Re: [Foundation-l] FlaggedRevs on Hungarian Wikipedia still not working
I checked on it today and saw that this bug is marked resolved. Tisza, is it working to hu.WP's satisfaction now? Birgitte SB --- On Fri, 8/28/09, Tisza Gergő wrote: > From: Tisza Gergő > Subject: [Foundation-l] FlaggedRevs on Hungarian Wikipedia still not working > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Cc: wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Friday, August 28, 2009, 6:24 PM > The autoreview feature for > FlaggedRevs does not work in the Hungarian > Wikipedia because of a configuration problem with a group > name. This > causes a lot of extra work for the patrollers, and a lot of > extra > waiting for everyone else for their edits to appear. > > It has been about forty days since I filed a bug about > this; in the > meantime, I asked twice for help on wikitech-l (not to > mention the > several personal emails and IRC messages I and other > Hungarian editors > sent). After my first wikitech-l mail, there was a short > and > unsuccessful attempt to fix the problem without actually > understanding > what we asked for; before and after, in those seven weeks, > nothing > happened. > > This is very disappointing. To fix the bug, one would need > to replace > all occurrences of 'confirmed' with 'trusted' in the huwiki > flagrev > config file - that takes about 20 seconds. If one wanted to > be > thorough about it and move users from the old group to the > new, one > would need to construct an appropriate SQL query - maybe 5 > more > minutes. There are about a hundred patrollers on > hu.wikipedia > (including admins). If we suppose they only have to work > one extra > minute a day each (a very unrealistic lower estimation), > that adds up > to about sixty hours. Which is about a thousand times > twenty seconds. > > Is staff time really a thousand times more valuable than > volunteer > time, so that no one can be bothered to make this trivial > fix, even if > many hours of other people's time could be spared? I'm > aware it is > summer, and Wikimania is going on, and everyone has a lot > on their > hands, but even so I can't believe none of the people with > shell > access can find a minute to make the fix.. > > Letting the time of the most active community members go to > waste like > this is not only very discouraging them, and not only does > it > undermine their trust in the revision flagging system > (which proved to > be a very valuable anti-vandalism tool, but it was always > hard to get > enough people involved), it also creates a rift between WMF > and the > local community. People perceive that the foundation does > not respect > their volunteer work at all, and it is only quick when it > is creating > problems (their previous contact with WMF was when someone > shot down > the statistics script that ran with community consensus, > without as > much as a question or comment), and not when it should be > solving > them. > > If you want to broaden participation and involve more > people into > meta-projects, start with actually caring about issues like > these. And > now please, please find someone to finally fix bug 19885. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundatio...@lists.wikimedia..org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
style of his emails and that I saw no reason to believe he was being suppressed as I was sick enough of his style to stop reading him for this reason alone. I told him that he could expect his messages to passed on through moderation if he altered his tone, and if he proved to maintain this change he should expect to be taken off moderation. I was confident in my understanding of how we all felt here to set these expectations solely from my own speculation. I thought Mr. Kohs was making moderation out to be more than it was. I thought we were using it as a tool to bring him around to the acceptable tenor of conversation on this list. I still hope that those initial thoughts were correct and there been merely an error of execution in this case. But I am now concerned that this moderation was to be applied as Mr. Maxwell describes above rather than as I explained to Mr. Kohs off-list. Mr. Kohs has shared with me that a message he sent to the list was rejected by the moderators with "No reason given" (I suppose this what the program generates when the field is left blank). And despite his request for clarification he assures me that he still has not been given any information by the moderators about how they mean to judge his e-mails as acceptable to be sent on to the list. So he has been left blindly guess what they might find appropriate enough to send through. Whether it might be his tone (which I found so problematic), or the subject, or perhaps even the position taken on a subject. Moderation can be useful tool, when those who cross the lines are given adequate information on what we find acceptable and how we expect them to change. It is an inappropriate tool to use to suppress anyone's contributions without explanation and requires better communication than has happened here. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
--- On Fri, 9/11/09, Milos Rancic wrote: > From: Milos Rancic > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Friday, September 11, 2009, 1:49 PM > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM, effe > iets anders > > wrote: > > I think we're talking about two groups of people and > thinking here: > > 1) a group of people who have the principle "be bold" > in their coat of arms > > and love to say anything that comes to mind, no matter > whether that might be > > rude or not. > > 2) the people who see discussion more as a social > process which is helped by > > involving more people. > > > > At an IRL meeting, one of these two groups sets the > atmosphere. Either the > > bold group can discuss loudly and the "social" people > feel not at home and > > they leave. Either the social people are nice and are > disturbed by the rude > > behaviour of the bold people, and tell them to be nice > or shut up. > > > > I tend to prefer the second group, since I sincerely > believe that it is > > important and even crucial to allow people to discuss, > and allow many people > > to discuss. > > > > By telling that people who don't like the shouting > even though they have a > > delete button, by saying that people should just grow > a thick skin, you > > clearly say that you belong to the first group, and > you are not interested > > enough in their opinion to change your behaviour, even > though you don't even > > have a clou how big that group is and who's in it. I > would even go as far as > > to say I find that quite asocial and rude, and strikes > me in the same way as > > when I go to a cafe, people spit on me and shout at > me, and if I complain > > about that, I'm just told that I should go home and > not bother, because that > > is just the way they behave in that cafe... > > (Answering to Gerard's mail, too.) > > It is important to have calm atmosphere during discussions. > But, it is > important to have bold/impudent persons in the discussion, > because it > is more probable that they'd say to you what do they think > and what do > others think, but don't want to say. While they are > constructive. And > I may list a number of reasons why do I think that Antony, > Thomas > Dalton and even Gregory Kohs *are* constructive (if anyone > wants, I'll > make the list). > As someone who does not think heavy-moderation is a good answer to the problem, I think you are missing the point. These bold/imprudent sort of people have useful contributions in sharing their positions. It is the way they ridicule others who have different positions that is the problem. BTW this is not limited only to those generally critical of WMF, there are supporters of WMF that have the same problem. The end result of this behavior is that there less participation from people not comfortable with the ridicule. And the people who are less likely to participate because of this is not equally spread across cultures. So it hurts our outreach and it hurts our general purpose because we end up hearing thoughts from a much less diverse group than we might. Two examples of the tone I find to be such a problem http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054235.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054159.html I honestly believe that as long as this sort of tone continues to be a regular feature here; the overwhelming majority of participants here will be Western men. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Announce: Brion moving to StatusNet
--- On Mon, 9/28/09, Brion Vibber wrote: > From: Brion Vibber > Subject: [Foundation-l] Announce: Brion moving to StatusNet > To: "Wikimedia developers" , "Wikimedia > Foundation Mailing List" , "MediaWiki > announcements and site admin list" > Date: Monday, September 28, 2009, 1:32 PM > I'd like to share some exciting news > with you all... After four awesome > years working for the Wikimedia Foundation full-time, next > month I'm > going to be starting a new position at StatusNet, leading > development on > the open-source microblogging system which powers identi.ca > and other sites. Congratulations on you new job! I am excited for you and to learn more about ident.ca. I appreciate the effort you are committing to the prolonged transition. Thank you for all you have done; your commitment to Wikimedia will be a hard act to follow. I hope I will still see you around here (foundation-l). Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
--- On Fri, 10/9/09, Gregory Kohs wrote: > > You may not be aware of the stories behind the Deputy > Sheriffs' Fraternal > Organization or the Wishing Well Foundation, but I would be > sick to my > stomach if I found that I had donated money to such an > organization, only to > discover that they spend less than 20% of revenues on > program services. > With the Wikimedia Foundation having recently spent only > 31.6% of revenues > on program services, I dare to say they are closer, on a > true percentage > basis on the books, to organizations like the Deputy > Sheriffs' Fraternal > Organization or the Wishing Well Foundation than they are > to ProCon.org and > the Red Cross. Does Charity Nagivator count the server, bandwidth, and tech salaries cost as "program" or "admin" for WMF? I remember in the past we found out it was standard to count these areas as "admin" in such evaluations even though such things are an integral part of the WMF program. I don't think the past discussion was specifically about Charity Navigator. So do we know how they are categorizing these areas? Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?
--- On Mon, 11/2/09, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > From: wjhon...@aol.com > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing? > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 4:55 PM > Personally, I process about two or > three hundred emails per day (yes per day), so the small > amount of noise the Foundation list creates is negligible to > me. > > If someone is so annoyed by a thread, that they can't even > bother to DWR (delete without reading) based merely on the > subject title, I would think we need to question whether > that person has the right temperament for the internet > whatsoever. I delete at least two or three dozen > emails every day without reading them, if I already know the > subject is not going to be of "interest" to me. > > I would submit the real issue here, is not that people are > doing that or could, but rather that they have a compulsion > to *keep reading* the thread. Sort of a, "I don't want > to be left out, or I want to keep watching the train wreck" > or something. I'm not a psychologist. I do know > however, that the entire issue of "let's close this thread", > "let's moderated these people", " this is too noisy" and so > on, is endemic to the entire email world. Not merely > this list. > > I can't think of any list I'm on (and I'm on a few dozen), > where the issue does not come up with regularity. It > is merely part of the way internetlife is, in my opinion. > "The right temperment for the interner?" Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at people who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize some of come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this email list. Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the temperment and lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves enough so that this forum might succeed in included more than just those participants similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it. On a personal note, last week I have gone to having the responsibilities of three people jobs, instead of only those two I have been handling for most of the past year. Maybe I will resubscribe when I can hire people again. Good luck with making sure this list is worth re-subscribing too. I truly hope you all succeed with that. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad Idea, part 2
--- On Mon, 6/7/10, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > From: Victor Vasiliev > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] hiding interlanguage links by default is a Bad > Idea, part 2 > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Monday, June 7, 2010, 8:55 AM > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, > Michael Snow > wrote: > > If you don't know the history of racial issues in the > US, you might not > > realize just how serious a subject lynching is. In > that cultural > > context, it is not something to be joked about. > > Your post is a brilliant example of agressive disrespect of > other > cultures where lynching is merely a verb which means > "execution by > mob" (I think if you told someone in Russia that > "lyniching" is an > offensive verb, he would most probably belive you said > something > silly). Bear in mind that only 0.55 % of the world > population are > sensitive about lyncing. That post can only being seen as an example of "agressive disrespect of other cultures" by people who think happening to be born in the USA is an agressive disrespect of other cultures. Americans are people too! Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Community, collaboration, and cognitive biases
--- On Wed, 6/9/10, Rob Lanphier wrote: > > One undertone that I've witnessed everywhere is that people > in open source > communities that have a clear organizational "owner" is > that there is a very > uneven distribution of people who want a peer-to-peer > relationship versus a > customer-vendor relationship. This makes it really > difficult to work out in > the public, because some people seem to prefer the > trappings of a > peer-to-peer relationship (let me in on your early > thinking, publish your > roadmaps, work in the fishbowl), where others prefer the > trappings of the > customer-vendor relationship (the customer is always right, > the customer is > the boss). Some will even go so far as to want a > customer-to-peer > relationship, which is clearly not sustainable. To be > really clear here, > most of my impressions on this topic come from my previous > work experience > (been doing the corporate open source thing for a while), > and only in a > limited way with this community, but I've seen hints that > the > WMF<=>community relationship has some of the same > traits. > > From the vantage point of the "vendor" in this case, the > problem is > compounded by the cognitive bias Erik pointed to (belief > that the group > you're a member of is diverse, whereas other groups are > not). The net > result of different expectations in the community is that, > from the vendor > point of viewer, it looks like the community is demanding a > customer-to-peer > relationship, since that is the "average" opinion of a > pretty large and > diverse group. That's why I'm generally pretty > careful about using the term > "the community", because for those not used to working out > in the open, it's > really scary to get mixed up in public conversations. > > One thing to consider about the IBM example is that IBM is > a company of > about 400,000 employees, and was probably in the middle of > their "we're > spending $1 billion/year on Linux" year when they > instituted that policy. > They could probably stand to be a little inefficient in > the name of > insinuating themselves in the community. We're not > working with that sort > of cushion. > > As someone who currently works from Seattle (and worked on > a distributed > team in my last job), I also know that long distance > collaboration (even in > the same timezone as SF) has its disadvantages from an > efficiency > perspective. Most people have a strong preference for > face-to-face > communication for collaboration for good reason...it's high > bandwidth. Even > people who are really good at doing it take some time to > figure out how to > be effective using only email and IRC; forcing people who > aren't good at it > is really a productivity hit. > > My recommendation is to strive to make it incredibly > compelling for WMF > staff to work out in the community. That means > adhering to WP:BITE and > WP:GOODFAITH in spades, and reminding each other that we're > all on the same > team here. It means making sure that it actually > feels like it's increasing > our productivity to do it, rather than feeling like a > drag. That's not to > say the burden needs to be solely on you all, but I think > "forcing" > employees to work in the community is some customer-vendor > thinking at play. > > Don't get me wrong: I think it's an incredibly good idea > for us to figure > out how to all work together better, and clearly a big part > of that is going > to be strengthening our working relationship with > non-employees. It wasn't > that long ago I was a non-employee Wikipedian, and may be > one again soon. I > share your goal. We have an amazingly diverse > community with (very > importantly) a fantastic volunteer work ethic, and I think > we should be able > to figure this out. I think you are conflating two very seperate issues here. There is a peer-to-peer relationship between developers (staff and volunteer) and a customer-vendor relationship between the larger non-technical consensus that is formed and developers (both staff and volunteer). Although I don't think I would describe it as "the customer is always right"; technical vetos by developers are common. The suggestion here is to eliminate the barriers between two groups of developers. There will always be some kind of barrier between the largely non-technical community and developers. There are a alot of rough edges to that customer-vendor relationship, but the volunteer developers have had alot of experience with the pitfalls there and can help staff developers navigate them. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and PGDP
--- On Thu, 6/24/10, James Forrester wrote: > > IME, PGDP's processes are /seriously/ heavy-weight, burning > lots of > worker time on 2nd or even 3rd-level passes, and multiple > tiers of > work (Proofreading, Formatting, and all the special > management levels > for people running projects). The pyramid of processes has > grown so > great that they have seemed to crash in on themselves - > there's a huge > dearth of people at the "higher" levels (you need to > qualify at the > lower levels before the system will let you contribute to > the > activities at the end). It's generally quite "unwiki". > > I think Wikisource's model is a great deal more light > weight that > PGDP's - and that we really don't want to push Wikisource > down that > route. :-) Unfortunately I think that this means linking > the two up > might prove challenging - and there's also a danger that > people may > jump ship, damaging PGDP still further and making them > upset with us. > I definitely wouldn't want to see Wikisource move to a more heavy weight structure. Right now it is easy for anyone completely unfamiliar to the nuts and bolts of setting up a text to show up at the Proofread of the Month and validate a single page and then have nothing further to do with the text. Seldom do you even need to deal with formatting when you are validating an already proofread page. I think that this is important to keep this very simple. I would really encourage anyone who has never participated to try it out [1] Of course, we don't really have any push to focus on a "finished" release like PGDP must have. And this eventualism has the usual results even as it keeps the structure lightweight. Linking up with PGDP texts is mostly avoided at en.WS because it is so often impossible to match their texts with a specific edition, which we are looking for to attach scanned images. It has become easier to just start from scratch with a file we can more easily put through the Proofread Page extention. Their more rigid structure makes edition verification after release unnecessary for them, but it is very important for us since our structure is so open. It is difficult to see how we might help one another given such basic incompatibilities in structure. Birgitte SB [1]http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Frederic_Shoberl_-_Persia.djvu Click on any yellow highlighted number. Validate the wikitext against the image. Edit the page to make changes (if necessary) and to move the radio button to validated. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
--- On Thu, 6/24/10, Milos Rancic wrote: > From: Milos Rancic > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one > Wikipedia" > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 6:06 PM > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM, > Mark Williamson > wrote: > > as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an > expert) from many > > people the idea that you will get what you give, > meaning that if you > > treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they > will often become > > a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children > as dumber > > versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to > be just that. > > (again, I'm not an expert) > > A kind of virtuous circle and vicious circle. Dumb adults > are creating > dumb articles because they think that their children are > dumb, which > in turn transforms children into dumb adults ;) I think you all are getting rather sidetracked over the details of content of some proposed project that I do not believe you are actually interested in joining. Surely any detailed decisions as exactly how to approach writing medical articles for children would be an internal conclusion. The real issue here is what merits the creation of a new wiki versus some specific project being setup as subset of an existing wiki. I have come the conclusion the biggest factor leading to success of a new wiki is a large enough community with a strong sense of a separate mission. If all you have is a small group of hard core content editors you will be more successful as subset of an existing wiki, if one is so kind enough to make room for you. One thing that happens in a small wiki is all the happy energy which was geared towards the content must be siphoned off into seemingly endless administration tasks. It takes a while for the community to grow enough to overcome that deficit. I would not recommend anyone to be in a hurry to make their own new space. The longer you can use an existing wiki to experiment with the your project the stronger you can grow your community, and maybe you can find a way to permanently fit within the existing scope while meeting the needs of your specific mission. If you can it do that it will greatly improve your ability to work on content. I would advise this group that as exciting as having their own Wikipedia must sound, they might be more successful as a project within de.WP or de.WB And even if they are dead-set on an independent wiki, they will benefit from starting within an existing structure to grow a good sized proof of concept. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
--- On Fri, 6/25/10, Milos Rancic wrote: > From: Milos Rancic > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one > Wikipedia" > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Friday, June 25, 2010, 1:07 PM > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:11 PM, > phoebe ayers > wrote: > > But, to be fair, do we ask such questions of our other > projects? I do > > not recall being asked if I was a trained encyclopedia > writer or a > > trained journalist when I joined Wikimedia :) Perhaps > we should ask > > these kinds of hard questions of a new project, but > also realize that > > we may not be able to predict all of the answers ahead > of time. > > My first answer is that Wikipedia is good enough for > children and that > we do not need a Wikipedia fork with dumb language. If you > think > differently, please find or make relevant research which > would prove > your position. > > This type of project is original research per se. (Making > an image, > movie or educational game is OR. Making rules for language > usage is > POV and OR. Saying that Wikipedia is not good for children > is POV and > OR.) And we have to be extremely careful with any kind of > original > research. We have two opposing projects in way of handling > OR: > Wikinews, which handles it very well and Wikiversity, which > doesn't. > And if we are not able to drive well project with > educational courses > for adults, I can say that Wikijunior would be a disaster > after just a > couple of months of independent life. > > The problem with such projects is that they are usually a > field for > self-proclaimed experts to promote their ideological > agenda. As it is > about child education, it will be full of very stupid > explanations, > like that children are not able to understand this or that > or that > children mustn't hear something because it would kill > them. Such strong labeling of the goals and make-up of this group wishing to work on a Medical Encyclopedia for Children really needs to be supported by some evidence. Especially as I don't believe they are participating in this conversation and therefore unable to clarify. I am afraid I don't speak German, but I would like to see what I can gather from machine translation if you would please direct me to the proper links. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
--- On Fri, 6/25/10, Milos Rancic wrote: > From: Milos Rancic > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one > Wikipedia" > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Friday, June 25, 2010, 2:05 PM > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:59 PM, > Milos Rancic > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Birgitte SB > wrote: > >> Such strong labeling of the goals and make-up of > this group wishing to work on a Medical Encyclopedia for > Children really needs to be supported by some evidence. > Especially as I don't believe they are participating in this > conversation and therefore unable to clarify. I am afraid I > don't speak German, but I would like to see what I can > gather from machine translation if you would please direct > me to the proper links. > > > > A number of times I said that I don't have anything > against > > professional-driven efforts. If it is so, it would > mean that they are > > able make a valid scientific elaborate about their > project, too. > > > > One more point: It is not about me to prove that potential > project > doesn't have relevant scientific basis, but it is about > project > proposers to prove that they have. I am not asking you to prove anything about this project. I just want to know where you got the idea that this proposal can be accurately summarized as a " Wikipedia fork with dumb language" and that the proto-contributors are biased adults with an ideological agenda. I don’t recall ever seeing a link to the actual proposal in this thread and I am wondering where you have read discussion and ideas of these Germans who are interested in contributing to a Medical Encyclopedia for Children. I can't help but wonder if you have an accurate understanding of what is being proposed. I would like to read their ideas for myself rather than accepting your characterization at face value. I am only asking for links to the discussion of this proposal. Not links that prove/disprove the scientific basis of anything. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
--- On Mon, 6/28/10, Martin Maurer wrote: > From: Martin Maurer > Subject: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions > of skin? > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Monday, June 28, 2010, 6:11 PM > Hello, > > I posted this yesterday at wikitech-l and was told to ask > this > question here at foundation-l. > > I'm a member of the German language Wikipedia community and > have a > question that no-one could give me a definite answer to so > far. I hope > someone here can answer it, or point me to where I should > go to get a > definite answer. > > The question is, what level of self-determination do the > 260 language > versions of Wikipedia have as to the design of their user > interfaces > (skins)? Can individual wikis choose independently > modifications of > their skins, and which of the available skins to use as the > default > for unregistered users, or is this controlled centrally by > the > Foundation? > > For backgrund, this question arose after the German > language Wikipedia > (de.wikipedia.org) was switched from Monobook to Vector as > the default > skin on the 10th of June 2010, resulting in considerable > criticism > from the community. On the more sober side of the debate, > it was asked > whether it would be theoretically possible to return to > Monobook as > the default skin, at least for some time until the biggest > known > issues with Vector have been fixed. Under the theoretical > scenario > that a majority voted for a return to Monobook as the > default skin, > would it be possible at all to switch it back? Or would the > Foundation > not permit that? > > The question seems to be a very fundamental one and I would > also > appreciate insights into the big picture. How independent > are the > language versions? To what degree can they govern > themselves and to > what degree are they bound by decisions made centrally by > the > Foundation? I don't think you have quite the right question in framing the Foundation as "other". Rather, what degree do should the wikis present a cohesive movement to the world? What issues are so important to you that you might really say, "Forget the unified movement we mean to have our way in this."? I am serious there; I know I have my own issues. Mostly about things that I believe that would harm the Wikimedia movement in the long run if not pursued. One of my pet issues is even the self-governance of the wikis (Sister projects as well as languages). It is a well-known proof of independence that some wikis accept fair-use images and others forbid them. But these breaks in unity are not without a price and shouldn't be pursued lightly. I am sure there are still many strong feelings and barriers to collaboration over the fair use issue even after all this time. I believe one the more important debates I have pursued in the past was convincing a wiki to decide through their local process to conform to what the larger community of wikis was promoting. The best thing that came out of that situation, in my opinion, was that we never had to test the bounds of self-governance. Certainly wikis working out local compromises which then make acceptable the adoption of changes that support unity through the WMF is the best case scenario. If you accept the local wiki's as being own decision-makers, you also must expect them to consider the larger benefit to Wikimedia in their decisions. In other words, the wikis are not so independent that they should feel correct in only considering their local community’s preferences when making decisions. You ask how far they are bound by the decisions made centrally by the Foundation, but I would say instead that they bind the Foundation with their decisions and should see this as an important responsibility. Several wikis could easily destroy the ability of the Foundation to create anything useful by each pulling in separate directions due to too much focus on local preferences. And though each wiki might count that as a "win" for their pet issue, alot of possibility would be lost. The whole mission to reach out to every person on the planet cannot survive by Anglophones catering only to Anglophones any more than by de.WP thinking only of what the de.WP community wants. Self-governance is the only option for running the wikis, but it will only serve the mission of WMF if they can each remember to govern themselves as an individual collaborator in a larger project. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
--- On Wed, 6/30/10, Veronique Kessler wrote: > From: Veronique Kessler > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to > FoundationWebsite > To: susanpgard...@gmail.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > > Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 3:53 PM > Thanks everyone for your comments > thus far (and for the thank yous too :)). > > As we progress through accomplishing the goals of the > strategic plan, we > will have a better idea of what level our operating budget > will need to > be to make everything happen and be sustainable. We > will have done some > experimentation with initiatives like geographic > investments and the > addition of more roles to support chapters. We don't > know what our > optimal operating level will be and what fundraising level > we can > sustain. We have made some predictions based on a lot > of factors and we > will be able to respond appropriately to new information, > changes in > circumstances, etc. as we progress through this fiscal year > and future > years. > > For the endowment, Eugene really summed up the endowment > issue well. I > want to point out that typically endowments do not fund the > ongoing > annual expenses of an organization. A portion of the > annual earnings on > the endowment may be allocated to help support operations > but it is > usually a small percentage. In the past, one could > estimate 8-10% > earnings each year and then allocate some to operations and > roll the > rest back to the endowment to continue to grow it. > Alas, these days, > 8-10% returns are hard to come by. Just to put it > into perspective, if > we were to support a $20 million budget with 5% earnings > from an > endowment, we would need $400 million dollars. > Endowments can be very > useful and we will continue to analyze this option for the > future but it > is unlikely that an endowment would ever provide our entire > operating > budget each year. I don't think anyone would expect an endowment to fund all that is being done in the current budget. I have always thought of the endowment issue as being about always keeping the lights on. Ensuring that the content will remain accessible in some worst case scenario. Access is probably the weakest link in the whole copyleft paradigm. I think most of us can name examples of how contract law has locked up what copyright law couldn't touch. WMF has not always been as stable as it is right now. Maybe it is hard for all the people who joined the movement during this upswing of stability to understand quite how some of the earlier adopters feel about the endowment. I think it is about people feeling that the work that we have all done is secure. Since the WMF is not moving in the direction of an endowment right now, it would be nice if they could highlight some other things that secure what has already been accomplished. The endowment is not about just about funding, I think it is probably also symbolic of endurance to many people. There is a worry about the content remaining available in the long term. If there is not an endowment to donate towards, I think people could use something else to symbolize a commitment to the future endurance of the content that has been gathered. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
--- On Thu, 7/1/10, David Goodman wrote: > > The basic reason why doing things by staff rather than > volunteers is > wrong is that it decreases one of the motivations for > volunteering--the knowledge that one can participate > significantly in > not just the work but the decisions, and become influential > in > whatever activity within the project that one chooses. > There is a danger in doing things by staff rather than volunteer but I cannot agree that it is always wrong. Volunteers do not always emerge. There are real logistical and cultural barriers that prevent the proven template of projects wholly launched and directed by self-selected volunteers from succeeding in the global south. Should we just say that it is too bad that they can't get with our program? Or should we experiment with another template that might make those wikis succeed? I don't think that using staff there to be a bad idea. I don't think staff replacing what volunteers are doing to be a big problem with WMF. Mostly they seem to be doing things that volunteers are *not* doing. I do understand your point about volunteers needing to be influential and empowered in order for the model to work. But frankly I think your concern is based on an assumption that the WMF is more influential than it really is. I don’t think that WMF’s failure to engage better with volunteers is harmful to the motivation of the volunteers, but rather it is harmful to the WMF. If the WMF is often an outside party to the volunteers for all practical purposes, at least is an outside party well aligned with goals of the volunteers. And if that ever fails to be true it is not the volunteers that I think would be driven away. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption
Even if there is no corruption, there will be. Just look at it dispassionately. Wikimedia has how many chapters? And aims to have how many more? All self-organized, boot-strapped operations operating under different systems, in different cultures with varying tolerances for mixing self-interest with duty. The odds dictate that some of these organizations will fail. And there will be some level self-interest involved in failure or the floundering of chapters. This should be expected. The question is what sort of process we should have for dealing with chapters that exceed our tolerance for this sort of thing. Ideally we should have such a process in place with clear expectations before there is ever any need to use it. But pretending corruption is something that won't happen or can be prevented on a absolute level is silly. I haven't a clue what anyone is referring to as current examples. I don't really care for politics and gossip, so I personally don't even want to know. But it is worth talking about what sort of process we should develop to deal with such things for its own sake. We can't simply depend on people being better than human. Given a large enough sample, people will do what they do; what they have always done. It shouldn't be controversial to ask for a system to be put in place to mitigate the harm from people behaving in such a reliably predictable fashion as becoming corrupted by money or power. Birgitte SB --- On Wed, 7/14/10, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > From: Gerard Meijssen > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2010, 10:27 AM > Hoi, > Thomas that is too easy. Even when there is no corruption > the notion > that this idea lives among our people is upsetting. It is > well worth it to > be careful this in our communication. I will argue that we > are not good at > getting our message out. It could get more of a priority. > > Regular reporting is hard. Ask Sue for instance why she > does not find the > time to provide us with monthly updates.. I am convinced > that she just does > not find the time. That does not mean that it is sad that > there is so little > coming out of the office in the way of information. I > believe that with more > information we will not make this feeling go away; I do > believe that our > proceedings become less opaque. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 14 July 2010 17:20, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > > > On 14 July 2010 16:13, Milos Rancic > wrote: > > > And I am completely fine with treating my points > as unfounded. > > > > Ok, then this discussion is over. There is no point us > wasting our > > time discussing unfounded accusations. > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns
A notarized statement wouldn't need to contain all the personal info. Just a name and something else to distinguish common names (I suggest an address as the snail mail method pretty often will include a return address anyway). The rest of the info like age, nationality, race, identification numbers, etc. is only seen by the notary who puts a seal on the document to verify that the signature was made by the person with that name. Birgitte SB - Original Message > From: Lodewijk > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Cc: r...@slmr.com > Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 6:50:57 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns > > I am not sure if that would solve any of the problems that some people have > with the current situation. Still the notarized statement (which includes > all personal data) would end up with an individual if I understand > correctly. It would only add quite a lot of costs... > > 2011/7/11 Peter Gervai > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 02:28, Robin McCain wrote: > > > > > I'd say that if you've blocked someone who is a sockpuppet or other > > > abuser the burden of validating such a person should be on them, not the > > > wiki staff. At least a notary (or other public official) would have to > > > look at an identity document - verify its validity as well as see that > > > it indeed matches the person in question - then sign a document to that > > > effect. This completely removes the wiki staff from the need to access > > > the validity of a copy. > > > > I guess it is nice to offer the blocked people this alternative, > > privacy-enhanced method along the old one. I'm sure current poster > > would be pleased, and I guess the dutch wikigods could accept that > > solution, too. > > > > -- > > byte-byte, > > grin > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
- Original Message > From: James Heilman > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for >self-identified affiliation > > I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable > term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people > could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of > inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as > the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites. > "Open Knowledge Project" only works for content creators or relatively new projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has. We don't want dilute "Open Knowledge" and the issue is existing GLAM organizations that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the lines of "Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to forthrightly advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the content we curate." Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
- Original Message > From: Nathan > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 2:07:33 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for >self-identified affiliation > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message > >> From: James Heilman > >> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 10:39:14 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for > >>self-identified affiliation > >> > >> I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable > >> term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people > >> could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of > >> inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this > as > >> the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites. > >> > > > > "Open Knowledge Project" only works for content creators or relatively new > > projects that can still restrict their intake of content like Commons has. > We > > don't want dilute "Open Knowledge" and the issue is existing GLAM >organizations > > that want to affiliate with the movement. Some is needed more along the >lines > > of "Dedicated to Emancipating Culture - we are committed the licensing all > > internally owned copyrights under [favorite free license] and to >forthrightly > > advertising the most accurate copyright information we can on all the >content we > > curate." > > > > Birgitte SB > > > > Not sure I follow - GLAM institutions are still about disseminating > knowledge at low or no cost, so it seems like the name would still > apply. Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - > the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and > could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal > vehicle. A GLAM institute doesn't necessarily own the copyrights to all the content they have. A project that contains copyrighted material would not be able to use an "Open Content" badge. "Open Content" has to be restricted to places where it is allowable to make derivatives works for commercial purposes from the content. Yet it would be nice to have a way to notice a hypothetical GLAM that doesn't attempt to claim copyright on PD works they have merely digitized, freely licenses the derivative materials produced by employees, and makes detailed copyright info on their content accessible. There is a significant difference between an organization who might make such an effort and one that tends to stamp "All material Copyright of [GLAM]" everywhere (whether that claim could possibly be true or not). It would be nice to notice those organizations which are doing what they can with the rights they do control rather than saying "It's shame you accepted those donations of materials 50 years back without securing full copyright control, but with that content you can't join our club." Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
- Original Message - > From: Yaroslav M. Blanter > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 10:48 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters > >> It is true however that many chapters do important work for the local >> projects, and serve their local needs in the sense of activities, press >> contacts and fundraising in a more effective way (less culturally >> challanging, more sensitive to what works locally and better in touch > with >> other activities and situations). Not all chapters do this in the same >> extent, and not all do it similarly good. But that is the idea of a > chapter >> - it is not a fanclub organizing beer events only to have fun. >> >> Best regards, >> Lodewijk > > Right, I know that the Chapters are doing some very useful stuff (in fact, > I even want to help the Dutch chapter with the project on taking pictures > of State Monuments - it would be very helpful if someone mails me offlist > or indicates on my Wiki page if there is any information on what is > needed), but I believe that to say, as Brigitte does, that the Chapters > should lead the movement is to stretch it way over the limits. > It is not so much that I believe chapters should lead the movement as that I am certain WMF cannot successfully lead the movement. It seems to me that these changes are about making chapters more into franchises. Which I find to be exactly backwards. Chapters in my mind should be diverse entities. Embracing whatever is most effective in their little slice of the world. I think they should be ambitious in seeking out what inspires local population to embrace our movement. The way to encourage innovation is to push self-direction and refrain from being too judgmental so long as there is trending improvement. I believe that franchises will not be well received and will by and large fail. Maybe I am wrong about the direction people are pushing, maybe I am right about the direction but wrong about the poor outcome. I certainly can't have much of an effect on things. I have really tried to share the underlying basis that leads me to think this is a poor idea so people can consider the information and comes to their own conclusions. Although I know some of it is hard for me to articulate clearly. If you think my conclusion is stretches way over the limits I would like to understand which underlying concept I have drawn on is the poorest foundation. I sincerely would like to correct my understanding if I have the wrong idea or placed a disproportionate amount of importance on something. Really I am open to changing my opinion if someone has convincing information. BirgitteSB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
> >From: Jimmy Wales >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List >Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:49 AM >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters > >On 8/10/11 7:22 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: >> As for the rest I encourage you to exercise your >> moral duty by helping the chapters fulfill the reporting >> requirements, implement the financial controls, and operate >> transparently. You have been through this all before. You were the >> chairman of the board when WMF was struggling with all of these >> items, so why not use your experience directing WMF through being out >> of compliance with such things to mentor those chapter which are struggling? > >Of course. My past experiences are what allow me to approach these >difficult issues without blaming anyone, and I think that the chapters >should not feel blamed. > >Growing from a barely functioning chapter - usually just a group of >people who made a proposal and did all the hard work to get through the >chapter approval process - into a successful, effective nonprofit >organization with strong financial controls, transparency, training, >oversight is really hard work. Delphine has spoken eloquently about it. > >A model which dumps too much money/responsibility onto a chapter before >they are ready for it is not a valid service to anyone. A model which >allows chapters to go off the rails with little or no recourse other >than some kind of disastrous legal battle or something would also not be >a valid service to anyone. > >When I look at the track record of many chapters to date, I see that >we've asked too much, too soon, and it's not causing happiness. > >I think the new approach, if thoughtfully pursued with lots of >good-faith input and collaboration by all, can really make a huge >difference. > I hope no one makes the mistake of thinking my position is that there should be no change at all in fundraising. I responded early on, I believe to Stu's message, that I found the existing incentives to perverse and think that they have harmed the ability of new chapters to form and become successful. I do believe changes are needed. However, I have deep doubts about the chances of chapters succeeding under the specific proposal of funding a large majority of the chapter operations with a grant from WMF. I have been hoping that those supporting the proposal might respond to my sharing these doubts with some information about the model that inspired the proposal. That they might know of some organizations funded in a similar way and be able to consider my concerns by re-examining those organizations for any validity to them. So far the response has simply been to try and reassure me that the proposed changes will have no unintended consequences on the simple basis no one wants anything to change except the accounting ledger. While I don't doubt the accuracy of such statements regarding people's desires, I can't find such assertions convincing. I don't wish to upset people further by my lack of faith that intentions matter very much. I have raised all of the major considerations I would like people to think about. I really hope for a good outcome, whether anyone chooses to give credit to my concerns and advice or not. There no real need for any of you to convince me and I am as tired of repeating myself as am sure many of you are of hearing my repetitions. So lets just agree to disagree about the issue. BirgitteSB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
> >rom: phoebe ayers >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List >Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:13 AM >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters > >On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > >> On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: >> > Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The >> > Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles. >> > To my mind "decentralization is important" raises a whole bunch of >> > other important questions: is decentralization more important than >> > efficiency as a working principle? >> I think it is, at least up to a point. We need to have a diversity of >> tools and actors involved in fundraising, and decentralization should >> help that if done well. Also, we do not have an obligation to maximize >> revenue, so efficiency is not necessarily a cardinal virtue. I don't >> mean that we should disregard efficiency, but we can choose to sacrifice >> a bit of efficiency if, as a tradeoff, this benefits some other value we >> think is important like decentralization. >> > One thing that struck me about reviewing chapter financials was that >> > there are 20+ chapters that don't directly receive donations and >> > haven't applied for many grants to date, and thus have little to no >> > money to support program work. Though mostly outside the scope of the >> > Board's letter, this is for instance one part of our model that I >> > would like to see change -- Wikimedians everywhere should have better >> > access to resources to get things done. On this specific point, I do >> > disagree with Birgitte -- I think a well-developed grants program [and >> > it's true we're not there yet, but want to be soon] could actually >> > help us decentralize faster, in that to obtain money needed for >> > program work chapters or other groups wouldn't have to develop the >> > (increasingly difficult) infrastructure needed to directly fundraise >> > with all the attendant legal and fiduciary concerns. >> I like the sound of this, but with a note of caution about a >> "well-developed" grants program. In many contexts, as grants programs >> develop and mature, grantees end up needing to develop increasingly >> complex infrastructure to secure and manage grants. At that point, it >> may not be any more helpful to these objectives than the model we are >> trying to move away from. >> >> --Michael Snow >> > >Fair point. By "well-developed" I just meant "something that works well." >One of the criteria of working well could be low overhead... Again, the idea >of supporting grants is not exclusive to the WMF: I am so pleased to see the >expansion of the WMDE program, as well. > >-- phoebe >I can't help but point out that is begging the question. [1] It is a logical >fallacy to say in answer to concerns that a grants program won't work well >that you are supporting well-developed grants program (defined as something >that works well). It is just wishful thinking. BirgitteSB [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
--- On Tue, 1/20/09, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> By the way, this word "chapter" is unfamiliar for
> me, a German. I did not
> hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this
> English word mean? Any
> sub division of an organisation, or is it rather associated
> to a city than
> to a country?
>
> The word "local" in German ("lokal")
> means: related to a city. What does it
> mean when English speaking Wikimedians talk about
> "local chapters"?
> Shouldn't it be "national chapters"? I
> consider Germany as a national, not a
> local entity...
>
> Ziko
>
In my experience a chapter means a organization that is associated with a
larger organization with serperate officers from from the larger organization,
but the key feature is that it manages it's own memebership. The larger
organization is usualy more closely tied to chapters than in the case of WMF.
But chapters are generally run independently and the larger organization which
enforces it's requirements or morals with threats to cut ties with the chapter
rather than any direct managment of chapter activities. Normally chapters are
put on probation and given a chance to correct things before being cut off
completely. Chapters are most recognizable to me in social soiceties and
advocay groups. But I think the it would normal for unions and charity
organizations use them too. de.WP has an article on Freemasonary, the
"lodges" within that are should very similar to use of chapters of a greek
letter society as that was all modeled on freemasonary.
I don't if there is a general concept in German for the way "lodge" is used in
Freemasaonary, but in English "chapter" applies to this concept.
Birgitte SB
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
--- On Thu, 2/5/09, George Herbert wrote: > From: George Herbert > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews > [en] > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 3:56 PM > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Andrew Gray > wrote: > > > You can see the results we've had: viz, not a lot. > It's not like we > > can put our foot down and say "play nice, now, > guys" and things get > > better. If we could solve this problem easily, > we'd have done it years > > ago. > > > To be fair - we're playing really nice with offenders, > rather than playing > nasty hardball. > > We could politely play nasty hardball, and squash a few > people under our > polite polished jackboots of propriety. > > It wouldn't necessarily be a self-contradiction to use > excessive force to > try and impose politeness. That said, the ultimate problem > is community > interaction issues that incivility and abuse cause, and > abusive admin > responses make *that* worse even if we help the incivility > problem, so it's > probably not a wise approach. > > That said, making more of the civility blocks stick would > be helpful. The > sense of the community that some of the problematic > contributors are more > worth having than asking to leave is probably a mistake. Personally I think that is the wrong approach. It would be most effective to move the center. There are always going to be people who feel the need to be shocking. If we can get the people who are only occasionally rude or who are just crossing the line of civility to follow consistently higher standards, then I think that extreme cases will improve also. That sort of approach should be more successful than making blocks stick for the extreme cases. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link
I there is simpler way to solicit these reports this without all the false positives that might come from a "report a problem" link. I imagine that all these people who have issues must click on the "Help" link in the sidebar while looking contact information. Why not have a banner on that page saying "If you have a problem with information about yourself that is on Wikipedia report it here." And send it to a specific email address. Birgitte SB --- On Mon, 3/2/09, Robert Rohde wrote: > From: Robert Rohde > Subject: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 6:06 PM > I'm breaking this specific idea out of the main thread, > in order to focus on it. > > There seems to be considerable support for adding some kind > of "Report > a problem" link to pages, (probably not necessarily) > to the sidebar. > > I'd like to give a little more thought to this idea, > i.e. where we > want a link to go, and what we want it to do. > > Personally I think if such a link simply mails OTRS, that > would be > suboptimal. It would risk creating a lot of email volume > for > relatively minor problems, and make it harder to > differentiate > important issues from minor ones. > > By preference, I'd like to see a link that goes to a > simple page for > requesting help with options such as, "post a public > message on the > talk page", "email a volunteer for help", > etc. In principle, such a > page, could even have a single text box for composing a > message, a set > of instructions, and a dropdown list of actions to take > ranging from a > talk page post to an OTRS email, etc. Reports of vandalism > and other > simple problems might also be channeled automatically to > one of the > existing onwiki noticeboards if the reporter is not asking > for > privacy. > > Clicking on the "report a problem" link should > automatically fill in > what page one came from. Even more ideally, the report a > problem link > might be modified based on indicators in the page, such as > "Category:Living people", in order to better > prioritise and direct > correspondence. If the person reporting the problem does > choose to > post publicly, the post could be flagged with something > like > "Category:Unresolved problem reports", which > might then be replaced > with "Category:Resolved problem reports" after it > has been looked at > and handled. > > Ideally, I think problem reports should include the option > of being > completely anonymous (though presumably with a CAPTCHA or > other device > to limit spam posts). > > -Robert Rohde > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Sue Gardner wrote: > From: Sue Gardner > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living > people > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:17 AM > 2009/3/2 philippe > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote: > > > > > basically there's a sensible three stage plan > to follow to help drive > > > quality and minimise 'BLP' harm; > > > > > > 1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material > > > 2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects > (eg. non public figures, or > > > those > > > not covered in 'dead tree sources' for > example) - note this is more > > > inclusive than a simple higher threshold for > notability > > > 3) 'Default to delete' in discussions > about BLP material - if we can't > > > positively say that it improves the project, > it's sensible and > > > responsible > > > to remove the material in my view. > > > > > > As a general rule, I think pm has given us a > common-sense place to > > begin discussions about how to cleanup existing BLPs. > There will > > always be situations that don't fit within this, > but as a starting > > point for guidelines, I support these. > > > It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread > that part of the > reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its > BLPs (assuming > that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a > smaller number of > them. Presumably a smaller number of BLPs = fewer to > maintain and > problem-solve = a higher quality level overall. (And > possibly also, OTRS > volunteers who are less stressed out, resulting in a higher > level of > patience and kindness when complaints do get made.) > > Assuming that's true, allowing BLP subjects to opt-out > seems like it would > have a direct positive increase on the quality of remaining > BLPs, in > addition to eliminating some BLPs entirely. Clearly, there > would still be a > notability threshold above which people would never be > allowed to opt out - > there will always be articles about people such as Hillary > Clinton and J.K. > Rowling and Penelope Cruz. But a decision to significantly > raise that > threshold, as well as default to deletion upon request, > seems like it would > have a positive effect on quality. > > Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising > the notability > threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion > upon request is a > bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other > Wikipedias should shift > closer to the German Wikipedia's > generally-less-permissive policies and > practices, particularly WRT BLPs? 1) Raising the notability threshold is not an intrinsically bad idea, but it is hard to agree without knowing the new threshold. 2) Defaulting to delete should be for all BLPs or none. I disagree that it be any different because it was requested. It will only lead to false hopes and greater disappointment if we have a special rule for "per request". Personally I support defaulting to delete on all BLPs 3) I disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift to follow anyone's policy or practices. They need to work out what will work best in the culture of their own community. Although the goal of protecting living people from being harmed by Wikipedia needs to be universal, I don't that it should be put in terms of de-style or en-style. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Aude wrote: > From: Aude > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living > people > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:52 AM > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen > wrote: > > > >> > >> Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies > we have related to > >> BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more > resource in the > >> inforcement of these policies. The meetings > Philipp mentioned in Germany > >> are a very good start point. Perhaps the > foundation can help organize > >> such OTRS-training-meetings in the US (because the > lack of a US chapter) > >> and other countries, just as a beginning. Later we > maybe we can see how > >> we can expand this to more regions and countries. > We should also > >> encourage more people to work and help on OTRS and > give them due support. > >> > >> Ting > > > > > > Regarding putting more resources into enforcement of BLP > policies, what > resources are you talking about? I have seen problems > reported to the BLP > and other noticeboards, with no response or inadequate > responses from admins > and editors. One problem I encountered is that the BLP noticeboard on en.WP is regularly archived by date, whether or not a thread has been resolved. I frankly don't do much work in this area, but I occasionally stumble across something and report it there. The lack of feedback about whether the issue I reported was significant is discouraging. I imagine casual reporters who do not see the issues they report resolved nor get feedback on why the issues is not a concern simply stop making reports there. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Biographies of Living People: a quick interim update
--- On Mon, 3/9/09, Sue Gardner wrote: > From: Sue Gardner > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Biographies of Living People: a quick interim > update > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 4:59 PM > 2009/3/8 Nathan : > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Sue Gardner > wrote: > > > >> > >> 1) There is a big unresolved question around > whether, if > >> marginally-notable people ask to have their > articles deleted, that > >> request should be granted. My sense -both from > the discussion here > >> and other discussions elsewhere- is that many > Wikipedians are very > >> strongly protective of their general right to > retain even very > >> marginal BLPs. Presumably this is because > notability is hard to > >> define, and they are worried about stupid > across-the-board > >> interpretations that will result in massive > deletionism. However, > >> other people strongly feel that the current > quantity of BLPs about > >> less-notable people diminish the overall quality > of the encyclopedia, > >> reduce our credibility, and run the risk of > hurting real people. > >> There seems to be little consensus here. > Roughly: some people seem > >> to strongly feel the bar for notability should be > set higher, and > >> deletion requests generally granted: others seem > to strongly feel the > >> current state is preferable. I would welcome > discussion about how to > >> achieve better consensus on this issue. > >> > >> > > I would quibble with this statement a little bit. > There is a difference in > > my mind between raising the notability bar and > granting weight to subject > > requests for deletion. There seems to be a growing > agreement that marginally > > notable subjects make for bad biographies and greater > risk; there is very > > little appetite for beginning deletion discussions or > deleting articles upon > > subject request. > > > > So these two issues need to be separated, because > indeed they are quite > > separate. > > Totally agreed, yes - thanks Nathan. In future I will > separate these > two points. > > One asks whether the subject of an article (be it a > person, > > corporation, or any other entity with living > representatives) should be > > afforded some control over encyclopedia content, even > as little as the > > ability to request a deletion nomination; most > Wikipedians would be against > > this, I believe. > > Hm. That's interesting. > > As a basic principle, that makes sense to me - that article > subjects > shouldn't have control over the content of the > encyclopedia. But > -perhaps this is a little bit of hair-splitting- OTOH I > don't think we > should take deletion requests any _less_ seriously than > complaints > from disinterested observers. In other words - someone > saying "the > article about me is awful and shouldn't be in an > encyclopedia" should > be taken equally as seriously as someone saying "that > article about X > is awful and doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia." In > both > instances, the article needs be assessed on its own > merits. > > I say this because sometimes I think people may be tempted > to refuse > deletion requests _because_ they come from the article > subject. If > that indeed happens, I believe it's a mistake. That is why I think we should process deletion requests by the subject without any special notice if they have a chance being deleted. And if they are obvious cases where they will be kept, simply tell the person we don't delete on request. Putting these articles at AfD with a note that the subject requested deletion is going to make things worse most of the time. It will attract people to the discussion who are interested in putting on a show for the announced audience and who would not show up at a basic AfD. I don't think listing an AfD as a subject request will change the overall result of the discussion, but just make the path to that result more difficult for the subject. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
--- On Wed, 3/11/09, John Vandenberg wrote: > From: John Vandenberg > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 3:49 AM > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, > Yaroslav M. Blanter > wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I think this is a communety thing. Its to bad that > you lost your > >> adminship but why should people from other > projects step in? > >> I mean this is something on the en.source not a > global thing. > >> huib > >> > >> -- > > > > I have no idea of the en.ws situation, nor do I want > to have any idea, but > > I would like to remark that leaving such things to the > community decision > > is a good idea only if the community itself is big > enough. Otherwise, it > > is easy for a group of individuals, or even for an > individual to introduce > > their own rules which may be incompatible with the > general purposes of the > > project. In this case, an external help may be needed. > For instance, this > > is what happened a year ago on ru.wb when the only > admin has been > > desysopped after it has been discovered and reported > on this very list > > that he arbitrarily abused and blocked other users and > removed edits. > > > > Again, I am not really aware of the situation on > en.ws, I have no idea > > whether this project is big enough to solve their own > problems within the > > project, and I do not want to make any statements > about any users over > > there. (As a matter of fact, I never logged in to > en.ws). I just wanted to > > say that not every project is capable with solving its > own problems. > > I agree with this. English Wikisource does not have a > mediation > framework, and I didnt participate in that desysop > discussion as much > as I should have, due to time constraints. The next > step would be a > meta RFC, or something like an offwiki discussion. I > am happy to > participate in something like that if it would help. > > What I will say now is that Eclecticology is a great > contributor to > the English Wikisource project, and I hope he continues to > be. The > main project that he has been working on, [[s:Dictionary of > National > Biography, 1885-1900]], has been exempt from the structure > imposed on > the rest of the project, as a way of reducing the > tensions. > Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for anything remotely like this situation. And I would say that if were regarding any wiki (I am sure I have said that for similar situations on other wikis in the past). The wikis are autonomous on these issues. If someone has reason why en.WS adminship rules are incompatible with the general purposes of the project, then please share. Otherwise discuss in the proper forum which is en.WS. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
--- On Thu, 3/12/09, Ray Saintonge wrote: > From: Ray Saintonge > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 3:03 AM > Birgitte SB wrote: > > Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for > anything remotely like this situation. And I would say > that if were regarding any wiki (I am sure I have said that > for similar situations on other wikis in the past). > The wikis are autonomous on these issues. If someone > has reason why en.WS adminship rules are incompatible with > the general purposes of the project, then please > share. Otherwise discuss in the proper forum which is > en.WS. > > > > > I have since the very beginning been a strong supporter of > project > autonomy, and have usually been very critical of anyone who > tries to > impose the rules of other projects in Wikisource. > Last summer, when > another de-sysop process happened, I also spoke strongly > against > allowing ourselves to be overly influenced by that person's > overly bad > behaviour on other projects; I conservatively concurred > with what > happened based solely on events at wikisource. > > In the course of the discussion about me, I considered > coming here at an > early stage, but decided that I would let things play out > on wiki > first. I did not raise the issue here until a few > days after the > decision was closed and implemented. > > If I had not commented on events here, would you have > noticed it, and > would it even have crossed your mind to comment as you did > above? I don't follow exactly what you mean. I often comment here that some new thread is an internal issue and not a Foundation one. If you had commented on-wiki, I would have responded there. If you hadn't commented about the situation at all, I wouldn't have commented either. Given > the still relatively small community at en:ws, where does > one turn for a > calmer and more objective analysis from someone who is not > a part of the > apparent piling on? You can approach community members who were not part of the apparent piling on and ask them for such an analysis. You can ask someone who is not part of the community and that you respect for generally giving calm and objective analysis to share their opinion on en.WS. I am not against people from out of the community helping out with this. I just don't believe either such a wide announcement nor having the opinions being placed outside of en.WS should be encouraged. If the result of raising the > issue here is a fairer > discussion on wiki, I can't complain about that. > There should always be > a place for off-wiki safety valves. > > I see that you have asked a question on my talk page, so I > will address > more specific matters there shortly. > > Ec Thank you for bringing the specifics back on-wiki.. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view
--- On Fri, 3/20/09, Erik Moeller wrote: > From: Erik Moeller > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 8:07 PM > 2009/3/20 geni : > > Your suggestion that wikipedia:copyrights has any > baring on what > > people have agreed to have done with their work simply > doesn't hold > > water. > > Well, I'm glad that we've cleared up that CC-BY-SA and > link-back > credit aren't irreconcilable after all. Now we're > apparently moving on > to the new topic: Do site-wide terms of use matter when > determining > what a license means in practice? I'm not going to spend a > lot of time > on this argument: Of course a site-wide policy page linked > to from > every page has relevance when determining the terms of > use/re-use. But > even a literal and unreasonably narrow focus on the GFDL > doesn't > support rigorous author attribution: Unfortunately I haven't been able to follow all this closely so forgive me if I am bringing up something already settled. My biggest problem: I can understand why using the site TOS in this way is seen as a desirable way to go. After all it would not require any of the technical work that producing a list of significant authors would. But I think it does have big drawback. It would hamper the importation of similarly licensed material written under dissimilar conditions of use into Wikimedia projects by non-authors. Having this ability was one of the highlights that made the pain of the license transition process worthwhile for me. And if we do succeed in seeing free content gain in mainstream usage, this will be and even bigger problem in the future and lead to confusion over the CC brand. Labeling ourselves CC-by-SA but not being able accept much of the material that is published under CC-by-SA unless it is directly contributed by the original author(s) is a problem in my eyes. Another annoyance: There really isn't anything being said on how this will apply to projects like Commons and Wikisource that already have a large variety of works under different licenses. How exactly will the TOS be changed on those projects? We need to develop the tech side of having some sort of meta license/attribution information available for those projects anyway. Already the poster and book printing extensions cannot be legally used every work within those projects without such development work. So choosing an uncommon attribution model for the license will not save us that development cost forever. Possible compromise solution: This requires an editable tab called Attribution. We pick a date for license migration and on that date these tabs are generated containing only a permalink to the history of the article at that date. From this time on when editing Wikipedia there is a new field below the edit summary asking editors to check a box if they have made a copyrightable edit and to enter the way they would like to be attributed into the field (or also the way the externally written CC-by-SA material requires attribution). Also there is the possibility of setting up an attribution name in preferences where you simply check a box that the edit is copyrightable and name is auto-filled. When saving this information is added to the Attribution tab automatically. Admins can edit the Attribution tab manually to add people from the old history who request it, fix mistakes entered in the field, or remove someone spamming the field with obviously non-copyrighted changes, etc. We recommend to reusers that they attribute the material with text that auto-generates from the info in the Attribution tab and includes a permalink to the current version of the article. In the terms of use we specify that if you do not opt-in for a specific attribution by checking the box we are requiring you accept CC-by-SA with attribution by url as Erik describes. We continue to hold the position that a link alone is and has always been reasonable attribution as Erik's arguments describe. But from the license migration forward, we are offering greater flexibility in attribution options in order to be to be more compatible with free content developed externally. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view
--- On Mon, 3/23/09, Nathan wrote: > From: Nathan > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 2:47 PM > Introducing the terms of service, or > anything other than the license itself, > confuses it for me too. The questions it brings to my mind > are: > > 1) Which controls attribution, the license or the TOS? > 2) For importation, which determines compatibility - the > license or the TOS > of the original site (if applicable)? > 3) (A restatement of 1) If the license and the TOS > conflict, which controls? > 4) If the intended form of attribution is seen as being > allowed via the TOS, > does the TOS then constitute the actual license (as opposed > to GFDL 1.2)? > > A lot of this is deeply technical. I'm not clear on who is > right, but wrt to > writing and debating skill alone the pro-transition folks > are clearly at an > advantage. What I'd like to see is calmly argued and > defined opposition; > without recourse to "You're an idiot, and I know phrase X > means Y because I > said so." When Erik, Mike Godwin and Michael Snow make > concise and well > written arguments, and get replies in the form of short > inline comments > along the lines of "No, you're wrong" it doesn't help > anyone get a good > picture of what the problems here are supposed to be. 1) The license controls attribution to a degree. Within what is allowed by the license a TOS contract in effect where the content is created could be more restrictive but not less. 2)For importation to a WMF. The licenses must be compatible, but there could legal ramifications for an editor who breached the TOS of an external website by copying the material to a Wikimedia site. I don't think there would be legal ramifications for WMF. 3)License controls the content wherever it shows up. A TOS is a contract which can only bind the people who agree to this contract. Using a website to varying degrees may or may not qualify as "agreeing to a contract" in different cases, but it certainly can qualify as such. So the license always controls the content, but a TOS may control what a particular person can to with the content. If the content is only available from one website with a strong TOS, it is possible for the TOS to control the content completely by binding every single person who has access to the content. This situation actually exists, most commonly with rare public domain content only available through subscription services sold to universities. 4) No the TOS is a contract only binding to people who agree to it and is attached to those people not the content. A license is a waiver of copyright in specified situations that is attached the content generally so long as it remains copyrightable. But none of this was exactly the concern I raised. My concern was that the TOS proposed for WMF site would restrict authors to using to certain facet of the CC-by-SA license that is not commonly used. This would generally prevent anyone who was not an author from importing externally published CC-by-SA material which likely relies on a more common facet of the license (naming the author by name). This is because such non-authors would have no right to agree to the more restrictive WMF TOS on behalf of authors who simply released their work as CC-by-SA. Regarding the rest A partial solution to deal with unhelpful responses is to ignore emails from the people who have a habit of such responses. Of course other people invariably take the bait and you end up reading them anyways. But at least you only get one email instead of two. Of course to describe this as pro-transition vs anti-transition is misleading. It really is more a matter of the transition forcing to light all sorts of issues we did not spend time thinking on before even though they existed. The arguments that are anti-transition are really arguments against the status quo as well. And the pro-transition camp contains a great variety of opinions as to exactly how we should transition. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2
-- On Tue, 3/31/09, Nathan wrote: > From: Nathan > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Flagged revs poll take 2 > To: "English Wikipedia" , "Wikimedia Foundation > Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 7:50 PM > Well, the poll was closed with 80% > support. It probably should have been > extended, if for no other reasons than that votes continued > to come in at a > pretty good clip and there is no pressing reason to close > it on deadline. > > If I were a developer or a WMF executive, I might pause at > implementing a > proposal for quite significant change on the English > Wikipedia based on a > poll with only 320 participants. > I am afraid this one is serious. Asking Foundation staff to overrule a community decision is not going find support here. However vaguely you phrase it. Sort it out on en.WP. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons
--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > From: Pedro Sanchez > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 9:48 PM > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:45 PM, > Thomas Dalton wrote: > > > > > > > This is a (predominantly) English-language mailing > list, so using > > those traditions used in the English-speaking world > seems to make > > sense to me. > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > Of course, wasting resources on april 1st is very > sensical. > > And who cares about purported reach to the whole world and > all that fancy > words > let's bother them with our idiotic pranks becuase we are > majority and > thereforewe have the right to do so > > Very good attitude on the wikimedia foundation list (I > don't care if you do > so on english wikipedia list) Right, it obviously "the pompous English majority" conspiring here because you received a prank from every English speaker on the list. If the list were in Spanish so every immature youth in Latin America with too much time on their hands could access it without scholarship, you would be unable to spare the rest of us on Dec 28. Follow David's example and ignore those who actually choose to waste your time and spare the rest of us your stereotyped rant. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons
--- On Wed, 4/1/09, Marcus Buck wrote: > From: Marcus Buck > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 10:16 AM > Birgitte SB hett schreven: > > Right, it obviously "the pompous English majority" > conspiring here because you received a prank from every > English speaker on the list. > > > > If the list were in Spanish so every immature youth in > Latin America with too much time on their hands could access > it without scholarship, you would be unable to spare the > rest of us on Dec 28. Follow David's example and > ignore those who actually choose to waste your time and > spare the rest of us your stereotyped rant. > > > > Birgitte SB > > > Cultural imperialism is not confined to societies. It can > be done by > individuals too. And Pedro's critical remarks are aimed at > individuals. > No need to feel offended as a member of the English > majority (except you > support imposing your own cultural sillynesses on other > people, in that > case, feel offended). > > The main problem with "just ignore them" is: If you don't > know the > custom of April's Fool day, you won't know that it's a > joke. And even if > you know the custom you can still fall for the jokes. > > I am fully aware, that there will always be idiots, who > don't know how > to behave in an intercultural environment, but only if we > tell them that > they are idiots, awareness can arise for the idioticy of > this behaviour. > If you hadn't snipped it would be clear the rant was not directed at any individuals. The foundation list and it's English majority were all that was given not idiotic pranksters. While one need not feel offended about it, neither does one need to feel annoyed with April Fools pranks. But such an attitude is offensive to me and I don't think it belongs here any more than the annoying pranks do. I am afraid you misunderstood my suggestion as well as misquoted me.. I have no issue with singling out people, and didn't mean to suggest they must be ignored without comment. More like placed on the "ignore emails from X" function of your Inbox. So that they won't bother him in the future.. I suggested following David's example, which was singling a prankster out and publicly announcing that he was ignoring him. So I never intended to suggest that he "just ignore [the pranks]". Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Court: Congress can't put public domain back into copyright
--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Chad wrote: > From: Chad > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Court: Congress can't put public domain back into > copyright > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 11:09 AM > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM, > GerardM > wrote: > > Hoi, > > This is of sufficient merit that I do it this way. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > Aan u verzonden door GerardM via Google Reader: Court: > Congress can't > > put public domain back into copyright via Ars Technica > door > > n...@arstechnica.com > (Nate Anderson) op 6-4-09 > > In 1994, Congress jammed a batch of foreign books and > movies back into > > the copyright closet. They had previously fallen into > the public domain > > for a variety of technical reasons (the author hadn't > renewed the > > rights with the US Copyright Office, the authors of > older works hadn't > > included a copyright notice, etc.) and companies and > individuals had > > already started reusing the newly public works. Did > Congress have the > > right to put a stop to this activity by shoving the > works back into > > copyright? On Friday, a federal court said no. > > "Traditional contours of copyright" > > 1994's Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) brought US > intellectual > > property law in line with that of other countries. > Section 514 of URAA > > better aligned US copyright law with the international > Berne > > Convention, one of the earliest international > intellectual property > > treaties. Though Berne had first been signed back in > 1886, the US > > hadn't joined up until a century later, in 1988. > > Click here to read the rest of this article > > > > > > Dingen die u vanaf hier kunt doen: > > - Abonneren op Ars Technica met Google Reader > > - Aan de slag met Google Reader om eenvoudig al uw > favoriete sites bij > > te houden > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > The URL, for those wanting the rest of the story: > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-congress-cant-put-public-domain-back-into-copyright.ars > While this is definitely encouraging news, we might want to hold off on changing our evaluation of URAA restorations. The tenth circuit doesn't include Florida. I don't know exactly what the next level of appeals would be, but we might want to wait for a ruling that covers WMF servers before we act on it. I hope these restorations continue to be struck down in the courts. It will be much simpler to determine copyright if they go away. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Court: Congress can't put public domain back into copyright
--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Chad wrote: > From: Chad > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Court: Congress can't put public domain back into > copyright > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 11:09 AM > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM, > GerardM > wrote: > > Hoi, > > This is of sufficient merit that I do it this way. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > Aan u verzonden door GerardM via Google Reader: Court: > Congress can't > > put public domain back into copyright via Ars Technica > door > > n...@arstechnica.com > (Nate Anderson) op 6-4-09 > > In 1994, Congress jammed a batch of foreign books and > movies back into > > the copyright closet. They had previously fallen into > the public domain > > for a variety of technical reasons (the author hadn't > renewed the > > rights with the US Copyright Office, the authors of > older works hadn't > > included a copyright notice, etc.) and companies and > individuals had > > already started reusing the newly public works. Did > Congress have the > > right to put a stop to this activity by shoving the > works back into > > copyright? On Friday, a federal court said no. > > "Traditional contours of copyright" > > 1994's Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) brought US > intellectual > > property law in line with that of other countries. > Section 514 of URAA > > better aligned US copyright law with the international > Berne > > Convention, one of the earliest international > intellectual property > > treaties. Though Berne had first been signed back in > 1886, the US > > hadn't joined up until a century later, in 1988. > > Click here to read the rest of this article > > > > > > Dingen die u vanaf hier kunt doen: > > - Abonneren op Ars Technica met Google Reader > > - Aan de slag met Google Reader om eenvoudig al uw > favoriete sites bij > > te houden > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > The URL, for those wanting the rest of the story: > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-congress-cant-put-public-domain-back-into-copyright.ars > While this is definitely encouraging news, we might want to hold off on changing our evaluation of URAA restorations. The tenth circuit doesn't include Florida. I don't know exactly what the next level of appeals would be, but we might want to wait for a ruling that covers WMF servers before we act on it. I hope these restorations continue to be struck down in the courts. It will be much simpler to determine copyright if they go away. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Court: Congress can't put public domain back into copyright
--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Andrew Gray wrote: > From: Andrew Gray > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Court: Congress can't put public domain back into > copyright > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 12:39 PM > 2009/4/6 Birgitte SB : > > > > While this is definitely encouraging news, we might > want to hold off on changing our evaluation of > > URAA restorations. The tenth circuit doesn't include > Florida. I don't know exactly what the next > > level of appeals would be, but we might want to wait > for a ruling that covers WMF servers before > > we act on it. I hope these restorations continue to > be struck down in the courts. It will be much > > simpler to determine copyright if they go away. > > Somewhat tangentially, do we still need to worry about > Florida? I was > under the impression we'd moved wholesale, servers and all, > to > California, so we were in the ninth circuit > jurisdiction... > > -- I remember once asking about this during the move. At the time I was concerned about the weird and unpalatable 9th Circuit Ruling in Twin Books v. Walt Disney [1]. The response was that the servers were remaining in Florida. Please someone correct if I am mistaken. Birgitte SB [1] http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/12/bambis-twin-copyright-horrors.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Compulsory policies for all Wikipedias
--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Jaska Zedlik wrote: > From: Jaska Zedlik > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Compulsory policies for all Wikipedias > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 2:25 PM > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 21:27, Milos > Rancic > wrote: > > > > The question was about a list which should exist > somewhere (at Meta). > > > > Thank you, but not obligatory a list. I meant any form, > even a number > of rules written on this mailing list. Otherwise we (may) > have a > situation when, for instance, a user puts some inflammatory > or > divisive content on their user page and administrators are > unable to > delete it, until a policy which regulates this is adopted > locally. > NPOV and Wikimedia Founding principles regulate only > "articles and > other encyclopedic content" and can't be applied in this > case. > > Or even further, community could adopt a policy when > divisive content > is allowed on user pages. NPOV is not violated, Founding > principles > are not violated as well. So everything depends only on a > local > community. I don't think this is a common thing, but maybe > it worth > thinking about this now rather when we face this problem. > Those are not situations which would be covered by any Compulsory policy across projects. Community governance does depend only on the local community. That is a feature not a bug. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Problems with the new license TOS
--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Brian wrote: > From: Brian > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Problems with the new license TOS > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 12:13 PM > > the archives are mostly useless > as a knowledge base. > > This is false and you know it. Several of these questions > *have* been > debated here and with a few simple searches you could be > well on your way to > reading the discussions. > The archives are horribly messy and line breaks don't always happen. It is much better to use something like: http://markmail.org/search/?q=cc-by-sa#query:cc-by-sa%20list%3Aorg.wikimedia.lists.foundation-l+page:1+state:facets Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation policy on linking to website that violates copyright
--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Ilya Schurov wrote: > Yes, it's clear. Nobody is going to require editors to do > copyvio > investigation of third-party resources before linking them. > It's a > conflict resolution matter: e.g. one editor claim that some > site > violates copyright and therefore we shouldn't link there, > while the > other editor try to put this link into the article and > argue that > copyright issues are not important here. ArbCom believes > that the site > under consider indeed violates copyright. Should we > consider this as an > argument to remove such link, or just ignore it? Do you acknowledge that what you are suggesting would be immoral? Or is one of those situations were you believe the copyright claim is immoral itself and see the legal situation as some technicality based on a corruption of government? I know Russian copyright has a few areas that defy common sense. Either way it would probably be best to follow to the rule of law, even when on stupid corner cases. Because in the long run different groups will have a different opinions on which cases qualify as stupid corner cases and always following the law is easier for the entire community to accept without fracturing. But those are my personal thoughts. You probably won't get an actual straight answer here. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Problems with the new license TOS
--- On Fri, 4/17/09, Anthony wrote: > > In any case, this proposal certainly *will* undermine the > individual right > to attribution held by individual contributors, so anyone > who supports that > right *should* vote against the proposal or refuse to vote > at all. If you > want to nitpick whether or not this is indisputable, fine, > I'll let you have > your way. But indisputable or not, it is a true > fact. > Personally I don't think this proposal really changes anything significant in that regard. I think the our attribution model is inadequate and always has been. I don't think making this inadequacy more public than it has been in the past is a significant change.. I have confidence that someday we will switch to a better attribution model and that it will then be possible to migrate old edits to that model. I supported the change of license even though it not address my attribution concerns, because the change itself does not create these concerns. Trying to hold up the license change in an attempt to leverage proponents of CC-by-SA to address long-standing attribution inadequacies does not appeal to me. I cannot agree that vote for a change in licensing can be interpreted as support for the current attribution model. It only means you believe the change in licensing is a net benefit over no change. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Samuel Klein wrote: > From: Samuel Klein > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual > content > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 3:39 AM > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:19 AM, private musings > wrote: > > > Here's a few questions about the foundation's role in > > ensuring the projects are responsible media hosts - > Can the foundation play > > a role in discussing and establishing things like what > it means to be > > 'collegial' and 'collaborative' on the various > projects? Can the foundation > > offer guidance, and dare I say it 'rules' for the > boundaries of behaviour? > > Is there space, beyond limiting project activities to > legality, to offer > > firm leadership and direction in project governance? > > > > I'm hoping the answer to all of the above is a careful > 'yes'. > > I believe the answer to the above, as worded, may be a > careful 'no'. > These are important decisions, and should be made and > improved over > time, but I believe it is the community's role to make them > - and the > foundation's to help provide interface or infrastructure to > support > the community's resolutions. Feel free to elaborate > if you disagree. > > A strong and sustainable group within the community can > absolutely > work towards and establish the definitions and guidance you > suggest. > Past discussions have generally been useful, and not > spiteful, but > never pushed through to a resolution at least on meta and > en:wp. > I second this. Does anyone really believe it is even possible to set one standard of what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' for all cultures? These things are not absolute values and each community needs to work out what standards are most pragmatic for it's members. There is no shortcut or appeal to authority that can solve this for en.WP. en.WP has to do the work and find these answers from within. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
--- On Wed, 4/22/09, Ting Chen wrote: > From: Ting Chen > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement > regarding biographies of living people) > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 6:11 AM > Hallo Brianna, > > NPOV is mainly a principle of Wikipedia, later also used by > Wikibooks > and Wikinews. There is at least one project (Wikiversity) > which > explicitely allow participants not to follow NPOV, but the > Disclosure of > Point of Views in Wikiversity follow in principle the ideal > of NPOV: It > tells the reader and participants that the content has a > point of view > and thus gives the reader and participants to be aware of > this and > accordingly to adjust their judgement in reading and > writing the content. > > The question here is about projects like Commons or > Wikisource. Mainly > they collect free content and serve as a shared repository > for other > projects so that these other projects can use these > content. The content > themselves may have POV, that's for sure, and we don't make > edits or > comments in these sources to make them NPOV. But we do > category them. > And at least here we do make sort of comment in the source. > Let me take > an example that actually happend on Commons. It makes a > diffrence if we > categorize a caricature of an israeli bus in form of a > coffin to the > very neutral Category:Bus or to more commentary category > Category:Political caricature or to the very strong > commentary category > Category:Anti-israeli caricature. It makes very big > difference how > Commons categorize such images. And I am in these cases > more for the > implementation of a similar policy like Wikiversity's > Disclosure of > Point of View: A source with a very strong bias of point of > view should > be accordingly categorized. With that we do nothing else as > to hold our > principle ideal of NPOV on projects like commons. I don't think of NPOV as being a common value, but rather I think NPOV as being Wikipedia's answer to the common value of avoiding editorial bias. Wikipedia has much more fine-grained editorial input than Wikisource or Commons. Wikisource and Commons must avoid editorial bias in the presentation of the works we host, rather than within the works themselves. Wikisource for example does not allow excerpts of published works (as opposed to published excerpts). While we host biased material, we aim to avoid biased presentations of material. So far it seems to have been successful, even where there have been initial accusations of bias or inaccuracy to be worked out. I think the people who are saying NPOV is a common value, are just using this acronym as shorthand. If you really examine how NPOV is defined; it simply doesn't hold up for other projects. The real value behind this issue if the "sum of all human knowledge". Bias in the form that excludes other information or interpretations is taboo, yet bias itself is not excluded. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation? (was: Board statement regarding biographies of living people)
Are all your emails showing up at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/author.html Birgitte SB --- On Wed, 4/22/09, Gregory Kohs wrote: > From: Gregory Kohs > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living > people > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org, wikipe...@verizon.net > Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 2:09 PM > Am I on moderation? > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Gregory Kohs > wrote: > > > Says Michael Snow: > > > > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the > global Wikimedia > > community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to > high-quality, > > accurate information > > > > ++ > > > > So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the > request of the Board, > > but the > > Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other > than this collection > > of words > > that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen > the commitment to > > high-quality, accurate information. > > > > How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, > and what was the mean > > travel distance of the Board attendees for this > excursion? > > > > -- > > Gregory Kohs > > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Chad wrote: > From: Chad > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons > and freely licensed sexual imagery > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:04 PM > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM, > David Gerard > wrote: > > 2009/5/14 Sage Ross : > > > >> I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my > strong agreement. > >> Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the > many users who don't > >> share the outlook of our > more-libertarian-than-the-general-population > >> community is long overdue. > > > > > > Schools Wikipedia, or similar distributions. > > > > What you're talking about with "reach out" is limiting > the contents of > > the live working site. > > > > > > - d. > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > Which have shown time and again that forks/fractures/split > offs/new > versions of Wikipedia don't work. They may find usage in a > small > niche, but they'll never be a huge deal. > > OTOH, the WMF saying "Hey parents/teachers/etc, we've got a > version > with all the nudity removed so you can show your > kids/students/etc" > would be massively popular. > If there is a massive market for this, then why hasn't such a mirror already been created? I am serious here. Is there something that acting as a stumbling block to a third-party creating a SafeForKidsPedia mirror? Our content is supposed to be easily reused by groups with different target audiences than Wikipedia, so why isn't it happening? What can we do to make the content more easily re-usable for different purposes? I think our efforts would be better focused making all of our content better suited for re-usability by different tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which tastes need to be targeted. Rather than creating a mirror ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of the content. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any* of different of audiences in the world that find various different things unacceptable? Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > From: Aryeh Gregor > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons > and freely licensed sexual imagery > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:59 PM > Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't > censored because it allows pictures > of penises is fooling himself. Wikipedia is > absolutely censored from > images its editors find disgusting. > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB > wrote: > > I think our efforts would be better focused making all > of our content better suited for re-usability by different > tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which > tastes need to be targeted. Rather than creating a mirror > ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing > stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of > the content. > > It would definitely be a good start to create a hierarchy > of > categories for the use of private parties who would like to > censor > their own Internet access, or that of those they have > responsibility > for. The way to go would be neutral designations > like > "Category:Pictures containing genitals", "Category:Pictures > containing > breasts", "Category:Depictions of Muhammad", and so > on. This strictly > adds value to the project. > > Then we would pick a set of categories to be blocked by > default. > Blocked images wouldn't be hidden entirely, just replaced > with a link > explaining why they were blocked. Clicking the link > would cause them > to display in place, and inline options would be provided > to show all > images in that category in the future (using preferences > for users, > otherwise cookies). Users could block any categories > of images they > liked from their profile. > > To begin with, we could preserve the status quo by > disabling only very > gory or otherwise really disgusting images by > default. More > reasonably, we could follow every other major website in > the developed > world, and by default disable display of any image > containing male or > female genitalia, or sex acts. Users who wanted the > images could, > again, get them with a single click, so there is no loss > of > information -- which is, after all, what we exist to > provide. > Wikipedia does not aim to push ideologies of sexual > liberation. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
t in the first place is not necessarily proof that Wikipedia is censored. That said I am certain that there are articles on Wikipedia that are censored, just as there are biased articles and false articles. Wikipedia has never been perfect in the application of it's ideals. I think the scope of what exactly is encyclopedic is a worthwhile discussion (on Wikipedia at least). What makes a sexuality concept notable? I don't think advocating that censorship should be promoted is a practical approach however much it might stir people up. I don't think repeatedly mailing this list with a the latest image that someone believes is unacceptable is going to produce results. In fact the next thread that PM starts about a particular image that is *an example of a problem* rather than a thread about a proposal to address a problem is going to put him on my personal ignore list. Because I am finding the unproductive sensationalist approach very annoying. List traffic is not predictive of results. It might even be inversely related, after a certain level. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > From: Aryeh Gregor > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons > and freely licensed sexual imagery > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:26 PM > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM, > Birgitte SB > wrote: > > Your really didn't address my question. Why do you > think WMF resources are best used to create and support a > mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than > making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any* > of different of audiences in the world that find various > different things unacceptable? > > I don't, and I'm not sure why you think I do. I > explicitly stated > that I favored a categorization system whereby users can > filter out > whatever content they personally find objectionable, and > display > whatever they don't. I also never said WMF resources > should be spent > on anything, and I definitely don't support creating entire > mirrors > just for the sake of image content when you could just hide > or display > the images inline. So I'm not sure what you mean at > all. Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested creating mirror under a different domain name for schools. I replied to that saying how I thought resources were best spent. Then you replied to me. If you weren't replying to me to disagree with me, I have no idea what you intended. But I thought disagreement with me was a pretty safe assumption from the tone of your message. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > From: Aryeh Gregor > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not > the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:46 PM > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, > Birgitte SB > wrote: > > I think this email really shows a misunderstanding of > "Wikipedia is not censored" is about; so I am starting a new > thread to discuss the issue. > > Well, for my part, I think the entire "Wikipedia is not > censored" > policy completely misunderstands what censorship is and why > it's bad. > It's being used as an epithet, like calling someone a Nazi > if they > propose more regulation. The policy as implemented > today is IMO > partly a matter of pushing libertarian social values on all > viewers > whether they like them or not. Well I think that is more of an argument against misuse of the charge of censorship than an argument that censorship should be embraced. I agree people misuse it, rather than have a meaningful discussion. But to reply that "Wikipedia *is* censored" just plays into the hand of the those who do not want to discuss the issue. > > Censorship is deciding to withhold information for the > purpose of keeping people (in some cases particular groups > of people like children or non-members) uninformed. It is > not simply choosing the least offensive image of human feces > to use from equally informative options. > > Absolutely. The key characteristic of censorship is > that it keeps > people uninformed of things they want to know about. > It's therefore > not censorship to permit people to not read things they > *don't* want > to see, and it's not censorship to ask for confirmation > before showing > people something. Censorship would be if I advocated > the deletion of > offensive images. I don't. I advocate making > them one extra click > away for people who don't want to see them inline. > > > This is something I said on-wiki years ago during a > particular clash between "Wikipedia is not censored" and a > group of people being offended: > > > > "I never take an action for the purpose of causing > offense. However I am certain people can be offended for a > number of reasons by things I have done or said. I find this > to be unfortunate but unavoidable. As far as Wikipedia goes > it, there are a number of policies and guidelines here which > help us navigate different cultural norms. I do my best to > rely on these as well as precedent here over my own gut > instinct of what I find personally acceptable. When WP norms > lead to people being offended; I do think we should try to > mitigate this as much as this is possible without > compromising the core principle of providing *free > encyclopedic content*. In this case little can done unless > another freely licensed image is found. I would very much > prefer to see these garments on a dress form or mannequin > rather than live models. Not because the models offend me > personally, but because I think live models make the photo > more offensive to Mormons without adding > > anything encyclopedic over the same picture on a > dress form." > > I think we agree on this, but perhaps I go a little further > than you. > The key point is that if we can avoid offending people > *without* > reducing the information available in the encyclopedia, > that's a > worthy goal. If a Chinese partisan is offended by > [[Tiananmen Square > protests of 1989]] because it portrays the Chinese > government in a > negative light, then too bad -- the facts require that we > portray it > in a negative light. If a Christian is offended by > [[Penis]] because > it contains a picture of a penis, on the other hand, > accommodation is > possible without compromising our mission. For > instance, we might > choose to put all images of penises "below the fold", and > post a > warning at the top. The amount of information > actually *lost* is > zero. It becomes marginally harder to access, but > only very slightly, > so if we can avoid offending a lot of people, it would be > worth it. > > But this idea is generally rejected on enwiki because it's > "censorship". I haven't seen any reasonable > justification for why > this form of "censorship" (which it isn't by the common > definition of > the word) is actually a bad thing. > I can agree with your point here. But the problem is that censorship, by it's true definition,
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> From: Aryeh Gregor
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Kama Sutra, was Re: commons
> and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:49 PM
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM,
> Birgitte SB
> wrote:
> > Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested
> creating mirror under a different domain name for schools.
> I replied to that saying how I thought resources were best
> spent. Then you replied to me.
> >
> > If you weren't replying to me to disagree with me, I
> have no idea what you intended. But I thought disagreement
> with me was a pretty safe assumption from the tone of your
> message.
>
> The beginning of my post was directed toward the general
> thread, and
> wasn't replying to anyone. I don't normally top-post
> on mailing
> lists. The part after the quote was replying to your
> specific point,
> and was supportive ("It would definitely be a good start .
> . ..").
I didn't see that there was anything besides the top-posted part. I am sorry
for being careless about it and then making it a big deal :P
Birgitte SB
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Birgitte SB wrote: > From: Birgitte SB > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not > the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 2:17 PM > > > > --- On Fri, 5/15/09, Aryeh Gregor > wrote: > > > From: Aryeh Gregor > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored > (was Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and > freely licensed sexual imagery > > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > > Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:46 PM > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, > > Birgitte SB > > wrote: > > > > > That said I am certain that there are articles > on > > Wikipedia that are censored, just as there are biased > > articles and false articles. Wikipedia has never > been > > perfect in the application of it's ideals. > > > > Does that imply that you believe [[Goatse.cx]] should > in > > fact have an > > above-the-fold illustration of its subject matter, or > > not? If not, > > how is that any different from [[Penis]]? And if so > . > > . . well, I > > think you're in the minority here. > > > In all honesty, I don't really know. I generally find > the argument over non-free content to be not worth having, > because it takes the long-range mission out of the picture. > I am frankly, apathetic about whether Wikipedia even has an > *article* on goatse.cx and other internet memes. I wouldn't > create the article or add to it. But I wouldn't argue to > remove the image if we had either. > > I would much rather formulate guidelines over the articles > the are more inherently meaningful to more people. > Like STD's or even [[Kama Sutra]]. Then evaluate > [[Goatse.cx]] by those guidelines and see where it > falls. I think focusing on what is meaningful rather > than sensational will leads to better results. > > Birgitte SB To be clear here. I don't want to look at goatse. However I came to the conclusion back in 2006 that Birgitte SB's gut reaction as to what is acceptable is an invalid criteria to use for what is included on Wikipedia. And while there is strong consensus as to what is acceptable for Wikipedia to include in the face of religious or political feelings. The situation on sexual sensitivities is less solidified. Until it is solidified I don't know what criteria should be used to make a decision on goatse. I do know that I don't want the criteria to evaluate articles covering important information to be based on feelings about goatse. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, David Goodman wrote: > From: David Goodman > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not > the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 7:53 PM > The argument against concealing or > making it more difficult in any way > to access material is that it inevitably amounts to > censorship. In my > youth, one could not receive publications--on any > subject--through the > mail from the Communist countries without signing a form > that one had > requested them; I remember doing this for photography > magazines from > Poland. For adult web sites today, one must click, and the > click is > recorded. Even though Wikipedia does not record views in > an > attributable manner, a log on the computer used to access > it could do > so. > Further, a person looking at a sexual image now can say if > challenged > that it appeared by accident; if a setting had to be > enabled, to see > them, that wouldn't be possible. > > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG That is true if the default is click-through. An opt-in click through feature would not take the accidental argument away. There is certainly a way to design such a feature to address the concerns you list. I believe the real problem with such a feature is in content selection. There are always the boderline cases and who puts in the work to sort it out, someone will unhappy with the decisions (in both directions) and complaining about the management of it all. And also the time delay factor, as things are being contstantly changed. If we advertise that we have such a feature and people sign-up for it and it is only 80% effective, we may suffer more loss of goodwill then if we don't offer a "safe" option at all. Passively not meeting people's expectations is much better outcome than actively setting their expectaions to a certaiin level and then failing to meet them. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposals re : sexual content on wikimedia
--- On Thu, 5/21/09, private musings wrote: > - I'm particularly > keen at the moment > to try and discern whether or not it's possible to move > forward in any way > on this issue, or whether or not we're sort of stuck in the > bed we've made > to date all thoughts and ideas most welcome... :-) > Your are not likely to move forward with the shotgun approach. What is the underlying issue that is most important to you? What is most common existing situation out there in practice that is exemplifies this issue? Work on that. Study it. Get numbers on it. Be sure you understand exactly how and why the problem exists and where it's boundaries are. Then work up a proposal to deal with it. Ignore all the somewhat relevant but tangential issues. Put them in a file for later if you can't ignore them, but don't talk about them publicly. That is your best chance to actually move forward on anything. It still takes months, but you really don't have a hope of getting people to help you until focus on one thing of a manageable size. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
--- On Sat, 5/23/09, effe iets anders wrote: > From: effe iets anders > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 4:00 AM > 2009/5/23 David Gerard > > > 2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard : > > > > > I have been keeping an eye on what content got > imported on English > > > Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported > from offsite GFDL-only > > > sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, > that's not saying much > > > - we often have contributors bring us whole books > they wrote elsewhere - > > > but that's not a violation since they'd be the > copyright holder and can > > > relicense it however they want. I doubt there are > any similar cases > > > which do violate the terms, but I'd love some > help checking that. > > > > > > What are licensing requirements for Wikibooks and > Wikisource? Did they > > require GFDL or would any free license do, as is the > case for Commons? > > > > depends on the language you're talking about :) > en.WS is like commons. I imagine most WS are. The editors are not the copyright holders 95% of the time there, so the license is not up to them. The background stuff on the site and any notes written by editors to introduce the texts, will be relicensed I suppose. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Donation Button Enhancement : Part 2
Donate Now Every donation helps us to keep free for everyone. Donate Now Keep Wikipedia free for everyone. Is no one else concerned by the use of the word "free" in the message options being tested. I wouldn't want these ambigous messages like these on the site no matter if they beat out the no message option by 10 to 1. Why can't we test messages that are actually clear and honest? Wikipedia will still be free for everyone if not a single further donation is ever made. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
--- On Fri, 7/24/09, stevertigo wrote: > From: stevertigo > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dispute resolution mailing list > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 2:56 PM > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, > Chad > wrote: > > > > I'm speaking as a volunteer: go away, and take your > thread with you. > > It is /not/ appropriate for foundation-l, period. > > > > It is obvious to everyone that this thread exists for > solely one reason: > > for you to bitch and moan when you didn't get what you > wanted on > > your timetable. This is also not appropriate for > foundation-l, period. > > I think this violates DBAD, actually. CIVIL, too. > Do these even apply at the foundation level? > > -Steven > The foundation is not really like en.WP bumped up another level. We rarely get into policing such issues on this mailing list and that is nowhere near past tolerance levels, because of among other things features in this medium that are absent from the wikis. You see everyone's email program has some form of blacklist. If someone is bothering you, you only need to place them on ignore. If they say something super important someone more reliable will certainly reply to it bring it to your attention. All kinds of little annoyances are solved by this ignore feature, especially people who don't seem to understand what issues belong on this list. Why I have two . . . or now I should say three people on ignore for that reason alone. It saves a great deal of argument. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
--- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson wrote: > From: Mark Williamson > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - > WP:NOT > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM > This problem of one or two > strong-willed admins enforcing their will > over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In > many > cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard > dialects, or > strange editing rules have been enforced; people who > complain are > often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation > people > because it's a "local" matter. > The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment. ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users. Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson wrote: > From: Mark Williamson > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - > WP:NOT > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM > Alright, but what about the case of a > Wiki where there are perhaps 3 > active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? > It is the > Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first > place. I do > believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to > get involved > in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some > that should > be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a > megalomaniac run a > Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems > unacceptable to > me. > > Mark > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SB > wrote: > > > > > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson > wrote: > > > >> From: Mark Williamson > >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy > Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT > >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > >> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM > >> This problem of one or two > >> strong-willed admins enforcing their will > >> over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller > Wikis. In > >> many > >> cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, > nonstandard > >> dialects, or > >> strange editing rules have been enforced; people > who > >> complain are > >> often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by > foundation > >> people > >> because it's a "local" matter. > >> > > > > The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of > local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When > people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation > issues complain here they are often properly informed that > it is a local matter and that the each wiki is > self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is > hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of > it. > > > > Birgitte SB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct attention to them when they are noticed. I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations. Not that I would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on. It is just that it is very tricky. It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement. Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language. Birgitte SB --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Mark Williamson wrote: > From: Mark Williamson > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - > WP:NOT > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 3:41 PM > I'm talking about more general > policy, not ja.wp in particular. > > On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB > wrote: > > There are always extreme situations that merit > exceptional treatment. > > ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active > users. > > > > Birgitte SB > > > > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson > wrote: > > > >> From: Mark Williamson > >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy > Interlingual Coordinationn - > >> WP:NOT > >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > >> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM > >> Alright, but what about the case of a > >> Wiki where there are perhaps 3 > >> active users, and the administrator is imposing > their will? > >> It is the > >> Foundation that gave the admins the power in the > first > >> place. I do > >> believe that _most_ issues people want the > Foundation to > >> get involved > >> in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there > are some > >> that should > >> be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a > >> megalomaniac run a > >> Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom > seems > >> unacceptable to > >> me. > >> > >> Mark > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SB > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> From: Mark Williamson > >> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia > Policy > >> Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT > >> >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > >> >> > >> >> Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM > >> >> This problem of one or two > >> >> strong-willed admins enforcing their > will > >> >> over others is not an uncommon problem at > smaller > >> Wikis. In > >> >> many > >> >> cases, uncommon or strange > orthographies, > >> nonstandard > >> >> dialects, or > >> >> strange editing rules have been enforced; > people > >> who > >> >> complain are > >> >> often ignored and referred back to the > Wiki by > >> foundation > >> >> people > >> >> because it's a "local" matter. > >> >> > >> > > >> > The problem of a user dissatisfied with the > actions of > >> local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. > When > >> people dissatisfied with local enforcement of > non-foundation > >> issues complain here they are often properly > informed that > >> it is a local matter and that the each wiki is > >> self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the > wikis is > >> hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the > logistics of > >> it. > >> > > >> > Birgitte SB > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ___ > >> > foundation-l mailing list > >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > > >> > >> ___ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > -- > skype: node.ue > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Ray Saintonge wrote: > From: Ray Saintonge > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - > WP:NOT > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:31 AM > Birgitte SB wrote: > > I don't know that it is useful to make a general > policy for exceptions. I think it is better just to > watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct > attention to them when they are noticed. > > > > I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait > and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, > rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are > in danger of developing such situations. Not that I > would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task > on. It is just that it is very tricky. It > probably would be more effective to wait till the locals > complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse > admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the > wiki, of mismanagement. Oftentimes locals that even > have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to > oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the > devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that > leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks > the same language. > > > > > As much as I have always supported project autonomy, I know > from > experience on Wikisource that certain malevolent > individuals like > Pathoschild will leave no facts undistorted to achieve > their ends. I > found what happened there deeply offensive. > > I did ask for help here. You asked then that I move the > discussion back > to the project, and out of respect for you I did. > That accomplished > nothing. I suggested mediation, and you effectively > refused. > Bureaucrats should have enough experience, stature and > impartiality to > be able to step into these situations and bring people to a > common > understanding instead of burying their heads in the sand > and pretending > that there is no problem. A community like the one at > Wikisource is > obviously too small to have a formal arbitration process, > so we should > be able to expect better leadership from the > bureaucrats. So perhaps it > is time for some kind of system outside the project that > can look at > these personality problems more objectively. > > Ec > I have been offline since Friday and just read this message. I am too angry at your mis-characterization of me to trust myself to respond in any depth. But I cannot allow anyone, including you, to mistake my silence is any sort of agreement. I failed to resolve things to your satisfaction, but I approached you in good faith. When I was not able to help you; you could have approached others or returned the issue to the list then. Instead you wait months to spin things in a false light and label people "malevolent". You have lost touch with the fact that we are all acting in good faith towards what we each believe the best path for the projects. When we find ourselves at odds it is not because one side is evil and the other good; but because we rank different values as more important than others. Leave my name out of your future emails. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
I will confirm Ting's explanation here regarding NomCom. There was no list for 2009 appointments. So it is true that Matt was not on the 2009 list. No one was. Matt was interviewed by Micheal and Sue, who as members of Nomcom, were aware of our decision to focus on finding expertise in both fundraising and 501(c)(3) organizations for the vacant seats. I find Matt to be a great fit for WMF with the sort of experience we have been most anxious for. Personally I wish that Nomcom could have located Matt a year ago and presented him as part of a Oct 15 2008 list and that he would have been able to share is experience with WMF throughout this year instead of just this short interm. This of course did not happen, but it should not seen a fault of Matt's that it was not the case. Birgitte SB --- On Wed, 8/26/09, Ting Chen wrote: > From: Ting Chen > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to > Wikimedia Foundation > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 3:44 PM > Hello Kropotkine_113, > > since I am on the NomCom I will answer your questions. > > Kropotkine_113 wrote: > > Has Matt Halprin been designated to the Board by the > Nominating Commitee > > (NOMCOM) ? This is explicity required if I read > correctly this page : > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announcement_Q%26A > > > This is not correct. Essentially the NomCom should nominate > the board > members, and should do this at the end of last year. But it > didn't > worked out. There are multiple reasons for that. Basically > that was the > first time that we worked how it can work and how not. We > are simply > lack of experience. So, it didn't work out last winter. We > should have > four nominated candidates appointed to the board by the > begin of 2009 > but we had only two by that time. According to the bylaw of > the > Foundation IV 6 the board can appoint trustees because of > vacancy, this > is the case. So Matt was not on the NomCom list. But we had > informed the > NomCom though about this process. After Wikimania the > NomCom would > resume its work and make suggestions for next year. So Matt > would be > included by NomCom in its list that it would suggest to the > board by > December or would drop out. > > > Does he fulfill the Nomitanig Commitee selection > criterion : "Membership > > in the Wikimedia community" ? > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nominating_Committee/Selection_criteria#General_needed_traits > > > > Where is the list of the other candidates designated > by the NOMCOM ? > > > The list of NomCom is not published because of privacy. It > is a very > simple thing. If someone is suggested on the list and he is > not selected > or he declined, in either cases can it can both be > embarassing for the > person as well as for the Foundation. So the NomCom had > decided on its > first meeting that the list would not be published and > should be kept > confidential. This would also be the case for the coming > years. > > Could we see the discussions and the recommandations > of the nominating > > commitee ? > > > Because of the nature of the confidenciality of the NomCom > the > discussion are kept internal. But there are meeting minutes > and the > mailing list is archived. The NomCom published a status > report which is > published here: [1] > > Is it possible to know which member of the Board of > Trustees agree this > > appointment ? Or at least juste the repartition > support/against in the > > Board ? > > > The discussion about this assignment and the voting about > it would be > published as one of the topics of the August board meeting. > I want to > respect the secratory offices role here and don't make any > announcements > prior of Kat's publication of the minutes. What I can say > at this point > is that I voted for Matt for the following reasons: First > of all Jimmy > and Michael interviewed and talked with Matt. Both of them > had > recommended him as a valuable plus for the board. The board > had > interviewed Matt in Buenos Aires, had discussed all the > problems that > may be raised or values that may be added. According of all > these > evaluations I feel no problem as voting for him. We worked > with Matt in > Buenos Aires during our strategic planning session and I > feel that our > positive evaluation was confirmed as Matt had inputted a > lot of insights > out of his experiences about procedures and measurements of > success. >
Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
--- On Thu, 8/27/09, Kropotkine_113 wrote: > From: Kropotkine_113 > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to > Wikimedia Foundation > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009, 7:53 AM > Thank you very much all of you > (Brigitte SB, Ting Chen, Mickael Snow and > others). > > To close my participation in this thread I just add three > points : > > - My question about the wikimedia membership criterion > wasn't very > important, but just-to-know ; thanks for your > explanations. > > - The communication process on this whole story has been > disastrous ; > this, added to the fact that Wikis, Q&A and help pages > are not > up-to-date or are confused, tranforms a maybe-good-decision > (I have my > own opinion on this point ;)) in a > too-weird-to-be-good-decision ; the > "NOMCOM disapearance in vacuum" is a good example. It > doesn't worth 10Mo > discussion threads, I think you are aware of this. I agree. Inward facing communication has long been a problem for WMF. At times there have been board members that took more leadership in this area regarding various issues, but I can't remember a time when this hasn't been an issue. I think it is mostly a problem of WMF not setting up the expectations accurately. In my personal opinion when communicating with the community; surprises are bad. Even good surprises are bad. Fulfilling expectations on the other hand is good. It seems to be better received by the community when WMF fulfills a modest expectation than when it reveals a wonderful surprise. > > - Even more important point is the cultural gap between > Foundation's > intentions and communication, which are very > "north-american slanted" (I > don't know how to say that), and its perception by a very > multicultural > community. The gap is particularly large concerning > financial/executive > power relations. You have to be very careful about this and > to be very > pedagogic when you report such decisions, because when the > story will > appear in french village pump (for example) it will be hard > tuff for > chapter's members to explain it correctly (if possible). > The answer > often used is : "It's not evil, it's just the way american > people deal > with it every day".. Just let me tell you that's not a > sufficient answer > for many people (like me ;)). I think that a non-used but > very efficient > solution would be to share informations before the official > report and > to work closely with local chapters ; but this is a more > wide problem > and slightly out-of-the-scope of this thread. > I don't completely understand what you are talking about here. What is the "american way" ? And what do you mean by "pedagogic"? Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FlaggedRevs on Hungarian Wikipedia still not working
--- On Fri, 8/28/09, Tisza Gergő wrote: > > Letting the time of the most active community members go to > waste like > this is not only very discouraging them, and not only does > it > undermine their trust in the revision flagging system > (which proved to > be a very valuable anti-vandalism tool, but it was always > hard to get > enough people involved), it also creates a rift between WMF > and the > local community. People perceive that the foundation does > not respect > their volunteer work at all, and it is only quick when it > is creating > problems (their previous contact with WMF was when someone > shot down > the statistics script that ran with community consensus, > without as > much as a question or comment), and not when it should be > solving > them. > > If you want to broaden participation and involve more > people into > meta-projects, start with actually caring about issues like > these. And > now please, please find someone to finally fix bug 19885. I hope someone is able to shortly fix this issue for you. However I think you have a mistaken idea about WMF. The reason people are wanted to join meta-projects is to ensure that their local wikis issues are understood. The meta-projects *are* hu.WP's projects, not competition for hu.WP. If you, or someone like you, is not part of foundation discussions to both speak up about hu.WP concerns and also to better inform hu.WP discussions about larger issues and trends, then how can hu.WP be properly cared for? Certainly everyone here wishes success for hu.WP and that her volunteers are active and happy. But for the most part, people here are not some abstract "WMF-people" who have neglected hu.WP. We are en.WS people or fr.WP people or de.WP people. I originally joined this list much like you did. Rather upset at what felt was attacks on en.WS's sincere efforts to do the right thing and general lack of help for us. These "WMF-people" had been talking about en.WS and saying we would have to delete the UK Hunting Act. I came here hoping to convince these people to actually help us: tell us exactly what copyright allows (very naive I know) rather than just dictating that our stuff be deleted without clarification. But I discovered that these "WMF-people" were no more than people just like me. Passionate people who found their way here with their feet still firmly planted in their own particular interests. They meant no harm to en.WS, but en.WS didn't rate very high in their concerns either. I quickly realized that someone from en.WS better keep on top of things here, before our interests got inadvertently squashed by someones pet issue. Or we merely got forgotten. So I understand how you might be hoping for for solutions and answers to be found here. I certainly did, but I learned it was a mistake to think there was such authority here. You will find opinions and ideas here. Sometimes you may find needed attention. (I hope this is the case today!) But the only real answer for solving hu.WP issues is to see that hu.WP is in WMF. hu.WP people must be in WMF people. hu.WP developers must be in WMF developers. hu.WP projects must be in WMF projects. Then hu.WP will find real answers and solutions. Or at least, they will find answers and solutions as well as anyone does. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FlaggedRevs on Hungarian Wikipedia still not working
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Marcus Buck wrote: > From: Marcus Buck > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FlaggedRevs on Hungarian Wikipedia still not > working > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 4:36 AM > Birgitte SB hett schreven: > > I hope someone is able to shortly fix this issue for > you. > > > > However I think you have a mistaken idea about WMF. > The reason people are wanted to join meta-projects is to > ensure that their local wikis issues are understood. The > meta-projects *are* hu.WP's projects, not competition for > hu.WP. If you, or someone like you, is not part of > foundation discussions to both speak up about hu.WP concerns > and also to better inform hu.WP discussions about larger > issues and trends, then how can hu.WP be properly cared for? > Certainly everyone here wishes success for hu.WP and that > her volunteers are active and happy. But for the most > part, people here are not some abstract "WMF-people" who > have neglected hu.WP. We are en.WS people or fr.WP > people or de.WP people. > > > > I originally joined this list much like you did. > Rather upset at what felt was attacks on en.WS's sincere > efforts to do the right thing and general lack of help for > us. These "WMF-people" had been talking about en.WS and > saying we would have to delete the UK Hunting Act. I came > here hoping to convince these people to actually help us: > tell us exactly what copyright allows (very naive I know) > rather than just dictating that our stuff be deleted without > clarification. But I discovered that these > "WMF-people" were no more than people just like me. > Passionate people who found their way here with their feet > still firmly planted in their own particular interests. They > meant no harm to en.WS, but en.WS didn't rate very high in > their concerns either. I quickly realized that someone > from en.WS better keep on top of things here, before our > interests got inadvertently squashed by someones pet > issue. Or we merely got forgotten. > > > > So I understand how you might be hoping for for > solutions and answers to be found here. I certainly did, but > I learned it was a mistake to think there was such authority > here. You will find opinions and ideas here. Sometimes you > may find needed attention. (I hope this is the case today!) > But the only real answer for solving hu.WP issues is to see > that hu.WP is in WMF. hu.WP people must be in WMF > people. hu.WP developers must be in WMF developers. hu.WP > projects must be in WMF projects. Then hu.WP will find > real answers and solutions. Or at least, they will > find answers and solutions as well as anyone does. > > > > Birgitte SB > > > Well, on a general participation level it's all true, what > you are > saying. But looking at the actual issue "Flagged Revs at > hu.wp" it's > very clear: The Foundation pays staff to do administrative > tasks local > projects cannot do. It's their job to do it. And they > haven't done the > necessary steps in six weeks. Tisza/hu.wp have done what > they needed to > do: File a bug at Bugzilla. If the coordination would work > properly that > should suffice to get the job done. It didn't. He searched > to directly > contact people who can help about this.. And that didn't > help too. So > it's not Tisza's fault, he did it all right. The problem > lies at the > foundation level. Some processes are broken. > > There are two possible solutions: If we don't have enough > manpower to > handle all requests and bugs than the foundation should > hire more staff > (with millions in donations flowing in that should be no > big problem). > The second solution (the cheaper one) would be to create an > interface, > that allows local bureaucrats to switch on or off a set of > approved > extensions on their project. The interface would then run > the needed > scripts automatically. This interface needs to be written, > but that's > only one time and it will save much time and effort in the > future. > > Marcus Buck > User:Slomox > You cut off the part of Tisza's message with was not particularly about the call for technical help. Those were the sentiments I was replying to. I don't disagree that the bug should be fixed sooner. Every single wiki thinks their bugs could be fixed sooner, and I have personally written about the need for bugs to be prioritized better in the past. I have no disagreement there. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Brianna Laugher wrote: > From: Brianna Laugher > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 9:36 AM > 2009/8/29 Anthony : > > If you'd like to start a moderated foundation-l, in > addition to the regular > > foundation-l, that might be useful. But it's > considerably inappropriate for > > you to sign up for a mailing list that many of us have > been enjoying for > > years and in one month decide you want to alter it to > suit your tastes. > > "Enjoying"? Maybe more accurate for many of us is "barely > tolerating". > > I am with Anders. It is not just a matter of learning to > use an email > client properly. Considered posts are soon piled under > dozens of > back-and-forth-over-minor-details responses. > > But it doesn't seem the culture of foundation-l at this > point would > allow moderation to make it a more proportionate place. > Which is a > shame as in theory it is our main Wikimedia-wide channel > of > communication, and must be terribly off-putting for > newcomers. > I am only still subscribed because I blacklist several people who I find excessive (although not Anthony). But I don't think moderation as answer here. Who would dare to take on the chore of moderator and what will be the result. Look at what happened the last time someone was moderated; we had how many messages full of smears about the moderation itself? I don't know exactly the number because I quickly adjusted my blacklist to the poster's new email address. I wonder if no one responds to Thomas Dalton for a month how much he will continue to post. I understand why people want moderation, but I don't think it is practical. However, filters solve a majority of the problem. The biggest help would be people resisting the urge to reply when someone is obviously looking for a debate for debate's sake. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Universal Library
You two seem to be talking past each other. Might I suggest that perhaps the quality of information on OPL and/or Wikipdia/Wikisource sites is rather different depending on whether you are reading in French or English? I don't know if this is the case but it could explain the discrepancies between your experiences. Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 9/3/09, David Goodman wrote: > From: David Goodman > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Universal Library > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 2:19 PM > I have been re-reading their > documentation, and they have it well in > hand. We would do very well to confine ourselves to > matching up the > entries in the WMF projects alone. Some of the data in WMF > is more > accurate than some of the OL data, but I would not > say this to be a > general rule. Far from it: the proportion of incomplete or > inaccurate > entires in enWP is probably well over 50% for books. (for > journal > articles it is better, because of a project to link to the > pubmed > information) The accuracy & adequacy -- let > alone completeness-- of > the bibliographic information in WS is close to zero, > except where > there is a IA scan of the cover and title page, from which > full > bibliographic information might be derived, but cannot > necessarily be > taken at face value. > > The unification of editions is non-trivial, as using the > algorithm you > suggest, you will also have all works related to Verne, > and > additionally a combination of general and partial > translations, > children's books, comic adaptation, and whatever. > Modern library metadata provides for this to a certain > limited > extent--unfortunately most of the entries in current online > catalogs > do not show full modern data--many catalogs never had more > than > minimal records; Dublin core is probably not > generally considered to > be fully up to the problem either, at least in any current > implementation. > > Those working on the OL side are fully aware of this. They > have made > the decision to work towards inclusion of all usable & > obtainable data > sets, rather than only the ones that can be immediately > fully > harmonized. This was very wise decision, as the way in > which the > information is to be combined & related is not fully > developed, and , > if they were to wait for that, nothing would be entered. > There will > therefore be the problem of upgrading the records and the > record > structure in place--a problem that no large bibliographic > system has > ever fully handled properly--not that this incarnation of > OL is likely > to either. Bibliographers work for their time, not for all > time to > come. > > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Yann Forget > wrote: > > David Goodman wrote: > >> I have read your proposal. I continue to be of the > opinion that we are > >> not competent to do this. Since the proposal > says, that "this project > >> requires as much database management knowledge as > librarian > >> knowledge," it confirms my opinion. You will never > merge the data > >> properly if you do not understand it. > > > > That's all the point that it needs to be join project: > database gurus > > with librarians. What I see is that OpenLibrary lacks > some basic > > features that Wikimedia projects have since a long > time (in Internet > > scale): easy redirects, interwikis, mergings, deletion > process, etc. > > Some of these are planned for the next version of > their software, but I > > still feel that sometimes they try to reinvent the > wheel we already have. > > > > OL claims to have 23 million book and author entries. > However many > > entries are duplicates of the same edition, not to > mention the same > > book, so the real number of unique entries is much > lower. I also see > > that Wikisource has data which are not included in > their database (and > > certainly also Wikipedia, but I didn't really check). > > > >> You suggest 3 practical steps > >> 1. an extension for finding a book in OL is > certainly doable--and it > >> has been done, see > >> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources]. > >> 2. an OL field, link to WP -- as you say, this > is already present. > >> 3. An OL field, link to Wikisource. A very good > project. It will be > >> they who need to do it. > > > > Yes, but I think we should fo f
Re: [Foundation-l] Partecipation in Wikimania 2011
--- On Wed, 8/11/10, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > From: wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Partecipation in Wikimania 2011 > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 1:27 PM > Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > >> Isn't there supposed to be a boycott? > >> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/jun/20/internationaleducationnews.highereducation > >> ___ > > > > This is bullshit. There are always people who for > instance never take an > > air flight - should we also complain that they do not > have an opportunity > > to travel to Wikimania which is on a different > continent? > > > > OH I was just pointing out that there is an academic > boycott of Israel, > of course one is at liberty to break or not participate in > such, just > like those who turned up at Sun City. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artists_United_Against_Apartheid > > One has to decide where one stands on such issues, does one > not? > There seem to regularly be similar issues. Boston there was people from some countries who could not get visas - People have suggested Wikmania never be held in US because not everyone would be allowed to enter Taipei there were diffculties for some PRC residents. Alexandria there were boycotts/ethical issues over the executions of LBGT Egytians - People suggested Wikimania never be held in a country where LBGT folks are persecuted These issues are not really good arguments for never having Wikimania in certain countries. They are good arguments for rotating Wikimania amoung a large variety of different sorts of countries. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] How far off-topic can a thread go Was: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Obviously the original e-mail belonged on wiki-en-l and was off-topic for foundation-l. But I can't understand why so many different people think it is a good idea to respond to off-topic posts in kind. Please stop participating in the off-topic contests. Birgitte SB --- On Tue, 9/14/10, Phil Nash wrote: > From: Phil Nash > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 6:44 PM > Ryan Kaldari wrote: > > I thought you were awarding the post a score of 0 :) > > It would be all too cheap a jibe to attribute to a > self-proclaimed > philosopher an ignorance of scientific method and assert > that blind adoption > of the continuity principle is contrary to that method; > however, it is fair > to say that his interests largely lie in medieval > philosophy and may not > reach as far as the works of Karl Popper, let alone the > Renaissance. > > So I will not level that accusation. > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
Without having formed in opinion either way to what has come out of the trial or the straw polls, I don't understand why there is such importance placed on *technically* disabling the feature. If en.WP doesn't want to use it, why don't they not just move all the articles back to semi-protection? Empty out the pending changes from the on-wiki interface. This would likely have to be done *before* disabling it anyways. Just because the extension is installed doesn't mean it has to be used. I can see no reason why Erik or Danese should be being asked to determine consensus. I get that this is an important political issue for various people. I don't get why the devs are being focused on. Please let the devs out of the argument. I can't imagine why any of them would want to touch that button with a ten-foot pole until you have clearly decided. Especially as it isn't really necessary for them to be involved in achieving a negative result. Birgitte SB --- On Tue, 9/28/10, Erik Moeller wrote: > From: Erik Moeller > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27 > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 4:42 PM > 2010/9/28 Risker : > > Ummm, no, Erik. The objective was to have consensus to > KEEP it on, not > > consensus to turn it off, and that was always the > agreement. There was > > never, until the lack of consensus to keep it on > became clear, a direct > > suggestion that we'd be stuck with it. > > Anne, there are no obvious answers here. Two thirds of the > community > told us "Please keep this feature enabled", some of whom > said "we > should expand this to all (BLP|high-risk > articles|whatever)". Jimmy > posted interpreting this as direction-setting for continued > testing > and development, and asking us to provide a development > timetable, > which we did. Had we then said "Oh, sorry, no consensus for > anything, > we'll just turn it all off for now", we'd have a different > set of > people heaping blame on WMF right now. At the end of the > day it's just > a feature that we're continuing to improve, and it's up to > the enwiki > community to figure out how/why/where it wants to use it. > We have no > stake in this, other than wanting to support the project as > best we > can. > -- > Erik Möller > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
--- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker wrote: > From: Risker > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27 > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 5:22 PM > On 28 September 2010 18:10, Birgitte > SB > wrote: > > > Without having formed in opinion either way to what > has come out of the > > trial or the straw polls, I don't understand why there > is such importance > > placed on *technically* disabling the feature. > If en.WP doesn't want to use > > it, why don't they not just move all the articles back > to semi-protection? > > Empty out the pending changes from the on-wiki > interface. This would likely > > have to be done *before* disabling it anyways. Just > because the extension is > > installed doesn't mean it has to be used. I can see no > reason why Erik or > > Danese should be being asked to determine consensus. > > > > Nobody was asking Erik or Danese to determine consensus. > They were asked to > give their word that our consensus would be respected after > the polling of > the community following a second trial. Consensus doesn't > mean majority > rule, as has always been very clear on this project. > > It's now on record that any further trials are moot, and > that the tool is > going to be left in place with absolutely no intention of > disabling it > regardless of the wishes of the project. And how should they know what the consensus is which they should promise to respect without determining it? They can't very well just turn off an extension while it is use on hundreds of articles. If the consensus is so clear (that Danese and Erik would not be required to make a judgment call) that en.WP doesn't want to use Pending Changes, then why are en.WP users *still using it*? > > > > I get that this is an important political issue for > various people. I > > don't get why the devs are being focused on. > Please let the devs out of the > > argument. I can't imagine why any of them would want > to touch that button > > with a ten-foot pole until you have clearly > decided. Especially as it isn't > > really necessary for them to be involved in achieving > a negative result. > > > > > The developers were being focused on because they have been > the face of this > project from Day One, and all communication with the > community has been > through them. > And since it has worked so very well, you think it best continue with that pattern? Seriously, do whatever you want to about Pending Changes on en.WP. You are complaining about WMF not respecting en.WP decisions. You don't need some formal announcement of respect. Just make your own decisions without asking WMF to approve. That is what real respect is. Is something you give to yourself by having confidence enough in your decisions to move forward with them. Asking others to promise to approve of your decisions undermines respect. There is a giant gap between not interfering with a decision and endorsing it. And respect is only about the former. WMF doesn't need and shouldn't have to go around endorsing decisions made on each of the wikis. In this aspect, en.WP has failed to mature to the level of most of the other wikis for far to long. Self-governing means doing it yourself. I don't think you realize how absolutely disrespectful tone of the entire "en.WP wants to trial run an implementation of Flagged Revisions" has come across to me as someone who is associated with other WMF wikis. From the very beginning and still continuing with your recent posts; and I even edit en.WP significantly. Do you realize the development man-hours that have been put into adapting the extension to the very specific set of requirements that en.WP demanded on having before you all were even willing to even talk about whether you might permanently use it? And the entire time you all constantly complained about what was taking the devs so long to fulfill your detailed demands? (It was at some phases comparatively quick or at the very worst normal) I frankly hope you all decide to stop using Pending Changes and to forget about ever further testing it. Maybe then some developer will find some time to work on Lilypond. Or *any* somewhat functional way to do musical notation. I am not picky at all, because what there is now is NOTHING. And that is Bug 189; as in it was the one-hundred and eighty ninth bug placed on Bugzilla back in 2004. And even if not Bug 189, there may more be time for one of the numerous other development issues which is not even a blip on en.WP's political radar. Just hopefully, at the very least, it w
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)
Happy to respond to questions raised in a constructive setting at a later time, e.g. IRC Office Hours. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Please explain why it is constructive to respond to questions when asked on IRC and not constructive to respond to questions on a mailing list? If it merely a bad time, there is no reason that you can't respond on the mailing list in a week or two. I always thought offering IRC office hours were about offering different forums to reach more people who will tend to have different comfort levels for different forums. Not cutting off other forums. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
- Original Message From: Austin Hair To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Sun, October 17, 2010 7:05:18 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian Hi guys, After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member. Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l. Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on moderation for the indefinite future. Austin You guys really need to get out of the echo chamber. You don't even bother to try and articulate what you are trying to accomplish with moderation any more. Obviously everyone involved has written Greg Kohs off as inherently evil, so I won't waste my time with nuance on that subject. But you might want to actually define your goalposts to prevent the predictable dramafest that will occur in the near future when someone who has not been labeled as evil begins grappling with them. The foundation-l forum obviously has a broader population than wherever the adminstrators extensively discuss these things and none are mind readers. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
From: Austin Hair To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 12:35:07 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan wrote: > If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was > banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled? Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that he's been on moderation for the better part of the past year—namely, that he was completely unable to keep his contributions civil, and caused more flamewars than constructive discussion. Peter Damian is only on moderation, and we'll follow our usual policy of letting through anything that could be considered even marginally acceptable. We really are very liberal about this—otherwise you wouldn't have heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six months. I'm sure that my saying this won't convince anyone who's currently defending him, but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs was retaliatory. I'll also (not for the first time) remind everyone that neither the Wikimedia Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter or other organizational body has any say in the administration of this list. I hope that clears up all of the questions asked in this thread so far. It is not about defending anyone but about the fact that the "I know bannable when I see it" theory of moderation is unconstructive and leads to dramafests. The next ban is the one that will likely cause a real flame war. I suspect *more* people would be on moderation if any sort of objective criteria were being used. The lack of explanation over this bothers me so much because I suspect that you *can't* explain it. It seems to be the sort of gut-shot that hasn't been thought through. Moderate more people based on real criteria, rather than how you feel about them. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
- Original Message > From: J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 11:27:03 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be >published? > > I can guarantee that I myself, one of the three foundation-l list > moderators, am not an absent landlord. I read every post with care and > attention. Whilst there have been some posts on various threads of late than > have been to my mind sub-optimal, there have not, in my opinion, been any > egrarious personal attacks or trolling. > > Moderation is not something we take lightly. Indeed, when we recently > reluctantly took the decision to ban one member, there were cries of > censorship. There were some who cried censorship at the most Peter Damian's moderation, but I for one cried out that there were too few people moderated. I don't why you are equating moderation with banning. Moderation should be taken more lightly than banning at least. You seem to be using them interchangeably above. There are people on my ignore list who consistently and over a period of many years send egrarious personal attacks to the list and troll the naive and the flustered. And like everyone who contributes to this list, they also send other messages to the list that are useful or contribute a perspective that would otherwise be absent from the list. They should definitely not be banned, but it is clear that trolling and personal attacks do not bring about moderation. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
- Original Message > From: "wjhon...@aol.com" > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 1:26:55 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be >published? > > In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:11:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, > birgitte...@yahoo.com writes: > > > > And like everyone who contributes to this list, they also send other > > messages to the list that are useful or contribute a perspective that > > would > > otherwise be absent from the list. They should definitely not be banned, > > but it > > is clear that trolling and personal attacks do not bring about moderation. > > >> > > > > > "Trolling" seems to be defined however any person wishes to define it. > I've been accussed of trolling simply because I espouse a point-of-view that >is > > critical. To me critcism is not trolling. Trolling would be, when you do > not actually believe what you're saying, but you say it only to generate > some dramatic effect. > > People who believe their own criticism are critics, and are one of the > cornerstones of our society, without whom, we would sink into the morass of > stagnancy. > > Personal attacks to me, are attacks against the character of a person, not > the character of their argument. > If I say you are being foolish, that is not the same thing as saying you > are a fool. > > The "Troll" attack is launched, from my experience, whenever a person > espouses a line of argument, with which you not only don't agree, but you > find > > offensive in some manner to your ideals. That is not a troll, that is a > critic. > Trolling wasn't my choice of words, but in the section you snipped, AlexandrDmitri suggested that it would lead to moderation. The term is ambiguous, but I can hardly read his mind rephrase it more definitively for him. Your recent postings have definitely been foolish. You seem to be going out of the way to misinterpret everyone's words in the worst possible light. Why should you assume the phrase donor is meant to be restricted to monetary donations? Why must you approach responses that are not full agreement with you as combat? You obviously aren't on my ignore list, but frankly I am not sure how representative this thread is of your general behavior. I guess I will know in a year or so. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)
- Original Message > From: Ryan Lomonaco > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 7:37:17 PM > Subject: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of >requests) be published?) > > > > - Non-moderators should feel free to take a more active role in cooling down > discussions. Moderators can't watch the list 24/7, and just one post > imploring a few heated participants to think before they hit "send" can be > very helpful. > My last message to Will was not the best I could have sent. I rushed it off as I was finishing a continually interrupted lunch with only two drafts. I have found that nearly every single message that I have sent here which has noticeably provoked others or escalated a thread has been one I did not spend much time on. Of course I think they are perfectly good when I send them. I am quite fond of what I come with to say and I *always* initially think everything I write is clever and calm. But if give myself enough time for that first blush of vanity to fade, I will usually drastically rewrite my draft. Most of the time I draft a message four or five times. A particularly long message either sits overnight or through a commute. And for every four times I hit reply and start to write I probably only send three emails or else cut out 80% of the early draft. Sometimes it only take three sentences and sometime three drafts before I realize there no helpful way for me to respond to something. But generally speaking it is hard to hold on to a bad idea for very long without recognizing it for what it is. I imagine everyone has different thresholds for this and I can't imagine that anyone contributes to this list so that they might have platform on which to be a jerk. But if there is anyone who sends on every message they begin to write in less than five minutes please consider that either you should apply for sainthood or that some percentage of your messages are contributing a problem here. It would be really nice if the percentage of provocative messages could be lowered and I intend to try do my part in that. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia
- Original Message > From: "wjhon...@aol.com" > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 10:35:07 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia > > In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, > zvand...@googlemail.com writes: > > > > It is difficult to say how many people refuse to donate to Wikimedia > > because they want to donate to Wikipedia. People should know that you > > can't donate to a website itself but only to the institution behind > > it. You also can't sue "Ebay the website", only "Ebay the company". >> > > > > However like all fund-accounting, you can donate to a fund set-aside > exclusively for items related to WikiPedia, and not for any other WikiMedia > activity. > > I would be very surprised if a non-profit were not using fund accounting as > their accounting system. > > W > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] About WM private policy
- Original Message > From: MZMcBride > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 2:57:54 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About WM private policy > > Liam Wyatt wrote: > > The Wikimedia Foundation does not require that individuals create a user > > account in order to make any kind of editing. However, the local project > > community (in this discussion - English Wikipedia) decides on what can and > > cannot be done without a user account. Many (most?) language editions of > > Wikipedia allow anonymous users to create articles but the English Wikipedia > > does not allow it. This decision on English Wikipedia was taken primarily as > > a deterrence against SPAM - not taken for privacy policy reasons. Also, it > > was taken by the Wikipedia community, not by the Wikimedia Foundation. This > > decision could be changed in the future if the English Wikipedia community > > formed consensus amongst themselves to do so. > > With all due respect, you're talking out of your ass. (A less polite way of > saying "citation needed.") > > Anonymous page creation was disabled by decree on the English Wikipedia > following the "Wikipedia biography controversy."[1][2][3] It had nothing to > do with spam (though you could arguably say it had to do with vandalism, I > suppose) and it was not a decision made by the English Wikipedia community. > There was a subsequent "Requests for comment" in 2007 on the English > Wikipedia.[4] > > All of this information and history is readily available with a few quick > searches, so I'm confused as to why you're posting the nonsense that you're > posting. Simple confusion, I assume. > > Your assertion that it's a simple matter of local community consensus in > order to change this configuration setting on the English Wikipedia is also > dubious given the current political realities. It is a simple matter of local community consensus as opposed an imposition of the WMF privacy policy. If changing policy by consensus is no longer simple is in some local communities; I would imagine that the issue is systematic to the local community and not particular to this issue. I am not sure if the OP was complaining about this practice existing at en.WP at all; or if they are concerned about the en.WP template here being imported into zh.WP under the guise of a requirement from WMF. It might be rather simple to determine consensus at zh.WP. Self-dertermination of local communities further promotes the experimentalist ideology which is what has brought the projects such great success. We succeed because we are so tolerant of failure. There is no reason bring general policies in line across local communities and we can learn a great deal from being able to compare the results of divergent approaches. So if the complaint is that this policy existing at en.WP should be seen as a failure of openness, I wouldn't worry too much. There are lots of failures out there and this is not among the very few types failures which cannot be tolerated. As MZMcBride shows above this practice began as a reaction to the failure to protect Living Persons from defamation which happens to be one of the few types of failures which cannot be tolerated. If it does in fact turn out to be overreaction, I imagine it will be adjusted sooner or later. There are good reasons to be tolerant of local overreactions; it is not as though we can judge which practice will fail of the cost/benefit equation without trying it on for some time. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Template Overkill
What project are you speaking of? At en.WS the entire navigation structure of how to move between Chapters within a book is encoded in templates. I can't imagine how they could be scapped. Birgitte SB - Original Message > From: "wjhon...@aol.com" > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 9:46:56 PM > Subject: [Foundation-l] Template Overkill > > Most of the templates in our project, imho are just more clutter. > > The number of people who know how to use any particular template, can > probably be counted with a box of marbles. However when others see the > templates, they just shy away, they don't bother to try to learn them. > > If we want to make things easier for editors, we should scrape templates > entirely. What they add to the project is not worth, what they detract. > > W > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Template Overkill
- Original Message > From: Fred Bauder > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 2:16:55 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Template Overkill > > > What project are you speaking of? At en.WS the entire navigation > > structure of > > how to move between Chapters within a book is encoded in templates. I > > can't > > imagine how they could be scapped. > > > > Birgitte SB > > > > [[Moby Dick, chapter 2]] might work. > > Fred Bauder No it wouldn't. You might actually wish to examine any random main namespace page on any language version of Wikisoure and gain a clue of what I am talking about. For one thing such links would break every time a work had to be moved for dismbiguation purposes. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Template Overkill
- Original Message > From: Stephanie Daugherty > To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 2:55:28 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Template Overkill > > Where there exists a clean elegent technical solution to a social > problem then it wasnt really a social problem to begin with. > > Where it comes to something like ws maybe a tool to do an outline > grouping a large multiarticle document into a single coherent one is > whats really needed. > > Any solution that calls for endless templates is a bad one socially as > well as technically, and at the point where you even consider > something on that scale you should probably be consulting developers > for a better way, like a way to do parent!child relationships. That suggestion just makes my jaw drop. Do you realize how may months we wait for a very simple bug fixes to go live? How many years do think that the entire work of the community should be stalled while developers revamp the entire idea of how MediaWiki works? We have great developers, that are an integral part of our community, who put time and thought into writing coded solutions for Wikisource, but they can't even get the developers with authority to review and implement their code into MediaWiki. So we are left with JS hacks for ages. And you really think we should have sat around waiting for entirely new code that is not even started instead of making the project actually work with templates? Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Questions about new Fellow
- Original Message > From: MZMcBride > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Fri, January 21, 2011 12:15:43 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Questions about new Fellow > > Nathan wrote: > > Honestly, I don't see how you could expect a better set of answers > > given your approach. You're not a prosecutor, and you have no right to > > interrogate him about whatever "improprieties" you and your supposedly > > like-minded (but anonymous and uncounted) associates perceive. You're > > also not a shareholder, an auditor, or in any other fashion entitled > > to receive polite replies to snide implications of corruption. > > You're perfectly correct. Or at least what you write sounds good. I can only > ask questions and hope that they get answered (I said this in some reply of > mine). If they're not answered, oh well. At least the questions are out > there. In this case, Achal's responses seem to have highlighted some of the > concerns that people are having (I also said this in some reply of mine). > > You, like David, seem to be focusing more on my tone (or perceived tone) > than the underlying questions being asked, but perhaps that's a predictable > (albeit unfortunate) response. This isn't the first time someone who perceived your tone negatively has written about it seeking a remedy. Perhaps the fault is not with David's nor Nathan's perception skills. Perhaps you might find more success if you change your approach in the following ways. 1) Don't ask questions you already know the answer to. It seems as if you expect people to lie and is perceived as both insulting and insincere. 2) Do state what your concerns are point-blank. Are you concerned WMF fellowships are too numerous or too generous? Are you concerned that Foo who is better qualified was not given the fellowship instead? Do you have a grievance with this particular fellow or some work he has done in the past? Are you concerned that the work being done as part of the fellowship is not useful? Or do do you think the fellowship itself turned out decently, but are concerned that your input was not solicited when it was in the proposal stage? After reading all your questions which seem to assume some general knowledge that I don't have (i.e. what "people" have been saying), I haven't a clue what your concern actually is. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
- Original Message > From: Steven Walling > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and >procedures > > > Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an > upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official > announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive > discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment. > I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise, it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the gossip network. I take issue with the implication that you would not object to someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being spread here. I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard things to do; thank you. The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is not because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend of responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral questions leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of seeking information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other. Of course, gossiping is most effective of all. But I for one, care enough about the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to integrate newcomers as to prefer ignorance. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
- Original Message > From: Steven Walling > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 2:50:11 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and >procedures > > I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and > Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post > about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered. Meh. It is not as though he is bringing up some pet issue in which the timing is entirely at his discretion. I would imagine the issue is coming forward at this particular time because of the time-frame chosen someone @ WMF. However mere animosity to his timing would not have prompted me to respond. My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you preferred "the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the community prior to an official announcement" (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l. You just don't get it. Micheal Snow suggested gossip is just human nature. Ni modo. But there is a huge difference between stopping it (which I have never suggested doing) and endorsing it as a more valid channel than foundation-l. That gossip could be endorsed to any degree by someone that has a staff position in the "Community" department says a great deal that is not at all positive about the level of understanding and/or leadership in that department. Gossip destroys trust. Gossip inhibits transparency. Gossip excludes those that are new. Gossip excludes those who socialize differently (in different languages, tolerate different kinds of humor, at different times, etc.) Gossip deteriorates the quality/accuracy of information. Gossip reduces the quantity/detail of information in circulation. Gossip doesn't scale. Every single one of these values should be a significant concern of the "Community" department given the current state of things. [1] Gossip is inevitable and won't ever be stopped. But people can personally try to become gossip black-holes and/or work to shift the substance of the gossip to the appropriate channel. And WMF staff can certainly encourage the advertising of issues through more valid (i.e. any other) channels. At the very least, they should refrain from opposing the use of more valid channels in place of gossip. Birgitte SB [1]To be complete I feel I need add in some values where gossip rated positively. Just to prevent anyone who has never given the issue much thought from jumping ahead from what I have said above to Gossip=Evil. Gossip an organic component of human communities (No installation required). Gossip is probably the most grossly inexpensive informational network (If you few resources or the information is rather binary making quality losses insignificant). Gossip very efficient at spreading the information that is more passionately cared about faster and wider than information that people care less strongly about (No need to spend time evaluating information for relevancy before distribution). Gossip is better than nothing in short-term considerations. (Temporary communities will rarely find the drawbacks relevant) Gossip != Evil Gossip can be very good when a crowded theater catches fire. Gossip is simply not an informational network that is compatible with the goals of the Wikimedia movement. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
- Original Message > From: Dan Rosenthal > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:07:04 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT) > > > On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote: snip > > > > A few Wikimedia employees are part of the "Community Department," and there > > should be a higher level of expectation with them (Christine is among them, > > though she's working as a contractor until the end of February). From what I > > can tell, she has a pretty tough skin, but that doesn't mean that overly > > harsh criticism is necessary or warranted. It does mean that she has a > > responsibility to be as open as possible. (And this kind of sidesteps the > > issue of her in particular discussing MediaWiki) > > > > It's not about assuming that Wikimedia's positions are "wrong," that's a bad > > and unfair characterization. But Wikimedia has a tendency, as an > > organization, to not be as transparent as it sometimes likes to think it is. > > Looking at the long view, more and more decisions _are_ being made privately > > among Wikimedia staff rather than with community consultation (or even > > notification). That's the reality, but to blame this shift (and the > > resulting skepticism from the community) on foundation-l is a red herring. > > > > MZMcBride > > > > > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend; >there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including >ones >where staff subscriptions are more prevalent than foundation-l (although I'm >going to disagree with you and suggest more than just a handful of WMF >employees and contractors are subscribed to this list. It's still the "main" >public list we have.) > > You have a perfectly valid point about transparency, but that's not the > issue >here. The issue is the unwarranted criticism that is starting to become >commonplace. That IS foundation-l (or more specifically, certain posters) >fault. > I don't know that could agree that *it is stating to become commonplace*It has always been this way. Back when volunteers made the sorts of decisions (or by default failed to make the decisions) that staff now make; they were heavily criticized (much more than I felt warranted given the comparative lack of resources). Let's ask Anthere how supportive she remembers foundation-l being during the "working board" days. The very first staffers dealt with this as well and it simply continues on today. Historically heavy criticism has even made by people who now happen to be employed as staff (I am thinking of you Erik :) ) Certainly the former mailing list dissidents that are now employed by the WMF should be explain to the rest of the staff and prospective staff what to expect from mailing list dissidents. Erik could honestly put together quite the portfolio for such a course. Of course *most* of the staff shouldn't have to deal with this sort of thing at all, MZMcBride makes a good separation of expectations regarding different kinds of staff. Those who are hired to deal with community issues, however, will have to learn how to deal with community issues in the framework of how the community exists and has historically operated, not how to the deal with communities when the communities finally learn to stop operating in the manner they have always operated in. Comments like earlier ones that "staff may just stopping posting on foundation-l if you guys aren't nicer" miss the point. That would be WMF's loss much more than foundation-l's. WMF will be able to do much more that it *wants to do* if it can successfully engage with the communities. The communities will be able to do a large majority of what they want to do with or without WMF. WMF only makes the communities more efficient not inherently viable. The reverse is not true. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Huge soapbox on foudantion-l tl; dr at bottom (was: Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
iences led me to hold the positions I do can only be seen in the way I have interpreted. I wrote what I recall, based most strongly on what I recall *feeling*, about the events. I did not check histories and verify things. I do not mean to suggest my viewpoint on these incidents is the authoritative account of what happened. I have merely described one of, surely, many valid viewpoints of these events; the viewpoint that most deeply influenced me. I know people had good intentions and no one set out to cause the any harm. I don't mean for anyone to be embarrassed if they recognize themselves at all. I don't know if I should have taken out your name, David. I thought about it after I realized I never recalled as much detail about the other examples. But I left it because I am so certain that you are thickly skinned. I guess just natural that you remember your first rude-awakening to some discrepancy between the world as you initially imagined itt and, as I have seen on blogger name it, "Objective Fucking Reality" much more strongly than the incidents where the discrepancy is repeatedly confirmed. Even if the other incidents are more egregious. tl;dr WMF making use of foundation-l to develop upcoming positions gains all parties an early warning of problems and a chance for thoughtful people who care about the big picture to help make mutually beneficial adjustments. . . Merely announcing fixed decisions makes it more likely the WMF will commit itself to some deeply flawed framework which the communities will fail to ever flesh out, . . And hands the dialogue directly to the elements of the communities who have quick, strong, and negative reactions to the decision . . . And empowers misguided Wikimedians who are confident in their desired result and blinded by short-term considerations to damage unfamiliar communities that do things differently than such Wikimedians would prefer.. Plus this copied from above For the record how things really work, when things are working successfully, is as follows. There is valid process. All stakeholders understand the methods of this process and have access to those who are responsible for implementing the chosen method. The issues working their way through the process are consistently advertised and updated through the same reliable channels. In order for the process to be a valid process all advertised outcomes are possible results. (i.e. if anyone could truly know the result before the process is applied then it is not a valid process). Whether that options are that all content classified as Foo is prohibited or accepted or accepted after special review, that Bar is banned from Wikiland inclusive overriding local communities or not, or that X number of WMF offices will be opened in cities within either A, B, or C. No results that WMF is unwilling to accept can be offered as part of the process and no results that win through the process can refused by WMF. If that process is that everyone has three weeks to privately email Sue Gardner their thoughts on five different proposals and then she sits down on Friday morning with her notes and picks and announces whichever proposal she judges best by noon; that is a valid process. Having a valid process doesn't mean having a poll or a public discussion or losing control over the decision. Just setting up basic expectations and conforming to them. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Huge soapbox on foudantion-l tl; dr at bottom (was: Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
- Original Message > From: David Gerard > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Fri, February 18, 2011 3:36:59 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Huge soapbox on foudantion-l tl; dr at bottom > (was: >Criticism of employees (was VPAT) > > On 18 February 2011 01:25, Birgitte SB wrote: > > > interests being trampled without much thought was David Gerard's posting his > > take on the copyright considerations at en.WS with regard to the UK law > > prohibiting Fox Hunting link to the foundation-l archives. Of course >everyone > > at en.WS thought he was someone kind of official from the foundation, that >the > > > Fox hunting? I have *no* idea what you're talking about here. > > > - d. That is because it wasn't you. Some other David. In fact was a bit on a conflation of three seperate rounds of copyright discussions over a year and a half. And the first one regarding the work I mentioned was actually very uncontroversial; although it was quite incorrect. Strangely someone actually pointed out the correct argument against deletion in that first (and as far as I can tell only the first) discussion but that explanation wasn't absorbed and was treated as and novel revelation two years later leading to restorations. I am an idiot for posting such specific recollections of something that happened *six* years ago without researching it. I spent about an hour thinking "five more minutes of revising and then I going to bed and will read it again in the morning" and five minutes thinking "Forget it; I am not reading this one more time" And of course the latter thought was implemented. I am sorry for involving your name so carelessly (and obviously incorrectly). As they say "competence will excuse almost anything", but even if it had been accurate I would still have been wrong to be so careless. Sorry Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
I don't want get into the splitting hairs on licenses that is the rest of this thread. However you basic assumption is wrong. Copyright is not universal. Copyright is a kludge. A very ugly kludge. It works because in the normal work-a-day copyright world people just take for granted that it would all make sense if they put it under a microscope. And in the controversial copyright world people pay larges sums of money (i.e. out of court settlements) to avoid having to face how ugly it is under the microscope. Copyright is a set widely applicable laws sometimes written by people with narrow interests and sometimes based on ancient traditions that translate poorly into our modern world. It is not in any way universal. Not internationally speaking. Not over time. Not across mediums. Birgitte SB - Original Message > From: Lodewijk > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 5:02:05 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with >the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications > > I don't get it. > > Copyright is universal, so should copyright licenses be. There are numerous > exceptions to come up with, and we can discuss on this list into eternity > about those where Geni can come up with wonderful examples and Teofilo will > come up with reasons why they fall outside his scope. Doesnt the whole fact > that we have this discussion proof the point already and remove the > necessity of such? > > The point is that GFDL has impracticalities to some people. Whether you also > have these impracticalities does not really matter, as long as some people > experience them as such, because it limits re-use. > > The question is, should Wikimedia Commons favor one license over the other, > or even discourage the use of some subset of free licenses? > > I think that offering a default license is great - it is a major > simplification of the upload process and increases the odds that someone > will make an upload. Because be honest: most authors don't care, they want > their content uploaded to Wikipedia. If that requires them to release some > rights they won't commercialize anyway, they are likely willing to do so. No > matter the conditions. If they would be required to make a silly dance > through walkthrough license schemes, they will just get frustrated and cut > off the process. > > Of course we can have an advanced upload scheme where people like Teofilo > can pick all complicated licenses they like or even type their own personal > release which then can be judged by the community - but please don't bother > the regular uploader with that. > > Best, > > Lodewijk > > 2011/2/21 Teofilo > > > 2011/2/21 geni : > > (...) > > >> I was thinking about a Powerpoint presentation. > > > > > > Well yes thats rather the problem. There are also slideshows with > > > actual physical slides. I've got some around somewhere. > > > > > > -- > > > geni > > > > People who work with actual physical slides are unlikely to > > incorporate contents from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is online. If they > > bother to create a physical slide out of content from Wikipedia, they > > must have a computer with an internet connection, so it is not > > difficult for them to upload the equivalent of the slide they created > > at Wikimedia Commons, or on imageshack if it is not an educational > > content. > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
The license can only call upon the law. Any attempts to plaster over the underlying deficits in the law are just that:plaster. We often seem to pretend the licenses are all smooth and perfect, but just because they can't be substantially smoothed and perfected any further doesn't mean that people who can feel slight cracks in them are hallucinating. Perfectly rational licensing which works universally well is not an really option. There just isn't a rational schema of copyright law for such a license to call upon. But I think the CC licenses work well enough; as well as we can realistically hope for. Birgitte SB - Original Message > From: Lodewijk > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Wed, February 23, 2011 7:10:44 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with >the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications > > If that is the case (As I understood this has never yet been tested in > court, but I would appreciate any links to any jurisprudence, although we > probably should start a new thread) then the point I tried to make still > stands: a license should work in every medium. Whether the uploader makes > restrictions to the applicability of the license does not matter, we should > just avoid that merely because of the license the work cannot be used in a > certain medium. I hoped to direct the discussion a bit into a helpful > direction, but I guess my email is only leading to different side tracks. > > Best regards, > > Lodewijk > > 2011/2/23 Gerard Meijssen > > > Hoi, > > If a copyright holder makes something available under a particular license, > > it is made available in a particular way. Yes you can for instance print or > > do whatever with what is provided, but you cannot claim the same right on > > the same object in a higher resolution. > > > > A license is given for what is provided in the way it is provided. What you > > can or cannot do with is depends on the license. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On 23 February 2011 11:08, Lodewijk wrote: > > > > > Just to make a clarification: > > > > > > If you have copyright on a "thing" (with the lack of a better word) in > > one > > > medium, you also have it in another. If a text or image is copyrighted in > > > print, it is copyrighted online. That is what I meant with universal in > > > this > > > context, sorry if I was confusing. > > > > > > Therefore, a license should apply to all mediums to make the content > > truly > > > re-usable. It should not matter what you do with the content to "publish" > > > it > > > - print it, shout it on the street or for all I care you take an airplane > > > and draw it in the air: the same free license should apply. > > > > > > Of course I am aware of all kinds of problems in copyright legislation > > and > > > how it sucks, I know that countries have different laws, one worse than > > the > > > other. But solving that would probably be slightly over > > > stretching ourselves. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Lodewijk > > > > > > 2011/2/23 Birgitte SB > > > > > > > I don't want get into the splitting hairs on licenses that is the rest > > of > > > > this > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > However you basic assumption is wrong. Copyright is not universal. > > > > Copyright > > > > is a kludge. A very ugly kludge. It works because in the normal > > > work-a-day > > > > copyright world people just take for granted that it would all make > > sense > > > > if > > > > they put it under a microscope. And in the controversial copyright > > world > > > > people > > > > pay larges sums of money (i.e. out of court settlements) to avoid > > having > > > to > > > > face > > > > how ugly it is under the microscope. > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright is a set widely applicable laws sometimes written by people > > > with > > > > narrow interests and sometimes based on ancient traditions that > > translate > > > > poorly > > > > into our modern world. It is not in any way universal. Not > > > internationally > > > > speaking. Not over time. Not across mediums. > > > > > > > > Birgitte SB >
[Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?
completely in good faith. There has recently been a lot of discussion about getting back to the tenet of assuming good faith. Here is as a good a place to start that journey as any. On the tabled issue we are still left at least two important questions that need resolution through an open discussion that succeeds in convincing those volunteers who may be affected: *How can volunteers be made be confident in the security of their identification as records are being collected, recorded, and stored? How can this confidence be maintained changes occur at WMF? Do these concerns merit the expense of security audits? *What tools that volunteers use in order to do the work of WMF will require them to become a subject of the Identification Resolution? As new tools are developed, who will be responsible for keeping track of their existence and seeing that it is determined whether or not those who will be given access to them will need to become a subject of the Identification Resolution? Birgitte SB [1] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/74095#74095 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?
From: Lodewijk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Cc: Birgitte SB Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 3:51:50 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy? It should be clear and transparant why the WMF is collecting this information, and what they intend to do with it. If they want to be able to sue people - fine, but then just say that. Then people know what they are up against, and what the reasoning is. That way alone volunteers can make their rational decision. But also chapters, because it might have quite some legal complications if the WMF wants to force a chapter to submit private data about one of their members because they want to sue this person. The problem with is that none of us can imagine all the future possibilities that could occur. The WMF can't know what they could be up against. So how can they possibly tell you what they can't know? You seem to suggest the WMF suing someone is an extreme thing. But what is really extreme is asking WMF to vow *not* to sue anyone. Lets say they do this and imagine if a checkuser User:Foobar publishes private information on their blog obtained as a checkuser. Someone whose privacy was violated identifies who User:Foobar was through their blog; sues them and wins. User:Foobar sues WMF claiming something frivolous about not protecting them from the situation and loses. Because of the vow WMF cannot counter-sue User:Foobar for lawyer fees and court costs even though WMF does not even need to the recorded identification provided through the policy in this case because User:Foobar identified themself in the lawsuit they filed against WMF. Also the privacy policy is a joke without the identification policy. Say checkuser User:Foo breaches the privacy policy and rightly loses checkuser rights. There is no record available to WMF identifying RealName as User:Foo. So RealName retires User:Foo and registers User:Bar who is then able to become a checkuser. Is this truly a responsible privacy policy when there is no way of preventing those who have abused their access to private data from once again obtaining access to private data? As I said in my first email. There are valid concerns about the identification policy that must be resolved. However, deciding to indefinitely give unidentifiable people access to private data can not be an option. It just too irresponsible. This is *my* private data you are all playing with. I won't get to have *your* private data in return, but you can at least give it the WMF to act as a responsible party protecting *my* interests. I understand that you need some safeguards about security at WMF Office or WMF Chapters. However if you won't be comfortable with any possible procedure where they could keep *your* private data, then stay away from *my* private data. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?
From: THURNER rupert To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Sat, February 26, 2011 7:48:36 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy? On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 23:58, Birgitte SB wrote: > > From: Lodewijk > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Cc: Birgitte SB > Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 3:51:50 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy? > > It should be clear and transparant why the WMF is collecting this > information, and what they intend to do with it. If they want to be able to > sue people - fine, but then just say that. Then people know what they are up > against, and what the reasoning is. That way alone volunteers can make their > rational decision. But also chapters, because it might have quite some legal > complications if the WMF wants to force a chapter to submit private data > about one of their members because they want to sue this person. > > > The problem with is that none of us can imagine all the future possibilities > that could occur. The WMF can't know what they could be up against. So how > can they possibly tell you what they can't know? > > You seem to suggest the WMF suing someone is an extreme thing. But what is > really extreme is asking WMF to vow *not* to sue anyone. Lets say they do this > and imagine if a checkuser User:Foobar publishes private information on their > blog obtained as a checkuser. Someone whose privacy was violated identifies who > User:Foobar was through their blog; sues them and wins. User:Foobar sues WMF > claiming something frivolous about not protecting them from the situation and > loses. Because of the vow WMF cannot counter-sue User:Foobar for lawyer fees >and > court costs even though WMF does not even need to the recorded identification > provided through the policy in this case because User:Foobar identified >themself > in the lawsuit they filed against WMF. > > Also the privacy policy is a joke without the identification policy. Say > checkuser User:Foo breaches the privacy policy and rightly loses checkuser > rights. There is no record available to WMF identifying RealName as User:Foo. > So RealName retires User:Foo and registers User:Bar who is then able to > become >a > checkuser. Is this truly a responsible privacy policy when there is no way of > preventing those who have abused their access to private data from once again > obtaining access to private data? > > As I said in my first email. There are valid concerns about the identification > policy that must be resolved. However, deciding to indefinitely give > unidentifiable people access to private data can not be an option. It just too > irresponsible. This is *my* private data you are all playing with. I won't >get > to have *your* private data in return, but you can at least give it the WMF to > act as a responsible party protecting *my* interests. I understand that you >need > some safeguards about security at WMF Office or WMF Chapters. However if you > won't be comfortable with any possible procedure where they could keep *your* > private data, then stay away from *my* private data. > how many people do have access to private data? rupert. That is one of the questions that still needs to be resolved. But there seems to wide agreement that checkusers and oversighters at least qualify. Considering that I have seen people's real names, phone numbers, and addresses oversighted and the general attitude towards the privacy of IP information, this seems accurate to me. I personally have never taken on any of these roles being discussed as possibly having access to private data. So I really don't have a lot of confidence in what sort of private data people think any of of the other roles have access too. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?
From: David Gerard To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Sat, February 26, 2011 9:55:48 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy? On 26 February 2011 22:58, Birgitte SB wrote: I think we really need the actual threat and threat model detailed. Expanding the identification policy without a thorough grounding risks it turning into worse security theatre - a completely lost purpose.[1] I have no objection in principle to providing my identification to WMF. But the rationale needs to be bulletproof. What's it for, what verification is used, how to deal with documents from countries that are not like the US ... this is all important and needs to be laid out in full and explicit detail. It really hasn't been so far. I don't know what a "threat model" is but surely it is the current privacy policy with identifications being record which the piece of theatre. Where the "threat model" with full and explicit detail that explains why checkuser are give access to *my* private data? " Say checkuser User:Foo breaches the privacy policy and rightly loses checkuser rights. There is no record available to WMF identifying RealName as User:Foo. So RealName retires User:Foo and registers User:Bar who is then able to become a checkuser. Is this truly a responsible privacy policy when there is no way of preventing those who have abused their access to private data from once again obtaining access to private data?" Is that situation not plausible to you, or merely non-threatening? I mean such people that fit the first part of the situation exist right now, how do suggest they are prevented from having another account reach checkuser? The communities are particularly weak in this area. As I said before, I understand that there are issues to resolve about the identification policy before it can be implemented. However you need to understand that the privacy of many more people than those few with access to private data is put at an unacceptable level of risk while this remains unsettled. I understand that those who are being asked to identify want to protect their data. Please understand that I want someone to protect my data as well. And frankly the having communities electing checkusers is not good enough protection as people with a past of abusing their access to private data can win such elections. Holding out and risking the privacy of all the users of WMF sites until everything is "bulletproof" or perfectly to your satisfaction is quite arrogant. If you can not be satisfied short of that, then resign the positions which give you access to my private data and let things move forward so my data can be given a reasonable amount of protection. That is all I am looking for a reasonable amount of protection for both your(trusted volunteer) data and my(regular user) data. But when people start demanding impossible future-predicting protection for volunteer data, then the other group is left with inadequate protection. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
No one wants to attack French moral rights, or the attack the idiosyncrasies of any particular legal jurisdiction. What we want to do is curate a large international collection of free content that will remain free content 300 years from now after all of us are dead and can no longer be personally vigilant regarding those who might try to restrict the descendants of our collected content from others. What is it that you want to do? Birgitte SB From: Teofilo To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sun, February 27, 2011 11:02:15 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] Moral rights French authorship rights law: Article L121-1 An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work. This right shall attach to his person. It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may be transmitted mortis causa to the heirs of the author. Exercise may be conferred on another person under the provisions of a will. http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=36&r=2497 "perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible" means that they cannot be waived. It also means that they are enshrined in French law as dearly as human rights. In my opinion, the people who want to attack this, are on a sloppery slope where the next step is when they request you to waive your human rights. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
From: MZMcBride To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 3:24:37 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening Zack Exley wrote: > But there is one important purpose of that job that may be a bit hidden in > between the lines: For this position, I'm looking for someone who can help > free us from dependence on "The Jimmy Letter" in fundraising. I think part of my confusion (maybe the biggest chunk of it) comes from terminology and naming. I guess you're not really trying to hire a "storyteller," you're trying to hire a "public relations (fundraising)" person. One title is obviously a bit more poetic, but also a lot more confusing, I think. The other aspect to this that's confusing to me is the underlying purpose of the "Community Department." Best as I can tell, it's largely focused on fundraising. Is there a description of the current "Community Department" that clarifies what it does (other than fundraising)? I'm not saying that Wikimedia shouldn't have a team devoted to fundraising, but I don't really understand why it's named the way it is. Is there something wrong with it being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only one confused about this. It makes sense to me that there would be a lot of overlap on the ground delivering the two messages "We are a worthwhile project and you can join us and contribute on our websites" and "We are a worthwhile project and you can donate some money to the supporting Foundation". Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and they choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This situation strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public relations material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you have done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what their "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a new employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a more open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to apply for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. Narrow and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
From: Birgitte SB To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 4:46:10 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening From: MZMcBride To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 3:24:37 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening Zack Exley wrote: > But there is one important purpose of that job that may be a bit hidden in > between the lines: For this position, I'm looking for someone who can help > free us from dependence on "The Jimmy Letter" in fundraising. I think part of my confusion (maybe the biggest chunk of it) comes from terminology and naming. I guess you're not really trying to hire a "storyteller," you're trying to hire a "public relations (fundraising)" person. One title is obviously a bit more poetic, but also a lot more confusing, I think. The other aspect to this that's confusing to me is the underlying purpose of the "Community Department." Best as I can tell, it's largely focused on fundraising. Is there a description of the current "Community Department" that clarifies what it does (other than fundraising)? I'm not saying that Wikimedia shouldn't have a team devoted to fundraising, but I don't really understand why it's named the way it is. Is there something wrong with it being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only one confused about this. It makes sense to me that there would be a lot of overlap on the ground delivering the two messages "We are a worthwhile project and you can join us and contribute on our websites" and "We are a worthwhile project and you can donate some money to the supporting Foundation". Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and they choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This situation strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public relations material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you have done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what their "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a new employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a more open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to apply for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. Narrow and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening. Birgitte SB Also you have to remember that the purpose of http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller is not to explain the job to curious community members. The only purpose that should be considered in writing a job opening is to attract people who may be a good fit for the job and inspire them to apply, while repelling people who would be a bad fit for the job. The target audience of the job opening is job seekers. The only useful measure to judge if a job opening was "good" is whether it resulted in lots of applicants that you would like to find out more about and few applicants that are an obviously poor fit. Wasting your time processing the applications of obviously unsuitable people is nearly as bad as not producing an interview pool filled with equally great applications. And the former has become the more likely scenario these past few years. So if you personally find that a job opening turns you off, it may just be working quite well. A good job opening should turn off a fair number of people. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights
- Original Message > From: Teofilo > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Fri, March 4, 2011 5:05:11 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moral rights > > 2011/2/27 Birgitte SB : > > No one wants to attack French moral rights, or the attack the > > idiosyncrasies >of > > any particular legal jurisdiction. What we want to do is curate a large > > international collection of free content that will remain free content 300 >years > > from now after all of us are dead and can no longer be personally vigilant > > regarding those who might try to restrict the descendants of our collected > > content from others. What is it that you want to do? > > > > Birgitte SB > > > > No one ? I would not say so. I would rather say that 75.8% (1) want to > attack moral rights, which are not French only (3), and, as I showed > in my previous mail, are a value taken into account in Wikimedia > projects in such documents as >http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries >s > > It might have become a core value of the Wikimedia communities. But if > community leaders lead the community into the wrong way... you end up > with a 75.8 majority going into the wrong way. > It is not reasonable to believe the underlying desire there is to make an attack French moral rights. Please try to be accurate and stop making such spurious accusations. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0
- Original Message > From: Ray Saintonge > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Sun, March 6, 2011 3:54:11 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2006-2011: Mexican, Argentinian, Brazilian >governments distance themselves from freedomdefined 1.0 > > On 03/05/11 8:04 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote: > > I'll ask the same thing here that I asked in the other thread and no one > > responded to, which is, can someone please provide some concrete examples of > > how this issue affects Wikipedia, rather than discuss the disagreement in > > purely abstract and theoretical terms? Frankly, I have very little idea > > what the post below means, which is something I'd like to change as it > > sounds somewhat important. > > Of these three I would find the Mexican situation to be of greatest > concern. Mexico already has extraordinarily long copyright terms. It's > in the ND feature that the potential moral rights problems lie. When is > a derivative sufficiently different to be defamatory. What is the > thinking behind adding the ND parameter. Is it some vain attempt to > ensure accuracy, or is there a more insidious reasoning. ND also rules out translations Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
- Original Message > From: MZMcBride > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 6:47:35 PM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening > > > If someone has the time to break this report down more completely, I'd > certainly appreciate it and I imagine others would as well. > I really do understand what your concerns about the possible worst case scenario are. However it would be nice if you took a crack at the kind of research you are suggesting and post any concerns you have on find specific items in the report that you can not correlate to the open discussion. Posting a generalization about how bad the worst case scenario could be and asking people to prove to you that this worst case scenario hasn't happened isn't very helpful. Negatives are difficult prove. So if avoid asking people to prove they haven't incorporated any ideas that were absent from the strategy wiki and switch to asking for more information on the origins of particular ideas you haven't been able to find the origin of would lead to an all around a better discussion. Right now it seems to me like you are asking people to prove to you that the sky isn't falling. I think there is a lot of exaggeration on both sides of this discussion. Defending the strategy process as if it were a dream come true and deriding it as setting aside the values of openness and transparency are both largely inaccurate. Of course the whole process could have been better, more engaging, better documented and produced clearer results. That statement will *always* be true. The last time I can recall that there was a concerted effort to clarify WMF priorities and strategy involving paid facilitation was the 2006 retreat in Frankfurt involving about 21 Wikimedians. [1] The more recent effort on developing the WMF five year plan is much more open and transparent than that one around five years ago. I hope that five years from now we will see another significant improvement in the process. The recent effort was neither poor, nor was it ideal. It was a very nice step forward, which is right about where I believe we all should set our expectations. I find the whole "it was practically perfect" vs. "it was in opposition to our very values" nature of this thread quite problematic. Birgitte SB [1] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/73086?search_string=report%20frankfurt;#73086 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
