normally would not expect much of disruption.
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Andy Mabbett
My idea was that adding an extra button to press brings the probability of
the whole process down. If someone is determine to systemically add bad
machine translations to the main namespace I guess only blocks could help.
On the other hand, and extra button gives at leat an opportunity to read
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu wrote:
> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W :
> > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> > are not involved with affiliates?
> Starting from this assumption, and
Creating machine translations only in the draft space (or in the user space
in the projects which do not have draft) could help.
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Pharos
> I think it all depends on the level of engagement of the human
> project (in theory - in practice I could list several obstacles, possibly
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> Sent: Wednesday, October 4,
I fully support Ziko on this point. Making oral tradidions welcome, in
particular, making them welcome at Wikipedia, will open the door to all
king of fringe POV theories. We were able to distinguish ourselves exactly
because these fringe theories had no place on Wikipedia. Allowing them
My (rejected) message below anyway.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is my message to this thread getting rejected? It says "Message
> rejected by filter rule match"?
Why is my message to this thread getting rejected? It says "Message
rejected by filter rule match"?
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
> I guess we are discussing this contest:
My understanding is they target 10K articles, not 100K.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:30 AM, WereSpielChequers <
> Hi Gnangarra
> I've heard bad things about the articles for creation process, but a
> minimum of either 1.5 kb or 2,000 bytes of
As I mentioned earlier on a different occasion, at the very first step we
at the Russian Wikivoyage have taken the strategy discussion seriously and
compiled this document (Russian + translation to English),
I am often critical of WMF, but I can only support this decision. The idea
of creating of an environment was widely discussed in the community,
including this mailing list, and had a widespread support. WMF merely
follows the community wish in this case, and it is great to know that a
know about 'Wikipedia' in 10 years, but we do want that
> our work is being put to good use. Is this a correct (simplified)
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I fully support Ziko on t
You might be right, and the goal is indeed to differentiate between them. I
just do not see how it could be implemented in practice. A legend is a
legend, be it urban or not.
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Chandres Wikipedia
> > to Wikipedia.
> plural oral traditions <https://en.wiktionary.org/
> Cultural <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture> material transmitted <
Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban
unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless
appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood <
The issue with Commons is actually not whether Wikipedia uses the picture
or not. The issue is the validity of description. If an image depicts A and
the description says it is B, then the data on Commons are obviously
invalid, and this would be the analog of false info at Wikidata sources to
We absolutely do not want language communities to be under the control of
local chapters or user groups, for a multitude of reasons, one of the many
being that the chapters are organized by country (or even by territory)
whereas language communities are organized differently.
I think the idea
this page might help:
It is of course very different to create a complete hoax on Wikipedia on a
topic which is heavily watched. It is much easier to create a hoax on an
obscure subject very few people know about,
nterested in cases where it
> involves systematic actions involving automated systems or very large (and
> rich) networks against which the community would have difficulties to deal
> For example, the issue with BDB and binary options.
Whereas I absolutely agree with Todd, let me note that in the list many
entries are unsourced or poorly sourced and can not be there according to
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> We should no more follow French censorship
I made this point earlier this month, but let me make it again.
Money generated by volunteers should indeed go back to volunteers. It just
can not go back as a salary. If it goes back as a salary, you have people
working together, some of them being paid for the work, and some doing it
Well, I did not reply because I disagree but in my experience having long
arguments with people one disagrees with usually does not lead to agreement
and is also very tiring. You gave your opinion, I gave mine, it is up to
other readers to decide whose arguments are stronger. I really
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Yaroslav Blanter
>> Hi David,
>>> Well, I did not re
it is quite the opposite:
> Why do you feel that rotations are necessary? And wouldn't be the loss
> greater than the gain?
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:00 PM Yaroslav Blanter wrote:
I am actually fully with Gnangarra here. I am also an unpaid volunteer who
invested a lot of hours of my free time into various Wikimedia projects
(and mostly getting a lot of shit in reward, but this is not the point
now). I did have an experience of disagreements with people who were either
I think it is pretty similar to what we have built in Wikidata, Do
Structured Commons folks want to comment?
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> Hi, folks.
> It occurs to me there are tens or hundreds of thousands of images donated
> en masse (GLAM etc.) that
>It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>instance is cited to best BLP standards?
no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience,
categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
orientation are often created
this one is from February:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Lucas Teles wrote:
> On Portuguese Wikipedia Facebook page, I am receiving lots of messages
> asking if Wikipedia Zero is over.
I think the situation is pretty clear, and we have already many statements
exactly about this point. The dissenters are being, and will continue being
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Fæ wrote:
> Sorry Nicole, what you have written is
no, you are certainly not alone in your concerns. It looks like at this
stage there is little we can do, and the only option left is to not endorse
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Lodewijk
> Thanks for the
For the record, at the talk page of the endorsement page,
we have a small number of contributors, including myself, who explain why
they refuse to endorse the document. I do not expect us to be heard
What about moving to another country? Still not an option?
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Lodewijk
> 1) still don't see the relevance. If better technology is needed, it's
> needed - that should be independent of any lobbying preferences.
I think it is good to let them going for the time being.
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Fæ wrote:
> On 4 February 2018 at 06:13, Pine W wrote:
> > P.S. Do people like these "What's making you happy this week" emails? Few
> > people
I though the United Stated, being the most democratic country of the world,
does not recognize decisions of international courts (and, specifically, it
withdrew from the International Court of Justice after a decision was taken
it did not like, and it never ratified the convention about the
I actually agree with Todd, and I though this is actually a reason why WMF
staff may not edit articles (at least not from WMF accounts). I am afraid
disadvantages due to the broken symmetry will be bigger than advantages due
to actual content translated.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at
when you come to Mozambique, pls let me know, there are reliable sources
down to the third level administrative divisions. For example, the two
sources present in
are available for every district (though I so far only added about half of
he information). I
> believe it would be much quicker, and would fill and correct Wikidata
> entries on the way.
> If you are interested in using something like that, please drop me a note.
> All the best,
> 2018-07-26 17:25 GMT+01:00 Yaroslav Blan
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > selection (I only feel the movement is
Thanks Romaine for sharing. As someone at the same side of the spectrum (I
get quickly tired in the places where a lot of people are gathering) I can
fully endorse this.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:42 PM Romaine Wiki wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> In our movement we have a lot of
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela
> I don't like to think in drastic terms like these because it fails to
> recognize the amount of good will that has been poured into the process and
> the selection of participants by the Strategy team. It is perhaps more
with all respect, it would be great if you could name the issues first
before soliciting further feedback.
In my particular case, well, I have seen a message on this list which I
interpreted as a call for help. I have generally many things which interest
me, but I though that if WMF
At your service
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:26 PM, mathieu stumpf guntz <
> Can we actually have a link to a page with a concrete example so we can
> judge this factually?
One idea which was spelled out many times but never took off is that of a
Wiki-compendium. If we are talking about a language which is let us say not
endangered, has a reasonably large number of speakers but not millions, and
only has a limited number of sources published in this language - the
Well, if the person edits Wikipedia during the breakfast in the hotel,
should not we conclude with a high degree of certainty that the person is a
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Romaine Wiki
> Hi all,
> During the past Wikimedia
not that I know of.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Zubin JAIN
> As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some of
> the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the
This is very remarkable that nobody is actually interested in input from
what the WMF functionaries now call "unorganized volunteers" - people who
actually work in the projects. We are just not in the picture. Good luck
with that. Do not be surprised to see a huge number of volunteers to oppose
ip in Wikimedia projects and trust of their local
> communities. Did I understand you properly?Best Regards, Michał
> Buczyński Wikimedia Polska, FDC, Resource Allocation Working Group Dnia
> 27 września 2018 13:21 Yaroslav Blanter ymb...@gmail.com
> napisał(a): This is
/ accessible to most
of internet users, and will slowly die. And the results of what were were
doing for 20 years will disappear. This is a usual development and happens
to almost every human activity. We know that only a few percents of pieces
of Ancient Greek and Roman literature survived until no
to find very search engines. (No
> wonder that some of the prominent people from our regions are continually
> getting dismissed as non-notable, which I see as another form of 'systemic
> Give it a thought, please.
> Frederick Noronha
> On Sun, 30 D
whereas you are right in theory, a practical application of this method
requires (i) availability and acceptance of all these sources in the
community (for example, if one side published in Croatian and another one
published in English, Croatian Wikipedia is likely to use only sources
Well, in 2019 people should already have come to the notion that blocking
locally an acting steward is not really a good idea.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:21 AM Vi to wrote:
> Because of a truly great idea
This person sent this mail today to multiple mailing lists, to some of them
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:53 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Wikimedia-l <
> I do not see what community this is being
> controlled by;
> 1. there are no notice
Thanks for the reactions so far, they have been very useful. Let me answer
some of the points.
Re subject line: Obviously it is deliberately provocative to generate more
response and reach out to more people. Whereas what I write I do seriously,
if it stays a discussion of a dozen of people with
If I understand correctly, the European parliament just approved the
copyright law essentially without changes, thus supporting the version we
protested against in May. What would be the consequences for us?
Wikimedia-l mailing list,
thanks for sharing this.
I actually did not want to react, because I presumably sound too critical
on this list in the last couple of years. However, 24h passed, and nobody
reacted, and It would be unfortunate if we let this go.
My own experience brought me to the same conclusions,
I am also writing about what I am (sometimes mildly) interested in, and I
am sure there will be enough materials for me to edit until I die, but you
would be surprised to learn how many people have no idea on what they
could/should edit, and are happy to take suggestions.
Dario, thanks for your effort. It was a pleasure working with you, and I am
also happy that you will stay around as a volunteer. My congratulations to
Leila. Whereas at this point I am rather skeptical and sometimes vocal
about WMF in general, I have a tremendous respect for both of you.
Whatever the reasoning is, I think we should accept that at the moment paid
editing is universally regarded very negatively in virtually all projects.
Non-monetary prizes for competitions may or may not be ok, everything else
is most likely not considered to be ok even if does not explicitly
:17 PM Dan Garry (Deskana)
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:41, Yaroslav Blanter wrote:
> > Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
> > project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
> > against the will of t
To be honest, Wikidata does have serious vandalism issues which have not
yet been solved. It is unlikely the English Wikipedia will have a more
close integration with Wikidata until they have been solved. For the
record, I am administrator on both projects.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:26 AM Yaroslav Blanter wrote:
> > This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to
> participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have
> any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project?
The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did sign
Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
majority of the en.wiki community:
We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means
simply raising an objection to the claim
> that this would've gone over much better had it been the ArbCom and not the
> WMF who placed a ban.
> – Molly White (GorillaWarfare)
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Yaroslav
Actually, I am afraid, for CCI at some point we will have to remove all
added text by bot. I do not see any other scalable solution.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:36 PM Stephen Philbrick <
> I have seen a couple comments on copyright issues in
I went ahead and offered my time to participate in the strategy process. My
offer was rejected.. I do not think I will ever do it again.
I an afraid WMF is up to some surprises when they publish the 2030 Strategy
which was not in any way coordinated with the communities, and then see
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of
material it has to deal with.
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta
> Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to do
> the job, or increasing difficulty
This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to
participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have
any channels to listen to the volunteers working on the project? They often
say so, but in practice I do not see any. This list used to be the one, but
Yes, Asaf is absolutely spot on. Though I am afraid it is a small part of a
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:54 PM Gerard Meijssen
> Asaf thank you very much. This response of yours helps build bridges.
> On Wed, 15 May 2019
you could then argue that Commons is also not a collaborative project -
only one person takes a picture (determines the story, the position, light
etc), and others can at best perform some editing or add/remove categories.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ziko van Dijk
I agree that it is completely counterproductive to discuss issues like who
filed the complaint.
What is however important to understand, especially for those who are not
English Wikipedia insiders, is that the reaction which this event caused in
unprecedent. For example, by now 19 active admins
Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis
of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that
all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are
incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come
Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept
decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in
the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will
listen to you and then let you know of our decision" are not going to be
; > > multiple
> > > > >>>>>> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall
> > > > >> direction
> > > > >>> of
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are
> > already
> > > > >>>
And this is the core problem of the whole process (which has been pointed
out by multiple people from the very beginning)
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:27 PM Jeff Hawke wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:41 PM Andy Mabbett
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 09:55,
I agree with Fae. I strongly oppose the proposal, and I somehow used to
assume that our opinion would be asked in a structured way.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:03 PM Fæ wrote:
> If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> the demonstrable facts, perhaps
I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
> Hi all,
> It seems like there is a clear consensus to open an RfC on Meta about this,
> so we can safely move forward
I do not think Kazakhstan has a chapter. In the past, some Kazakh
Wikimedians enjoyed close collaboration with the government (for example,
the Kazakhstani Encyclopedia has been released under a free license and
verbatim copied to the Kazakh Wikipedia, so that I do not expect much.
If we are discussing such things, why do not we are discussing whether WMF
employees are driving to the work or taking public transportation? Or
chapter employees? Or volunteers? Or whether volunteers switch off the
light when they leave a room (I actually do)?
I really do not think this is a
The recommendations must be first presented to the movement (and,
specifically, to the project communities) for approval, and only them
whatever will be approved, can be presented to the Board,
The reverse sequence will likely result in outright rejection of
recommendations by the editing
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo