Re: [Foundation-l] About the low hanging fruit
Strongly agree - they are very worthwhile indeed. They give others in future the confidence to add incremental changes. A blank page is harder to broach. What matters more is whether the article has scope to be encyclopedic. Traditional encyclopedias often had one sentence or 2 line entries as well. If the subject matter is valid, and there is something to say that makes an entry useful, length is secondary, that can change over time. FT2 On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:17 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wouldn't describe a short article as "hardly useful for creation" I > created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass,_California only > three years and already the current article is five times the size of > what I created. It still has some of my original content, and some has > been spunoff into an even bigger new article > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_rare_earth_mine > > Who knows how much those small articles will grow in future years and > decades. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects
I've had a go at some basic editing to the [[WP:OWN]] page to try and explain a bit better, rather than simply saying "IF YOU EDIT, YOU DO NOT OWN THE PAGE!" It still needs considerable work. Eyeballs and improvements...? FT2 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: > The problem of content ownership hits any wiki at some point. > > In the English Wikipedia it is governed by a policy called "WP:OWN" > [1]. There's a similar policy in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Is this policy > any different in other projects? > > I am asking, because i agree with the English Wikipedia's policy in > principle, but the reality is that sometimes instead of helping people > write together, this policy drives people away from the project - > people who could be very positive contributors, but who don't like > their contributions edited by others without being asked. So i am > wondering: maybe en.wp and he.wp can learn something from other > languages here? > > Thank you, > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles > > -- > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי > http://aharoni.wordpress.com > "We're living in pieces, > I want to live in peace." - T. Moore > > ___ > 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] Chapters
Basics: - WMF is a US charity. Funds collected by, or through its website (even if legally collected by affiliated organizations) will be exposed to US-style scrutiny and need to be able to withstand that for the reputation of the movement as a whole. - Wikimedia is a worldwide charity. People who donate locally want to know their funds are supporting Wikimedia and not vanishing into pockets or being wasted. Chapters not yet able to provide and demonstrate that assurance are a risk if they take funds that become unable to be accounted for or where the accounting is not transparent and independently verified. - It's easier to set good practices in place early on. It should have been a prequel to the agreement last year on direct payment/allocation, to ensure 6 figure cash from donors worldwide was only passed to chapters that were verified and agrred as being capable of responsibly handling it, criteria in place for that. Not a "catch up" afterwards. But good call to fix it now, at least. WMF bears actual or perceived responsibility to ensure correct use of collections via *.wikimedia.org wiki fundraisers and WMF efforts. Those monies (as opposed to funds collected by local chapters' own efforts) are donated to support the wider project goals. Because of this, WMF cannot simply shrug it of or say "they are allocated to outside body X so we have no interest or role in checking their appropriate ultimate use." It doesn't matter the legal relationship, WMF has a perceived responsibility to live up to, that even if the funds are used at chapter discretion, it should be clear they are being reasonably and completely used for the mission. Alternative ways to approach decentralization might have included a ramp-up over a 2-3 year period, or funds transfer on a requisition basis, allowing each local organization to be gradually established and mature (which takes time). But better late than never. It would have been much harder and more painful to correct a chapter that was "difficult" in those areas, once established a few years down the line. At least criteria are to be put in place now than never. For chapters in good order they should not be an issue. FT2 On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > There is fundraising together and there is fundraising perse. What is at > issue is that chapters are and have always been expected to disclose their > activities, providing financial statements. They are expected to be > accountable and many chapters have largely not been accountable. > > The consequence is very much that the decentralisation is not working > because chapters are not committed to fulfil their obligations as is clear > from their actions. What is at stake is the involvement and the benefits of > chapters to the annual fundraiser. When chapters fund themselves in other > ways (as well), then my understanding is that they are welcome to that > particularly where they raise funds for particular named activities. > > Wikimedia and any of the projects is a global affair and we need a global > movement that includes the WMF, the chapters, the communities, the > associated projects. We will and do benefit from being open transparent and > accountable. The people who fund us have to appreciate us as a global > movement and not as an organisation with tons of money hoarded by secretive > people, in the nooks and crannies of our movement. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 9 August 2011 09:18, David Gerard wrote: > > > On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin wrote: > > > > > This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do > > with > > > chapters? > > > > > > That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from > > their perspective, so recentralising fundraising. > > > > ___ > > 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] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia
Predictable result - half the world gains the impression that Wikipedia has been bought out / sold out. FT2 On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Fajro wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ziko van Dijk > wrote: > > Hello, you can make Wikimedia as famous as Wikipedia, but it will cost > > you many millions of dollars. And why should you? > > I doubt that the redesign I propose would be so expensive. > I'm basically asking to put the logo of Wikimedia somewhere more > visible and having "Wikimedia accounts". We don't need to hire > designers for that. > > Did you read my proposal? :-/ > > > > -- > Fajro > > ___ > 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] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia
A more plausible option is to make WMF more conspicuous. Right now it's almost unknown that WP is part of a wider project. " An educational website of the Wikimedia Foundation" [Button: "View all our projects in your language"] FT2 On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > On 8 September 2011 21:22, Fred Bauder wrote: > > > > 2011/9/8 Fajro : > > >> Wikimedia is a Great Brand, the problem is that it was never promoted > > >> properly. > > >> In fact, the brand / logo is hidden at the bottom of the footer in > > >> every page! > > >> > > > > > > Hello, you can make Wikimedia as famous as Wikipedia, but it will cost > > > you many millions of dollars. And why should you? > > > > > > Kind regards > > > Ziko > > > > How about changing the name of the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia > > Foundation. That should do it. > > > That would be a fun discussion... > > You propose it, I'll buy the popcorn :) > > ;) > > Tom > ___ > 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] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
No. Same as you can't tell most preferences a user has set, or which articles they watch. In simple terms, the filter code only filters content when user prefs say so, and other users can't tell what filter prefs a user has or what code is executed client-side (ie in their browser not at the server) without actual access to their computer. FT2 On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:09 PM, wrote: > In the unhappy event that this filter is enabled, will it be > possible/allowed for a community to make its use mandatory and to > "punish" readers who turn it off? > > Sir48/Thyge > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork
Having checked the original blog post<http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/>, I think it's either a rare exception of poorly chosen wording, or shows a judgment within WMF that I can't agree with. I remember when the director of featured articles on enwiki scrupulously treated all topics equal - whether shocking, controversial, mundane, or taboo -- because the job of the front page of an *encyclopedia* is to showcase high quality knowledge, not present value judgments on it. Value judgments on topics are the role of members of the public and end users, who legitimately hold views that they like math and hate politics, love politics but hate pornography, love porn but oppose images of religious figures, as they individually choose. The job of *encyclopedists* however is to treat these all as knowledge and not to color or pre-filter them by considering some topics more "worthy" than others or less "suitable" to be included as knowledge or showcased as high quality writing. Does that include front page exposure? In the view of the previous en:wp Director of Featured Articles, definitely yes. His rationale at the time this came up on en:wp was that to do otherwise is to be ashamed apologists of content that our community has created. He also observed that making the point publicly of our utter neutrality had value in itself. If de:wiki (or any project) put [[vulva]] on its front page, and the article was of high enough quality to do so - and it would have been heavily scrutinized before as a controversial topic - then at that point it's a topic like any other and it goes there on its own merits. *It is core to our ethos* that we are neutral in our views on topics, whether mundane, obscure or emotive to some people. We could not honestly claim neutrality if we signal via our content nomination process that some topics are not as "valid" as others or are more "shameful" or less "acceptable" to learn about, or to be made visible. In this case, [[vulva]] is of more than academic interest to 1/2 the human race as a normal lifelong body part --- one that is often strikingly lacking in information (cultural taboos on women's education and sexual knowledge are still very common globally and cause untold harm!) Should this be outweighed in the balance by the fact that the other (usually male!) half of humanity sees in it a source of purile humor or an "ONOES! THE CHILDREN". especially when fully half of those under-16 children have one of the said body parts and have as much right to it being treated as valid knowledge as they would treat an eyeball, an arm, a cancer or a method of DNA sequencing... and without us signalling it as "shameful" to learn about by virtue of exclusion from equal handling. I know which of these stances I respect more. FT2 On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:02 PM, David Gerard wrote: > The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to > put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a > clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the > imposition of a filter from outside. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vietnamese Wikipedia join protest SOPA and PIPA
*"We have Putin! So they now try to beat us with SOPA!"* Me neither :) On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > On the Russian Wikipedia, the banner is showing you > > (sorry, couldn't resist) > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion duration and the SOPA shutdown
It's worth pointing out the discussion was open from 15 December to 16 January before any close. (Note: 15 December is not when it actually started, it's when it was formally opened as a community discussion - earlier suggestions were also discussed less formally from 10 December on various pages). Usual discussions last from 5 - 7 days (deletions) to 10 days (adminship) to 14 days (arbitrator elections). This had over 30 days formal discussion. By 13 - 16 January it's reasonable to say that if someone who knew the community's approaches to discussions, or read a wide range of pages, had wished, there was ample time to state a view, and many, many did. Some people only heard at the last minute, or didn't realize it was serious, or missed it, or if some people feel it should have also been advertized in yet more venues. It's hard to do everything right; neither you or I organized it. But even if someone had responded it is incredibly unlikely that anything would have changed. Since then, every feedback the community has had, whether Sue's blog, twitter, otrs, or on-wiki, has confirmed the same overwhelming decision. All that might have been missed around 13 - 16 January was the closers deciding to close it in line with a technical request from developers to allow them 48 hours and hence make a decision by the 16th. There was a month when it was open before then. FT2 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion duration and the SOPA shutdown
I wasn't involved but I can guess one key issue. On this of all things, the foundation's hands were tied,. it could not pre-empt the community or do things in a way that would let it be seen as foundation pushing, or hinting, or anything. And the community well it just yapped and yapped, as it does. A communal formal RFC Dec 20, saying "decision by Jan 5 so whatever happens we are ready and the foundation knows what's asked of it" would have been sensible. In itrs absence and with discussion underway, could the foundation have said "we need a decision by X date" or "you might want to close this by X date given politics"? Probably. Live and learn, consensus was apparent and agreed, and.. yeah, the process could be smoother another time. Maybe in another 11 years . :) FT2 On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:27 AM, George Herbert wrote: > In a sense, nobody getting out ahead of it in terms of in-wiki > leadership may have been the goof. We could have had a > date-to-be-filled-in formal consensus exercise starting a week or two > in to the on-wiki informal discussion (say, late Dec or first week of > January). Even if it wasn't clear what date it would take effect on, > that would have given time to get the consensus properly consensed. > > It sounds like the Foundation was more organized about it than the > community, and didn't reach out to push early enough. I understand > the desire not to be seen to be leading the community around, but it > seems to have led to a counterproductively late push (from my point, > of lack of community discussion time). Given the depth of Foundation > internal discussions, perhaps it should have been earlier, at least in > a "heads-up" sense asking for the community to start prepping / get > more result-focused. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion duration and the SOPA shutdown
The question is, do you plan to migrate the major search engines and DNS servers? If so, then migration might help. FT2 On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Next time we should just migrate and fork to a jurisdiction > outside the US control. If that is needed. > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion duration and the SOPA shutdown
Point of information: - are proposals mooted for an alternative DNS root? Presumably, since satellite proposals exist and those are even more radical. FT2 On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard wrote: > > Come the SOPAcalypse, the DNS root will fragment. I wonder if Google > will break itself up for the purpose. > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Maggie Dennis to continue with WMF
I said to her when temporarily hired that the Foundation could not have chosen anyone better for the role :) She is superb. FT2 On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm thrilled to announce that Maggie Dennis, our community liaison, has > agreed to transition to a permanent role with the Wikimedia Foundation. > > You may recall that Maggie was hired on a temporary contract, with the idea > of rotating through community liaisons. We still intend to hire another > community liaison - in fact, her work has proven the value of the program > to such an extent that we'll be expanding it - but Maggie will stay on to > provide continuity. > > Maggie has been a godsend to me... she's a fount of knowledge, and > incredibly hard working. Most importantly, she is able to fluently speak > "Philippe" and translate that to "real-people talk". As > User:Moonriddengirl, she is the maven of copyright for English Wikipedia, > and has well over 100,000 edits. In short, she's a rock star. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Resolution:Developing Scenarios for future of fundraising
Agree that "raise the maximum" is a serious concern. Perception of greed and money focus is one. The other problem is it mandates a specific priority on the organizers of "all" fundraising events which may be incompatible with the best interests of the project. For example I could "maximize" fundraising by paying less attention to other points, but those other points may be important and need balance too. My redraft: "Funds are needed for current and planned operations, contingencies and opportunities, and as a buffer for future. Fundraisers should aim to organize fundraising with a view to efficiently obtaining sufficient funds for these possible future needs, and should do so in a manner compatible with and balanced against the goals of our movement." FT2 On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Joan Goma wrote: > > From: Ilario Valdelli > > > > > > > > Why does the Board of Trustees think that WMF should raise the ?maximum > > > possible amount of money?? > > > Why not ask for what is needed and nothing more? > > > > > > > I agree. A no profit association should raise the "opportune" amount > > otherwise there a "profit". > > > > Ilario > > > > > > > > Non profit means that the raised money will go to develop the mission of > the organization not to the pockets of its owners. > > From a mathematical point of view you can maximize the funds raised while > keeping constant the disruption or you can minimize the disruption for a > given amount of funds to be raised. But you cannot do both simultaneously. > > But this is not a mathematical statement I think it transmits well the idea > of balancing both effects keeping in mind that the disruption caused is of > high importance and that the money raised is needed because we have many > ideas and opportunities to do things that need not only volunteer effort > but also some money. > ___ > 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] Politico: "Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa"
Not least our public life-blood comes from the perception we're independent, non-profit motivated, charitable, public welfare motivated, grass-roots - not a "Silicon Valley giant". We have spent years explaining we have just 75 staff and volunteer writers. We seek small donations to be aligned to the public and avoid pressure (even if we wouldn't succumb). That's our support. It means although we have some shared wishes and broad alignments of interest, we must be very careful to think "outside the box" somewhat on these issues. It's what we've done the last 11 years. FT2 On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:37 PM, James Alexander wrote: > Google (and facebook and twitter etc) are large corporate organizations > with profits heavily on their mind (by law, they are responsible to their > shareholders). While they clearly have good reasons to be opposed to SOPA > and PIPA there reasons are not exactly the same as ours and in my opinion > we would be hurting ourselves to rely solely on them for any kind of > advocacy work we do ( work that is clearly spelled out in the strategy > guide as important for issues like SOPA). A corporate group is going to try > and get the best outcome for their shareholders and their company and that > outcome is NOT necessarily the best outcome for us (for example exemptions > for themselves but not websites like Wikipedia). > > An example is actually mentioned in the article (The OPEN act). The OPEN > act is highly divisive, we don't know if we'll support it or not yet (or > just 'not oppose' it) and we can't rely on google and others to align with > what we we're thinking. > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article
The difference is, we tread a narrow line here. We want talk, but of a contributory kind, high signal-noise, high proportion of information. There are three kinds of "discussion" that can take place: 1. *User feedback* - characterized by specific one-off posts left for others to uprate or downrate and (presumably as far as they're concerned) editors to hopefully do something with or listen to. Ideally this filters 3 ways - (a)* ignore, (b) pass to editors with thanks, or (c) note but no action taken, with explanation and thanks*. 2. *Editor discussion of the article*, high quality dialog specifically about the article, or good points fed back on it. 3. *Discussion of the _topic_, or general chat, forum-y stuff, random whatever*... this is what people also expect. Look at any popular blog or facebook page, the chat below is often just people discussing the subject, what's said about it... low signal to noise generally. The article feedback tool is working towards (1); when it's closer to complete I imagine articles will have a "give feedback here". (2) we already have. * What is worth asking is, is there a place in Wikimedia for (3)?* If so it can only be for social interest and "stickiness" (people who discuss may contribute or at the least will be made more aware). It could be very good for that. The downside is it attracts advocates, might draw attention away from content discussion, needs patrolling (distraction from content), etc. So here's the focused question -- is there a net return from the "plus" side, and if so is there a way to get that benefit that returns more than it costs? Where: - "returns" will be oxygen for the project generally and articles specifically, awareness, wider attention, stickiness, more public eyeballs, a way to get some more focus here of the kind social sites leverage, and maybe a start for more editors from (3), and - "costs" will be the distraction from working on high quality discussions (1) (2) and article editing as a result of patroling and other needs of (3) (And of course the standard of comparison could be "better of two evils". For instance if the crystal ball says a wiki project dies due to fading attention then maybe chat and patrolling is net harmful but less harmful than eventual loss) FT2 On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:09 PM, David Richfield wrote: > I would like to add my voice to the list of those who say that this is > a very bad idea, for reasons already listed. > > One kernel of truth is that users who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia > expect discussion at the bottom of EVERYTHING on the web. Blog posts, > videos, facebook posts. > > Maybe at the bottom of the page, put a big fat link to the talk tab? > > I would not mind social media buttons at the bottom of a page, but I > think I'm the minority here. I certainly don't think it's > strategically necessary, but I'm no strategy expert. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article
Yes. I had thought about one option - a separate website entirely, purely for people to chat about Wikimedia articles. But at a first glance that dead ends for so many reasons. FT2 2012/1/24 Johan Jönsson > FT2: > > > - "costs" will be the distraction from working on high quality > > discussions (1) (2) and article editing as a result of patroling and > other > > needs of (3) > > ... and loss of neutrality, when the comments on controversial topics > (or even less controversial) are filled with arguments for one cause > or another – and all comments *will* be considered to be, in some way, > a part of Wikipedia as well. > > //Johan Jönsson > -- > http://johanjonsson.net/wikipedia > > ___ > 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] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article
+1 exactly There are 3 basic kinds of dialog - ** editors and participants actively hoping to improve the article; ** feedback that is intended to have a decent proportion of useful comments and can be sifted for them quickly; and ** "chat about the topic, article, and anything else people get into". However you label them, whatever means and venue we were to use, the third of those is where the question mark goes. FT2 On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > Sure; if the objective is to have comments by "people who are interested in > the subject, can identify the relevant venue, can identify how to edit the > relevant venue, are aware that they *can* edit, can handle wikimarkup and > can deal with the fact that a lot of editors see "wide-ranging discussions > on a subject" as utterly irrelevant and subject to removal unless they > directly suggest alterations to the article content" instead of, well, > "people who are interested in the subject". > > On 24 January 2012 23:05, Ray Saintonge wrote: > > > On 01/22/12 3:44 PM, David Gerard wrote: > > > >> On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip wrote: > >> > >>> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to > >>> what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name > >>> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so > >>> on. > >>> > >> English Wikinews calls it "collaboration". On English Wikipedia it > >> used to be called "talk", this was changed to "discussion", and it was > >> recently changed back to "talk". > >> > >> > >> I don't care what you call it. The talk page is still the best place > for > > wide ranging discussions on a subject. > > > > > > Ray > > > > __**_ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.**org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > <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] ACTA analysis?
Already in hand :) FT2 On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: > I would like to thank Geoff Brigham for the excellent job he did analysing > the consequences of SOPA for wikipedia. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Legal_overview > > Would it be possible to analyse ACTA in a similar manner? This is > apparently the treaty text: > > http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf > > > Possibly we've already done so, and I've missed it? :-) > > I'm especially interested in the following questions: > * What issues, if any, does ACTA raise, for wikipedia? > * what points would be wise to point out to legislature, to ensure > wikipedia does not come to harm, if implemented anyway? > > We can then proceed to engage with the diverse members of the diverse > committees in .eu (as required), or engage with our local > legislature (as required) > > Once appropriate for us, note that La quadrature du net is taking action, > and has collected all relevant phone numbers and addresses etc: > > https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/How_to_act_against_ACTA#Contact_your_Elected_Representatives > > The window for action on ACTA is now very narrow, time is short. > > sincerely, > Kim Bruning > > -- > > ___ > 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] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
You might want to look at this link from ACSI<http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=220&Itemid=236>(American Customer Satisfaction Index) which introduced indexing of social sites this year: "Satisfaction is measured with four social media websites—Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, and YouTube—plus an aggregate measure of smaller sites... Given the popularity of the four measured social media sites, each boasting hundreds of millions of users worldwide, the first round of ACSI scores offered some surprises. *At the top is Wikipedia*—the massive, multilingual, user-produced encyclopedia run by the Wikimedia Foundation. With an ACSI score of 77, Wikipedia is *more satisfying* than most of the ACSI-measured news and information websites. Like Google, *Wikipedia’s user interface has remained very consistent over the years, and its nonprofit standing means that it has not been impacted by commercialization and marketing unlike many other social media sites*... *[C]ontroversies over privacy issues*, frequent changes to user interfaces, *and increasing commercialization have positioned the big social networking sites at satisfaction levels well below other websites and similar to poor-performing industries* like airlines and subscription TV service..." In other words, it seems a major survey picks out non-commercialization and a strong approach to privacy as a key factor to pleasing users, and increasing commercialization as a reason why other social sites may become less popular. FT2 On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Arlen Beiler wrote: I don't think I could stand it if we picked up advertising. I hate the way > wikia looks, and therefore have an aversion to contributing in any way to > its progress. Can you imagine! We actually link to Wikia sites and give > them > traffic (though I guess that is better than filling up wikibooks and > wikipedia with useless junk)! Wikia is like the no good jerk up the street. > Imagine us turning to ads after all these years! I am sure it could be > a revenue source for some, but we are different, we are better. We create > the best family of websites in the world, let's not mar them with ads. You > know, wikia should sell itself to the Wikimedia Foundation so that > Wikimedia > would get the money. Then too, I guess the board members need some way to > make money. What actually might be a better idea, would be for wikia to pay > the board, since it is a for profit company. Or am I missing the point > entirely? I read what that Greg Kohs said about it, and while I agree that > it did sound like a conflict of interest, I don't know how much of this is > proper or not. Anyway, those are my useless ramblings, so bye. > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Anthony wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk > > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Adverts do not make content wrong, but create mistrust. > > > Have a look what Lawrence Lessig tells about: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHma3ZQRVoA > > > > After the first few minutes it turns into a long drawn out infomercial > > supporting US "campaign finance reform". > > > > ___ > > 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] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
Works for me. FT2 On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it > > in > > the rest of the way. > > >> > >> These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable > >> knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation was > >> built upon. They are also expressly designed to protect and enhance the > >> reputation of the publication that provides this information. While our > >> reputation will never be able to compare to those of top medical > >> journals, > >> I see no reason why we should fail to take reasonable and feasible > >> steps to > >> protect it to the extent that we can, following the example of the best > >> sources. > >> > >> Andreas > >> > > So, disclosure of funding source when available, included in > Template:Cite journal > > Fred > > > ___ > 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] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
Papers are used to back up specific statements, not entire articles - often many papers are used to back up an article. We assume an ability to make thoughtful assessments of cites by our readers - that's exactly why we cite and why we attribute (apart from copyright reasons). It seems inconsistent to say that a user can appreciate cites as a way to assess the facts they back up, but is incapable of assessing funding sources the same way. A user reading an article on medical aspects of smoking might want to be informed which cites were tobacco-industry funded findings and which were funded by anti-smoking lobbies or government health bodies. A person reading about automotive and vehicle matters might find it useful to know which facts were by independent sources and which by sources with some stance in the matter. For better or worse, "getting studies published" is a major PR strategy for a wide range of companies - think Microsoft's "studies" of Linux some years back. So transparency is now important. That we can't do it for all studies doesn't mean we shouldn't invite it where we can. Ideally this would lead to increased scrutiny of sources and perhaps substitution of sources by other sources more visibly neutral in the topic's debate. FT2 On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:15 AM, David Goodman wrote: > Does not work for me,, because it unreasonably implies that references > without it are not so funded. > > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:56 AM, FT2 wrote: > > Works for me. > > > > FT2 > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > > > >> > I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive > it > >> > in > >> > the rest of the way. > >> > >> >> > >> >> These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable > >> >> knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation > was > >> >> built upon. They are also expressly designed to protect and enhance > the > >> >> reputation of the publication that provides this information. While > our > >> >> reputation will never be able to compare to those of top medical > >> >> journals, > >> >> I see no reason why we should fail to take reasonable and feasible > >> >> steps to > >> >> protect it to the extent that we can, following the example of the > best > >> >> sources. > >> >> > >> >> Andreas > >> >> > >> > >> So, disclosure of funding source when available, included in > >> Template:Cite journal > >> > >> Fred > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> 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 > > > > > > -- > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > ___ > 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] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create them. A user writing "X said Y" is not verifying that Y is true. They are verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third party can check, why they believe "X said Y" is true. Once that's done, the status of the editor is immaterial - because they themselves are not creating anything so their ability to create information isn't at question. They are simply saying "this is what X said, this is where anyone can check X said it and form their own view". By contrast academics and researchers writing papers are forming their own view. So the factors going into that are crucial to assess the quality and basis of that view and reliance a reader may wish to personally place on it. FT2 On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:22 AM, geni wrote: > On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard wrote: > > That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in the field* is, > > however, something that strongly suggests we should not deliberately > > withhold such information from the reader. > > Err we don't. They are free to consult the source. > > However the field in question has long established standards when it > comes to citation. > > So for example when "Anti-HIV-1 activity of salivary MUC5B and MUC7 > mucins from HIV patients with different CD4 counts" cites "Interaction > of HIV-1 and human salivary mucin" they do so in the form of: > > "Bergey EJ, Cho MI, Blumberg BM, Hammarskjold ML, Rekosh D, Epstein > LG, Levine MJ. Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary mucins. J > Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:995–1002." > > And do not mention it's funding source > > (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967540/). > > > So if you wanted to follow the standards of their field editors would > have to disclose their funding source. This would presumably result in > a history entry looking something like this: > > 12:23, 6 November 2010 examplestudent (talk | contribs | block) > (127,638 bytes) (nonsensical edit involving plankton)(funding:parents > +student loans company limited+Joint Information Systems Committee) > (rollback | undo) > > -- > geni > > ___ > 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] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
I haven't heard the word "eventuate" before. My comment addresses the plain meaning of the words - namely that if sourcing style was followed editors would have to disclose funding sources too. The wiki process means that editors (even grossly biased ones) are not creators of novel views. Their edits and the article as a whole can be derived from writings of those who did create the views included. It's the latter whose biases, ultimately, need checking. A wiki editor who is biased has their edits (and the state of the article) speak for them. The material can therefore in principle be neutrally assessed by his/her peers without knowledge of that editor's private views *. That's not true for the authors of the content we cite. * - of course often that can't happen due to disruption, but in principle we could find neutral editors for any article in any stage, who could so assess it. So in principle this is always true even in specific cases it doesn't happen. FT2 On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:44 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM, FT2 wrote: > > Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create > > them. > > > > A user writing "X said Y" is not verifying that Y is true. They are > > verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any > third > > party can check, why they believe "X said Y" is true. > > > > Once that's done, the status of the editor is immaterial - because they > > themselves are not creating anything so their ability to create > information > > isn't at question. They are simply saying "this is what X said, this is > > where anyone can check X said it and form their own view". > > The point geni was making is that while it is appropriate for journals > to publish funding information with their articles, it is not normal > for people citing those articles to note the same with each citation. > > I think geni also flippantly pointed out that the potential for COI of > our contributors is the elephant in the room. I hope you don't truly > believe that our contributors have no COI and the COI of our editors > is immaterial on the _current_ state of the content. The hope is that > over time NPOV will rise to the top, but in many topical areas this > has yet to eventuate. > > > By contrast academics and researchers writing papers are forming their > own > > view. So the factors going into that are crucial to assess the quality > and > > basis of that view and reliance a reader may wish to personally place on > it. > > The factors involved are not limited to funding; at the end of the day > we need to be discerning about which sources we use, rather than use > them all and add lots of information to the citations for the reader > to decide how biased the sources are. > > -- > John Vandenberg > > ___ > 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] Should we offer to host citizendium?
Would not opposed or see this as a drama issue. After all it doesn't involve
editorial involvement or conflict of interests, it would be clear (and clear
to anyone in public) that no editorial influence would be implicated.
My only concern is on precedent - is this a good one (we help others in the
free knowledge/education world) or a bad one (our bandwidth is open to be
used by any forum or website with a story to tell). Would perception and
reporting in the media that we altruistically can help others (positive
views) or that we take over or dominate others (even if untrue, negative
views)? is there any risk that it would be seen as compromising our stance
and neutrality ("Wikipedia hosts/hosted Citizendium!)
:last, I'd look for specific agreement what happens if they cannot regain
financial stability and independence. Do they linger indefinitely, or
dwindle indefinitely, on WMF servers? Do they start to need other forms of
help? Do we get the bad press if we have to shut them down? What if such a
situation descends into antipathy (there's been antipathy before, we don't
need to invite more in future). Do Citizendium's users get a say or will
this be done without their consensus (and hence possibly get anger from some
directed at WMF)?
For all these reasons I'd want clarity and openness on the various "what
ifs" and how they are agreed to be handled, in a way that all can see that a
prior and mutually endorsed decision process was followed in that
eventuality.
Those would be my questions. They may be fine, but they are the ones I would
focus on as deciders, given that bandwidth and tech support will probably
not be a huge factor (use their own server or make a spare one available?).
FT2
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:56 AM, geni wrote:
> Should we offer to host citizendium?
>
> Okey get over the instinctive reaction.
>
> ==The background==
> Those who have read this week's signpost will be aware that
> citizendium is in significant financial difficulties. If not see the
> end of the briefly section:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-08/News_and_notes
>
> Now I know we haven't exactly had the best of relationships with
> citizendium but we are if not distant allies at least interested
> observers. Their mission and much of their product at this time
> coincides with ours.
>
> ==The proposal==
>
> We should offer to host citizendium on our servers at no cost for a
> period of 1 (one) year offering a level of support equivalent to our
> smaller projects. After one year the citizendium community/Editorial
> Council is expected to have sorted themselves out to the point where
> they can arrange their own hosting. At which point we lock the
> database and provide them with the dumps
>
>
> ===The pros===
>
> *It is inline with out mission
> *It wouldn't cost very much. Given their traffic levels and database
> size the cost to host would probably be lower than some of our more
> prolific image uploaders.
> *It would be possible to effectively give them instacommons
> *Citizendium is an interesting project and gives us a way to learn
> what the likely outcome of some alternative approaches would be
> *It helps with positioning the WMF as more than just wikipedia
> *It prevents the citizendium project from dying which since they have
> useful content would be unfortunate
>
> ===The cons===
> *They may still be on PostgreSQL rather than mysql which could create
> issues with compatibility
> *Some of their community are people banned from wikipedia
> *risk of looking like triumphalism over Larry (can be addressed by
> making sure jimbo is in no way involved)
> *keeping control of the relationship between the citizendium
> community/Editorial Council and the various WMF communities
> *Handing the password database back at the end of the year would need
> to be done with care.
>
>
> All in all other than the assuming we can deal with the database issue
> I think it is something we should do. The citizendium
> community/Editorial Council may well say no but at least we will have
> tried.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> 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] Should we offer to host citizendium?
In business I have found that the most successful companies are those that reach out, build relationships with, and where possible help others that are compatible. So this makes very strong sense to me. The main thing would be making sure it is clear in the media that we do so as an educational charity, ie by grant or collaborative agreement or whatever. So that it helps explain what we stand for (most people know us as an encyclopedia, not even a volunteer non-profit!). There is an issue of market positioning here, or changing perception of a position, and it needs careful handling to ensure it's communicated. A corporate making such a move publicly for the first time would probably put out a press announcement or conference to ensure there was enough attendance and attention that its central points were properly heard. WMF could do worse than do that too. Some prime time coverage of WMF CEO: "As one of the worlds largest volunteer educational charity movements in human numbers, we have begun supporting other compatible movements in order to ensure a healthy provision of many different sources of free information. Our first (1/2/3) projects supported are (A/B/C)", would do the job.. FT2 On 11/12/10, Hans A. Rosbach wrote: > We have become the superpower, and that gives us a moral obligation to think > beyond our own projects. Among the things we ought to be wary of is > monoculture. If Wikipedia becomes the only source for encyclopaedic > information, not only does that make the world poorer, but it makes our own > projects poorer. Wikipedia needs the competition, if for no other reason > than for strengthening ourselves. > > Hans A. Rosbach ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
Point her to this thread? If it isn't needed this time it may be salient not too far in future for other things. FT2 On 11/12/10, David Gerard wrote: > Probably we should ask Danese first, she'd have to make sure we had > the techs and resources on hand for the hosting! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] wikimedia fundraiser
Also because it's good for people to have to think year by year. makes them aware and not take it for granted. People who have some investment (be it effort or money or time or whatever) value something more. A wider community that has a reason to care is worth building - especially as the Wikimedia mission isn't just "build a website" but "make available free knowledge". In that context people willing to care matter, as an integral part of the mission. FT2 On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 3:17 PM, luke lenny > wrote: > > > why can't wikimedia publish advertisements and generate revenue and > > become self-reliant,self-sustainable , instead of asking for funds > > from user every year again and again... > > There's a number of issues. But painting it in broad terms; although > advertising might make the projects *financially* stable, it may not > make their *content* stable. That's to say, a lot of contributors / > volunteers / editors might leave. > > I'd argue with your terminology, though. > > You say that advertising would make the Foundation "self-reliant and > self-sustainable". It wouldn't be though, would it? It would be > reliant on advertisers and sustained by advertisers. > > Bodnotbod > > ___ > 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] A question for American Wikimedians
It's very desirable that people in different ethnic groups are on an equal footing and can engage and edit. It's also very desirable that if systemic issues prevent swathes of the national or global population doing so (issues can affect specific groups, locales, social categories, genders, ages, etc), then we try to identify and address those issues. But I would not go further and politicizing the issue or consider it a political one. In other words if we examined barriers to entry and found som ebarrier would allow 15 million poor people, or 18 million african-american people, or 17 million single housewifes to be more able to edit, then those barriers are worth addressing and we would aim to do so positively. but that's not the same as treating people not in those groups less positively. Everyone matters as an individual, and that's so even if we aim as a foundation to maximize our efforts by removing barriers that research suggests may have wider impact or affect larger groups and sectors of the population. FT2 On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > I would not wish that world upon anyone, Fred. African Americans are > underrepresented for the same reason that Native Americans and about 300 > ethnic groups are: lack of internet access and, with access emerging, > learning how to engage in the internet. It's not because any specific > group > does not have a desire to volunteer, as you asserted, it's because our (not > black, white, North American, South American, African, Asian, Australian, > European or sitting in a small hut at a weather station in Antarctica) ones > and zeros are finally reaching populations. You cannot expect any group to > embrace things like Wikimedia all at once, nor can we assume we're all > white > guys. There is no hope for focus our outreach if we begin with that > approach, whether it is merited or not. To promote free knowledge, we must > assume that everyone is just someone and the bridge is built from there. > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Fred Bauder >wrote: > > > > I wish I could live in the world you wish, where poverty and oppression > > of a people did not damage it. The question was not whether there are a > > few who edit, but why there is not mass participation, and trouble when > > it does emerge. > > > > Fred Bauder > > > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > -- > ~Keegan > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan > ___ > 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] Paid editing comes of age
I drafted this. It still seems the best approach in terms of keeping good editing and reducing problematic editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Commercial_and_paid_editing FT2 On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:05 AM, David Goodman wrote: > Most current paid editing gets deleted at Speedy, simply because the > organization has no serious claim to being notable. People who > deliberately write paid articles on topics they know hopeless are > unethical; if they write them without knowing, they are incompetent. > But this sort of thing is not the current problem, for it's no more > difficult to handle than the even larger amount of similar articles by > volunteer editors. > > The problem with the more competent of the people writing for pay is > not that they try to flout Wikipedia rules, but that most of them have > assimilated only the more superficial elements of the technique . They > do not adequately understand the difference between promotional and > informative, and they typically include inappropriate content such as > contact information or a long list of products. But this is fairly > easy to spot. It would be easier to spot if they declared their > status, and I think a rule against paid or other COI editing that we > do not enforce is unproductive-- if it is good editing, we cannot > detect it, and if it isn't, we do not need the rule any more than with > bad volunteer editing. > > And of course there is the continued existence of the reward board, > which is in direct contradiction to policy, but would not be if we > accepted declared COI or paid editing. > > As for the proprietor of this service, I've just been removing from > the article on him article one of the clear signs of COI/promotional > editing , the excessive use of his name. > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Risker wrote: > > On 18 November 2010 18:33, David Gerard wrote: > > > >> On 18 November 2010 23:09, John Vandenberg wrote: > >> > >> > Am I 'paid editing' when I write articles during 9-5 ? Is that bad? > >> > >> > >> The problem with paid editing is when it violates content guidelines, > >> such as NPOV. > >> > >> Someone paid to improve the area of linguistics in general? (This has > >> happened.) Fine by me. > >> > >> Someone paid by (say) a museum to write articles on the contents of > >> their collection? Could risk NPOV, but the idea is probably a net win. > >> And the photos! > >> > >> Someone paid by a company to monitor their article for negative > >> information and edit it accordingly? Could violate NPOV. The very > >> proper way to do this is to openly introduce yourself as a PR person > >> on the talk page, supply information as appropriate and never touch > >> the article text itself; this can be problematic for you if there's > >> little actual interest in the article, though, and so little > >> third-party editor traffic. > >> > >> Someone paid by a person to keep rubbish out of their BLP? Trickier. > >> In a perfect spherical Wikipedia of uniform density in a vacuum, they > >> shouldn't go near the article on them. In practice, BLPs are our > >> biggest problems, for reasons I needn't elaborate on. Usually if they > >> contact i...@wikimedia.org with a BLP issue it gets an experienced > >> volunteer on the case, and the BLP Noticeboard is an excellent and > >> effective way to get experienced attention to an article. > >> > >> "Paid editing" is, of course, not one thing. > >> > > > > > > I'll repeat what I said on enwp's Administrator's noticeboard here for a > > different audience: > > > > "We are extraordinarily ineffective at providing neutral, well-written, > > relatively complete and well-referenced articles about businesses and > > individuals - even as of this writing we have tens of thousands of > > unreferenced and poorly referenced BLPs - and equally bad at maintaining > and > > updating them. Given this remarkable inefficiency, and the fact that a > > Wikipedia article is usually a top-5 google hit for most businesses and > > people, there's plenty of good reason for our subjects to say "enough is > > enough" and insist on having a decent article. We've all seen the badly > > written BLPs and the articles about companies where the "controversies" > > section contains every complaint made in the last 10 years. We aren't > doing > > the job ourselves, and it's unrealistic to thin
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
Slightly different reply from Nathan here. The project and foundation exist to produce and distribute free knowledge. Every dime that is raised goes to cause "someone to profit". The bandwidth that's bought, the servers purchased, the desktops and other matters, they are almost all provided at commercial rates and for the provider's profits. As part of its mission the foundation also needs human skills. Those skills need to be dedicated, contractual, continual, trained in specific niches, long term, committed, available as needed, and full time for the most part. Ultimately the decision is because as a charitable foundation, WMF can deliver its mission far more if it identifies providers of those skills at commercial rates, pays them, and acquires funds by donation to do so, than if it sought to obtain those services without pay by volunatry effort. FT2 On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Nathan wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Noein wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 19/11/2010 21:31, Risker wrote: > > > The last one is for the fiscal year ending June 2009, and was filed on > 29 > > > April 2010. Link: > > > > > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990.pdf > > > > > > The section on salaries begins on Page 7. > > > > Thank you for the links. I'm consulting the 990 form for 2008-2009 right > > now [1]. Sadly, I already have questions: > > > > Item 15 of page 1 says: > > Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits: > > Current year (2008-2009): 2,073,313 dollars. > > (By the way, the annual report states another number: 2,257,621$. Why?) > > With 26 employees declared at that time, it gives a mean salary of 6645$ > > a month for each employee. Isn't it morally a little high for a > > non-profit organization and unfair towards the current 80 000 volunteers? > > > > Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: > > Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (equivalent to a monthly 14587$ > income) > > Veronique Kessler was compensated 121859$ (equivalent to a monthly > > 10155$ income) > > Mike Godwin was compensated 128139$ (equivalent to a monthly 10678$ > > income). > > > > I don't live in the USA, but I'm surprised about these numbers. Frank > > Bauer estimates that they "don't have the money to begin to pay for such > > services at market rate". > > > > The fact that this is legal or traditional is beside my point. > > Though I'm willing to listen and understand the Foundation's way of > > thinking, I'd like to express that for the cultural and ethical grounds > > from where I come, it is unacceptable for someone to profit from > > volunteers' efforts and from donations aimed at a cause. I'm not saying > > this is the case, but I would gladly receive insightful answers because > > I'm currently at loss about what to think of the Foundation. > > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990.pdf > > [2]: > > > > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.pdf > > > > > I've never heard of a major charity in the world without at least some paid > employees. Some of the largest charities, like the Red Cross, have > thousands > of employees including highly compensated executives. The type of work the > Foundation does requires full time staff with considerable talent and > experience. It's unrealistic to expect the Foundation to acquire these > resources without fair compensation. Do you have the right background, and > would you work 40 hours a week for free with no benefits? If not, why > should > anyone else? While we're on the subject of you, can you tell us your > current > occupation and your annual salary? If you'd prefer not to disclose it, > perhaps you can understand why others may not appreciate it either. > > In any case, the law presents both an obligation to report certain facts > and > an obligation to keep other facts confidential. The Foundation discloses > what it needs to, and even were the WMF a for-profit corporation and you an > actual shareholder you would be entitled to no more detail than that. > > Nathan > ___ > 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] Use Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Przykuta wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 17:31, Fred Bauder > wrote: > > > http://www.inc.com/managing/articles/201001/wikipedia.html > > > > It is not a bad article. Basically tells the company to establish > > their presence, to join the general work on Wikipedia, and start a > > short article and let the community to join. > > > > g > > Ekhm > > "The more mentions you have in the press, and the more visibility you have > in social media and blogs, the more likely you are to seem legitimate and > “notable” -- a precondition for inclusion." > > legitimate and notable by facebook, twitter and blogs? > > przykuta > "legitimate" as any kind of inclusion criterion at all? FT2 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pieter Kuiper
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by an arbcom by his real > name, NOT his user name! > This tag line is extremely inaccurate, for what it's worth. FT2. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Accuracy required
When a person says "by an arbcom" it implies by one of several arbcoms that exist. The word "an" (um/uma) suggests one of several/many. Perhaps more accurately "by the Portuguese Wikipedia Arbcom"? The term "for what it's worth" (or "as an aside") in English implies information provided that may or may not be useful to the reader but is given because it is possibly helpful. FT2 On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > Let's see if perfect practice makes perfect. > > The quoted tag line, "The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by > an arbcom by his real name, NOT his user name!" has been questioned > has "extremely inaccurate." > > It was used right below a name and user name: "Virgilio A. P. Machado > (Vapamachado)" > > Since the arbcom wiki was omitted, it was assumed that it would be > understood that it referred to the user's "home wiki." > > What exactly is "extremely inaccurate" in the quoted text? > > If no clear explanation is provided by the author of that > qualification, he or she should be kind enough to withdraw the > comment and apologize. > > "for what it's worth" is an expression conveying bonhomie, helpful, > friendly, or is it a put down, sneer, scornful, snooty comment, more > akin to what is usually called here a "personal attack"? > > Sincerely, > > Virgilio A. P. Machado > The one with only this tag line > > > At 18:10 07-12-2010, you wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado >wrote: > > > > > The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by an arbcom by his real > > > name, NOT his user name! > > > > > > >This tag line is extremely inaccurate, for what it's worth. > > > >FT2. > > > ___ > 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] Accuracy required
(For example if a person says "I was contacted by *an admin*" the reader is not being told it is a specific admin. The users has not said "by the same admin as before" or any other indication which one. "I am employed by *an academy*" does not necessarily mean the one academy I live near or worked with in the past.) FT2 On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM, FT2 wrote: > When a person says "by an arbcom" it implies by one of several arbcoms that > exist. The word "an" (um/uma) suggests one of several/many. > > Perhaps more accurately "by the Portuguese Wikipedia Arbcom"? > > The term "for what it's worth" (or "as an aside") in English implies > information provided that may or may not be useful to the reader but is > given because it is possibly helpful. > > > FT2 > > > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > >> Let's see if perfect practice makes perfect. >> >> The quoted tag line, "The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by >> an arbcom by his real name, NOT his user name!" has been questioned >> has "extremely inaccurate." >> >> It was used right below a name and user name: "Virgilio A. P. Machado >> (Vapamachado)" >> >> Since the arbcom wiki was omitted, it was assumed that it would be >> understood that it referred to the user's "home wiki." >> >> What exactly is "extremely inaccurate" in the quoted text? >> >> If no clear explanation is provided by the author of that >> qualification, he or she should be kind enough to withdraw the >> comment and apologize. >> >> "for what it's worth" is an expression conveying bonhomie, helpful, >> friendly, or is it a put down, sneer, scornful, snooty comment, more >> akin to what is usually called here a "personal attack"? >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Virgilio A. P. Machado >> The one with only this tag line >> >> >> At 18:10 07-12-2010, you wrote: >> >On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado > >wrote: >> > >> > > The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by an arbcom by his real >> > > name, NOT his user name! >> > > >> > >> >This tag line is extremely inaccurate, for what it's worth. >> > >> >FT2. >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Accuracy required
Look up English Arbcom history. There have been several cases there. But real people at Arbitration (whatever community) are best not publicized - we aim not to harm real people. A number of big cases included users under their real names, some smaller ones were named under people's real names too. Check it out, if you like, but please don't publicize a list. FT2 On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > Still practicing, after all these years. > > From the information provided to this list, it is reasonable to > assume that other wikipedians, besides this one, have been dealt with > by other arbcomcs, besides the pt.wiki arbcom, by their real names, > like Virgilio A. P. Machado, NOT their user names, like Vapmachado. > > This page lists existing arbcoms: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_Committee > > For reasons of the utmost importance, not only to this user but to > the communities at large, the assistance of the members of this list > is asked in helping identifying as many of those cases as possible. > > This request for assistance is made, due to the dauting task of > searching each and everyone of the arbcoms archives to find those > examples. If readers provide information from the arbcoms with which > they are most familiar, this could be a fine example of cooperative > work. Given the assumption above, it is expected that the list member > who classified the original sentence as "extremely inaccurate" would > have no difficulty whatsoever in providing at least another example. > The cooperation of the other readers would also help to justify the > use of "extremely inaccurate." The mere occurrence of another case > hardly justifies classifying an accuracy of 50 % as "extremely inaccurate." > > Please remember to provide a link to each case you may identify and > would be so kind as to contribute to the gathering of that > information. My own case can be found here: > > > http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado > and > > > http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado > > Thank you so very much for your cooperation and understanding. > > Sincerely, > > Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado) > The one that can be fooled by some people all of the time, by all the > people some of the time, but not all of the people, all of the time. > > > At 21:34 07-12-2010, you wrote: > >When a person says "by an arbcom" it implies by one of several arbcoms > that > >exist. The word "an" (um/uma) suggests one of several/many. > > > >Perhaps more accurately "by the Portuguese Wikipedia Arbcom"? > > > >The term "for what it's worth" (or "as an aside") in English implies > >information provided that may or may not be useful to the reader but is > >given because it is possibly helpful. > > > > > >FT2 > > > > > >On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado >wrote: > > > > > Let's see if perfect practice makes perfect. > > > > > > The quoted tag line, "The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by > > > an arbcom by his real name, NOT his user name!" has been questioned > > > has "extremely inaccurate." > > > > > > It was used right below a name and user name: "Virgilio A. P. Machado > > > (Vapamachado)" > > > > > > Since the arbcom wiki was omitted, it was assumed that it would be > > > understood that it referred to the user's "home wiki." > > > > > > What exactly is "extremely inaccurate" in the quoted text? > > > > > > If no clear explanation is provided by the author of that > > > qualification, he or she should be kind enough to withdraw the > > > comment and apologize. > > > > > > "for what it's worth" is an expression conveying bonhomie, helpful, > > > friendly, or is it a put down, sneer, scornful, snooty comment, more > > > akin to what is usually called here a "personal attack"? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Virgilio A. P. Machado > > > The one with only this tag line > > > > > > > > > At 18:10 07-12-2010, you wrote: > > > >On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado < > v...@fct.unl.pt > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > The only Wikipedian that has been dealt with by an arbcom by his > real > > > > > name, NOT his user name! > > > > > > > > > > > > >This tag line is extremely inaccurate, for what it's worth. > > > > > > > >FT2. > > > ___ > 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] Accuracy required
I was thinking of another case, whose link on enwiki is [[Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Real-name]]. That case had two users, both under their real names. One of them was the user whose real name was used for the case. Like John says, cases usually try to avoid using a real name where possible. But if the user's username is their real name then it will be named in the case for that reason. FT2 On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > I am not aware of cases on English Wikipedia which are named after the > person except where that person used their name as their username. It > is typical that we avoid a name where a username exists. > (Snip) > John Vandenberg > > ___ > 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] Accuracy required
That won't help much. If I understand your email correctly, you want the information in order to protest on pt.wiki - either about your name being used or about being blocked for mentioning other users' names. There are problems with this. 1. The thread started by saying it is inaccurate to use a tag line "the only person ruled by an arbcom under a real name (in the title)". Cases exist (eg enwiki Arbcom) 2. Each project is independent. What enwiki does may truthfully be different from ruwiki, ptwiki, dewiki. wikis can be very different and their internal decisions on these things can be compared but it is not going to persuade anyone about pt.wiki, if you try and argue about events on some other wiki. 3. Even on a single wiki, treatment may vary within context. For example on enwiki a user may be blocked indefinitely for naming another user's real name, or an arbcom case may even be named after a real name. What is the difference? In the first case the real name was not public, in the second case the real name was also their username. So a lot varies depending on context and community. 4. You may be the only person dealt with under a real name *by pt-arbcom*. But nobody has said you were or weren't. Hope this helps? FT2 On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > 1) No real names will be disclosed on this list on account of the request > made. > > 2) No action is asked or expected. > > These two personal commitments are important before answering an > absolutely legitimate request for clarification: "why [is] this issue > of such [...] importance to the thread-creator." > > It is very important for this user. Most are now familiar with the > use of his real name by the pt.wiki arbcom. > > > http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado > and > > > http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado > > That never bothered the user or the foregone decision to filter his > edits for infinity, a period that far exceeds his expected natural > life. The 53 irregularities that overshadowed the case bothered him a > great deal more. > > What is not so well known is that four months later, while quietly > working on a new subpage, after listing the real names of two users, > this was used against him and eventually led to him being blocked or > banned (depending on the page you look at) for infinity, by the same > administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and arbcom member (hopefully no > title was left out) that led the arbcom in the case using his real name. > > It is very important for the pt.wiki. > > The governance of the pt.wiki is in such disrepair that this user > felt compelled to gather as much information as possible on a Meta > page. Soon, that work was under attack by the same user mentioned > above and one of his accomplices, and his now on hold as a user subpage: > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues > > This modest work was started in May 4, 2010, well before the > following reports on Meta: > > October 2010 - > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Lestaty_de_Lioncourt/Archive/October/2010 > > November 2010 - > > http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es > > > http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards'_noticeboard > > It is very important to the communities at large. > > Unaware of the existence of this essay > (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kylu/Essay and > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kylu/Essay), this user > opened a request for comment on Meta on "What is public and > non-public personal information?" > ( > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information > and > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information > ) > which brought to the fore some of fears, tabus and misconceptions > that are quite widespread on Wikimedia projects. > > It is hoped that the above explanations fully justify the statement > that the user was interested in the information requested "For > reasons of the utmost importance, not only to this user but to the > communities at large." as it would provide more evidence of real > nam
Re: [Foundation-l] Accuracy required
Sure (and in reply to your off-list mail, it's fine, easily done). The questions seemed genuine and seeking a genuine explanation. If it's been covered elsewhere that's good enough. FT2 On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: > FT2, > > Please let it go - I talked with Virgilio off-list yesterday; it sounds > like > he didn't mean to stir up a storm, and would rather this thread die. > > Thanks, > Ryan > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:23 PM, FT2 wrote: > > > That won't help much. > > > > If I understand your email correctly, you want the information in order > to > > protest on pt.wiki - either about your name being used or about being > > blocked for mentioning other users' names. > > > > There are problems with this. > > > > 1. The thread started by saying it is inaccurate to use a tag line "the > > only person ruled by an arbcom under a real name (in the title)". Cases > > exist (eg enwiki Arbcom) > > 2. Each project is independent. What enwiki does may truthfully be > > different from ruwiki, ptwiki, dewiki. wikis can be very different and > > their > > internal decisions on these things can be compared but it is not going > to > > persuade anyone about pt.wiki, if you try and argue about events on > some > > other wiki. > > 3. Even on a single wiki, treatment may vary within context. For > example > > on enwiki a user may be blocked indefinitely for naming another user's > > real > > name, or an arbcom case may even be named after a real name. What is > the > > difference? In the first case the real name was not public, in the > > second > > case the real name was also their username. So a lot varies depending > on > > context and community. > > 4. You may be the only person dealt with under a real name *by > > pt-arbcom*. > > But nobody has said you were or weren't. > > > > Hope this helps? > > > > FT2 > > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado > >wrote: > > > > > 1) No real names will be disclosed on this list on account of the > request > > > made. > > > > > > 2) No action is asked or expected. > > > > > > These two personal commitments are important before answering an > > > absolutely legitimate request for clarification: "why [is] this issue > > > of such [...] importance to the thread-creator." > > > > > > It is very important for this user. Most are now familiar with the > > > use of his real name by the pt.wiki arbcom. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado > > > > > > That never bothered the user or the foregone decision to filter his > > > edits for infinity, a period that far exceeds his expected natural > > > life. The 53 irregularities that overshadowed the case bothered him a > > > great deal more. > > > > > > What is not so well known is that four months later, while quietly > > > working on a new subpage, after listing the real names of two users, > > > this was used against him and eventually led to him being blocked or > > > banned (depending on the page you look at) for infinity, by the same > > > administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and arbcom member (hopefully no > > > title was left out) that led the arbcom in the case using his real > name. > > > > > > It is very important for the pt.wiki. > > > > > > The governance of the pt.wiki is in such disrepair that this user > > > felt compelled to gather as much information as possible on a Meta > > > page. Soon, that work was under attack by the same user mentioned > > > above and one of his accomplices, and his now on hold as a user > subpage: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues > > > > > > > > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues > > > > > > This modest work was started in May 4, 2010, well before the > > > following reports on Meta: > > > > > > October 2010 - > > > > > > >
Re: [Foundation-l] Paypal removal?
Removing paypal etc would be equivalent to a statement "WMF supports wikileaks". Unless we would make that statement formally as well, this discussion goes nowhere. Much as I personally support them, this isn't WMF's business and can only harm the project to make a formal stand. Individual users may wish to make a stand though. (without dragging WP/M into it). FT2 On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:39 PM, aude wrote: > On Dec 11, 2010, at 12:31 AM, Robert Tice wrote: > > > I suggest that use of Paypal is contraindicated due to their > > deliberate > > efforts to inhibit the spread of information by closing their > > account with > > Wikileaks. It is inappropriate for Wiki to be associated with > > Paypal or > > Amazon.com. These corporations are the opposite of what Wikipedia and > > associated entities hope to be or currently are. Closing the > > account with > > Paypal will also send a message to Amazon that there are > > consequences to > > efforts to censor the knowledge base of humanity. > > > > Thanks for reading this. I hope to see debate and action on this > > proposal. > > I don't think we should stop using paypal because of this. > > WMF should not take a stance one way or another on the wikileaks issue > other than to remind people that wikipedia != wikileaks and we don't > run wikileaks. (most people I think understand but also think there is > plenty of misunderstanding out there about this) > > Though it's a wikipedia policy, I think wp:npov should definitely be a > guiding principle in this situation. > > Removing paypal would be a bad idea, in my opinion > > -aude > > PS - I do know that our credit card payments are also handled behind > the scenes by paypal. > > > > > Robert T. > > ___ > > 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 articles based on Wikileaks material
Don't see an issue for this list: 1. The topic is apparently reliably sourced in that numerous credible sources have discussed it and no credible source appears to claim it is a hoax. 2. Legitimate is different from reliable - we may well cite from sources that should not have come to public discussion but in fact did end up "noticed" in the public eye. Many<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squidgygate> articles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal> exist<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal> that <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers> draw<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak> in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents> part or whole on material that originated via leak. 3. In cases like this where the topic is clearly major and has already gained significant attention, the primary sources and such secondary sources as develop over time will probably justify an article in the end even if borderline now. We can defer it but there seems little point. Given the gravity of the matter it's almost certain that more secondary coverage will be added over time. If not that will become apparent over time too. We routinely keep borderline articles on major matters where further secondary coverage seems almost certain - AFD's on breaking news of major disasters for example. 4. The exact policy on sourcing is *"Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements [...] Do not base articles entirely on primary sources"*. At the moment, the article seems to draw on secondary sources for interpretive matters related to the primary source. 5. On the "list of sites", full copies (or regional extracts with links) were published in multiple<http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=wikileaks+(%22Ysleta+Zaragoza%22+OR+amistad+OR+rhodium)&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8>mainstream media. The decision whether these should or shouldn't be listed in any article is probably a community decision. 6. Harm is often subordined to non-censorship. In the NYT kidnap case Jimmy's comment was that if sources had existed then removal of the information would have been difficult. In this case clear published sources exist, they have attracted mainstream front page comment, and harm seems to be disputed in community discussions. One correction of a point higher up: NPOV (on enwiki anyway) does *not*apply to matching editorial decisions made by other sites. It applies to how we represent the topic in an article. If many sites do not publish something but some or a few do, we decide first whether it meets our inclusion criteria, then how to represent it if an article is viable. NPOV is not an inclusion policy. (*Reductio ad absurdum *version: - many articles are kept with just a handful (<5) sources; this implies "mainstream" did not notice them, therefore "NPOV" would say we don't notice them either? No.) FT2. On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > This might need some eyes and attention: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents > > It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent > Wikileaks releases, notably > > > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative > > Andreas > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Old Wikipedia backups discovered
Wow, Tim. Just wow! Is it just me who sees NYT carrying a headline, "On eve of 10th anniversary, WIkipedia developers turn up earliest records" ? FT2 On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I > opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and inside were three complete > backups of the text of Wikipedia, from February, March and August 2001! > > This is exciting, because there is lots of article history in here > which was assumed to be lost forever. > > I've long been interested in Wikipedia's history, and I've tried in > the past to locate such backups. I asked various people who might have > had one. I had given up hope. > > The history of particularly old Wikipedia articles, as seen in the > present Wikipedia database, is incomplete, due to Usemod's policy of > deleting old revisions of pages after about a month. The script which > Brion wrote to import the article histories from UseMod to MediaWiki > only fetched those revisions which hadn't been purged yet. > > I didn't want to believe that those revisions had been lost forever, > and I even opened the UseMod source code and stared forlornly at the > unlink() call. What I (and Brion before) missed is that UseMod appends > a record of every change made to two files, called diff_log and rclog. > In these two files is a record of every change made to Wikipedia from > January 15 to August 17, 2001. > > I've put the two log files up on the web, at: > > http://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/wikipedia-logs-2001-08-17.7z > > The 7-zip archive is only 8.4MB -- much more manageable than today's > backups. > > rclog contains IP addresses. The Usemod software made IP addresses of > logged-in users public, so the people who made these edits had no > expectation that their IP address would be kept private. That, coupled > with the passage of time, makes me think that no harm to user privacy > can come from releasing these files. > > -- Tim Starling > > ___ > 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] Old Wikipedia backups discovered
Winrar's your best bet. Other archivers may be equally good. FT2 On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:53 PM, wrote: > In a message dated 12/14/2010 8:21:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, > steven.wall...@gmail.com writes: > > > > This is fantastic, and the timing could not be better. > > > > If anyone finds anything noteworthy, please add it to the timeline of > > Wikipedia that we're building at the 10th anniversary wiki,[1] as well as > > the other tools for cataloging interesting tidbits from our history.[2] > > > > 1. http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_timeline > > 2. http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share > > > > Hmm I wonder if some things can be added there (sound of feathers > ruffling) > > Btw how does one *open* this tarball thing (on Windows) ? > ___ > 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] Old Wikipedia backups discovered
Would prefer on its own wiki as this is comprehensive up to a given date. Maybe January2001.wikipedia.org -- immediate impact. (DNS software cannot handle 2001.wikipedia.org) FT2 On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Tim Starling > wrote: > > I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I > > opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and inside were three complete > > backups of the text of Wikipedia, from February, March and August 2001! > > > > This is exciting, because there is lots of article history in here > > which was assumed to be lost forever. > > > > I've long been interested in Wikipedia's history, and I've tried in > > the past to locate such backups. I asked various people who might have > > had one. I had given up hope. > > > > The history of particularly old Wikipedia articles, as seen in the > > present Wikipedia database, is incomplete, due to Usemod's policy of > > deleting old revisions of pages after about a month. The script which > > Brion wrote to import the article histories from UseMod to MediaWiki > > only fetched those revisions which hadn't been purged yet. > > > > I didn't want to believe that those revisions had been lost forever, > > and I even opened the UseMod source code and stared forlornly at the > > unlink() call. What I (and Brion before) missed is that UseMod appends > > a record of every change made to two files, called diff_log and rclog. > > In these two files is a record of every change made to Wikipedia from > > January 15 to August 17, 2001. > > > > I've put the two log files up on the web, at: > > > > http://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/wikipedia-logs-2001-08-17.7z > > > > The 7-zip archive is only 8.4MB -- much more manageable than today's > > backups. > > > > rclog contains IP addresses. The Usemod software made IP addresses of > > logged-in users public, so the people who made these edits had no > > expectation that their IP address would be kept private. That, coupled > > with the passage of time, makes me think that no harm to user privacy > > can come from releasing these files. > > > > -- Tim Starling > > AWESOME. This is so cool. I've copied the research list too, since > there's many Wikipedia historians that will be eager to see the older > versions. > > I hope we can get them up in a browsable way, like nostalgia.wikipedia.org > ! > > -- phoebe > > ___ > 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] Old Wikipedia backups discovered
See "see also" etc in [[History of Wikipedia]]. FT2 On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:27 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > FYI, there is an existing timeline at: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_timeline > > And lots of other wikipedia history pages on English, too. > > :) > Phoebe > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Moka Pantages > wrote: > > This is so exciting! To Steven's point: we've also started a page > > where folks can add bits of interesting information as they excavate > > the files [1]. Can't wait to dig in! > > > > Congrats, Tim! > > > > [1] http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_the_Beginning > > > > > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:20:10 -0800 > > From: Steven Walling > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Old Wikipedia backups discovered > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > This is fantastic, and the timing could not be better. > > > > If anyone finds anything noteworthy, please add it to the timeline of > > Wikipedia that we're building at the 10th anniversary wiki,[1] as well as > > the other tools for cataloging interesting tidbits from our history.[2] > > > > 1. http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_timeline > > 2. http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share > > > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Chad wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Tim Starling > > >> wrote: > >> > I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I > >> > opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and inside were three complete > >> > backups of the text of Wikipedia, from February, March and August > 2001! > > ___ > 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] Fwd: Project Proposal - wiki to monitor the government spending - GovSpendWatch Wiki
This would surely be interesting to a lot of people. But Wikimedia itself is not a political body, so projects like this may not be seen as appropriate for here. A lot of projects with wide interest are hosted on wiki farms though. There are many wiki farms and other bodies and many groups use wikis for the kind of proposal you have. Perhaps set up a wiki on a wiki farm<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_farm> ? FT2 On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: > Forwarded to the whole list on behalf of a non-member. > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: gps > Date: Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM > Subject: Project Proposal - wiki to monitor the government spending - > GovSpendWatch Wiki > To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org > > Hello, > > One of the biggest problems of democratic givernance is that Allocated > funds > for various causes, initiatives and projects disappear due to corruption, > mismanagement or just lie unutilised due to poor or non-existant public > oversight. > > Another aspect is that the public Audit watchdogs in may countries is > unable > to function independently, and their reports disappear when inconvenient. > > Many a times the issues come to limelight when irreparable damage has been > done, due to media expose or due to increasingly used Right-to-Information > provisions, however media moves on to next issue, and there is no permanant > vigil over the public expenditure. The same issue is rampant in Asia, > Africa > and even in developed countries. > > We need a Global countrywise repository for monitoring, tracking, > identifying possible issues in public expenditure. The domain is important > enough for Wikimedia, and the support / backing crucial enough for the > platform to succeed. > Pl. consider this request to start a wiki to monitor the government > spending, possibly named as GovSpendWatch-Wiki. > Project Proposal has been made @ > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GovSpendWatchWiki > > Pl. forward the proposal to foundation-l mail-list for review. > > regards, > prasad gadgil - प्रसाद गाडगीळ > ___ > 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] Shorter Url for non-latin languages
Shorteners are one way that a large part of the net is going. Twitter and other microblogging drives that - a full WMF url won't easily fit so people probably don't include them in many media where they otherwise might well do so. Making it clear these are WMF related, and also hosting them and/or having rights to manage them, is important. Handling permalinks and not just current revisions is important. wmf.org/* may or may not be a good one, but if not, then other possibilities that convey the identity of the project can surely be identified if needed. Not going to suggest any others on the open mailing list, but if the idea is worth trying, I'm sure we'll find out to whom to send suggestions. FT2 On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:56 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > David Gerard wrote: > > On 11 February 2011 11:30, Mingli Yuan wrote: > >> So I just want to know the possibility that foundation can support it or > not? > >> And how should I improve the work to make foundation accept this > service? > > > > A URL shortener is a very good idea. > > In general, URL shorteners are a terrible idea. They often rely on > third-party services, so at any point the links could put a pay wall or ads > in between click and target (or worse, stop working completely). They also > generally greatly reduce the value of a URL. They're good for spammers, > though. > > > Even for English, there's http://enwp.org for instance. English > > Wikinews has http://enwn.net . Neither of these is official. > > These are a little better because even if enwp.org dies or becomes a > different kind of site, it's possible to know what someone intended when > they wrote "enwp.org/foo". > > > But maybe having an official shortener would be a good idea. > > Maybe. It would at least mitigate the risk of a third-party going belly up. > A lot of organizations are using their own short URLs for this reason > (nytim.es and the like). That said, every page has a page ID (curid) and a > revision ID (oldid): > > * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasyntactic_variable > * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=411553662 > * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20036 > > These can be made even shorter: > * http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=411553662 > * http://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=20036 > > Drawbacks to this are that using IDs instead of titles decreases the value > of the URLs and "curid" (a reference to the internal page.page_id) can > change if a page is deleted/undeleted. There are also interactions with > redirects and page moves to consider. > > It largely depends on what the use-case for having such a short URL is > going > to be and how many costs are worth those benefits. The use-cases still seem > rather confined to me, while the overhead to setting up and maintaining > such > a service is not negligible. > > MZMcBride > > > > ___ > 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] Shorter Url for non-latin languages
People will want to link to permalinks. 8 chars, 64 character set (a-z A-Z 0-9 and 2 others). Unlikely to run out for the foreseeable future. FT2 On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Jiri Hofman wrote: > Since (26*2+10)**5 = 916132832 , five chars should be enough for all > articles for ever. > > If some universal url shortener was created, for example http://wmf.org/ , > then 7 chars (3521614606208) would be enough for all projects. If not, the > 8th char can always be added. > > Jiri > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Shorter Url for non-latin languages
Yes x 2. But keep the links simple, so extended subdomains (en.wp.wmf.org) is too long. Just one domain, and let the shortener cover all wikis not just one. FT2 On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Alison M. Wheeler < wikime...@alisonwheeler.com> wrote: > An alternative would be to create the link (in effect an unlabelled > redirect) from a short domain (http://wp.wmf would be nice!) for every > page and revision automatically, and include it on the page, thus saving on > any database requirement because of the 1:1 matching. > The best option, naturally, would be to get Twitter and everyone else to > accept "[[target]]" as an automated link! (but that would still be really > too long for most pages) > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:25 PM, RYU Cheol wrote: > On the proposal, I also suggested to add twitter button on every articles. > Those shortened URLs might be helpful. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] VPAT
VPAT is a statement by the authors of software, showing how accessibility needs are taken account of in the software. Buyers and users of the software may wish to (or have a duty to) take that into account in their decision whether they will use the software. WMF might be asked for Mediawiki's VPAT statement, as the developer of the Mediawiki software, by anyone who wants to use Mediawiki and wants to (or needs to) take into account its accessibility standing, either for policy reasons or because they are under some kind of obligation (eg legal requirement) to do so. The existence of a VPAT might be of general interest (eg on mediawiki-l), but a request or discussion by a specific potential Mediawiki user making an inquiry isn't really a list matter. It's more an administrative inquiry. As an example, here's Mozilla's VPAT for the Firefox browser: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/vpat-3.html and http://www.mozilla.org/access/section508 FT2 ___ 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)
I stayed at the WMF offices a couple of months ago and checking out this gap was one of the aims of my visit. It was quite an eye opener. Although WMF staff can learn to communicate better, the position seems to be that the community grossly under-estimates what they are doing, their competence, and their focus. In a number of key areas it's the wider community, and the experienced users on lists like these and wikis like Meta, that are mistaken in their view and not got their act together, not WMF staff. Why is that? It's because users on lists like these and sites like Meta are precisely the users who are self-selectedly comfortable with reams of written data, lengthy "rules", a technical interface, mailing list norms, typical online "bitey" debate (a tendency of many online discussions where people are represented only by their written words), and so on. That's a tiny minority of our potential editors and collaborators though. WMF staff - especially technical staff - recognize this as atypical of users much better than the active community does. They gear their efforts to the vast majority of users who, lacking help, will never be able to get engaged in the project. And of course, it takes time to build that up as an infrastructure. This aspect is rarely seen or taken into account by active community members on this list or at Meta. It was quite an eye opener. The WMF office members - including the technical team - were far better grounded in the global nature of the mission and the needs of an average user/editor, than most individual community members seem to be. List contributors might want to recognize and respect their wider perspective. In the meantime speculation too easily becomes bad faith at times. WMF staff may need to communicate better, but it's far from one sided. Active community members must also understand and listen, and measure their words in good faith and thoughtfully. Many WMF staff were only recruited in the last year and excellence comes with time and experience, it's still bedding in. The offices were functional but still being built internally when I was there. There are very many pieces of existing software to maintain and bring up to date, and staff working on new code have limited resources and time as imposed by budgetary limits and the newness of much of the organization. That may give some idea what the staff are dealing with. It's got the right basis and ethos, but growth (including improvements) cannot easily happen overnight. My own personal impression is that another year or 18 months is likely to be needed for this to all bed in. A minor cultural change would be good, where people engaged more collegially and were more patient, recognizing we are all passionate about and working in the same mission. WMF staff learning to communicate better with the wider community is part of that, but community members learning to respect the foundation's focus and the work roles of those who contribute to the mission by working as staff is the other. Hope this is of use or interest. Peace. FT2 On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
Not quite so. I've just been working at the "community department" and indeed, it does include quite a large proportion from the community. When I was there, Steve Walling was around, two people from Russian community were working in the community department for a week, Seddon from enwiki and Wikimedia UK was visiting in a few days. Alison dropped by to that department as did a couple of others. There were others but I didn't get all the names. For the most part, they were trying to do the most with their time so lists took a back seat. Most people here - whether foundation staff, community, or other list members - have a real life to get on with as well. When it gets busy, routine mailing list chatter is not a priority; doing the job is. The office staff work heavily, I didn't see people there with time to kick around on a list like this except at the cost of ignoring other priorities. One suggestion I made was that, since communication between office and community is so critical, it might be worth the foundation employing one person at the office purely for community/office liaison (via this list, on Meta, etc). In other words their role is to be at the office and responsive to the community on lists and wikis, ensure community questions and concerns are addressed or not lost, where other staff may not be able to do so as fully as some would wish. It'd cost, but it may well be worth it. Worthwhile? Or wasteful? FT2 On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:29 PM, whothis wrote: > Tell them to go ahead, this list has already been referred to troll-l and a > dozen excuses have been offered why the staff ignores it for the most part > after someone dared to question one of the beloved fellow. The volume of > the > criticism is only going to get louder if the staff continues to ignore the > concerns, I'd like to believe that there is a pattern there. You can't > drown > out your criticism by ignoring a mailing list. I think it's a central > problem with the foundation, it seems to be heading in the opposite > direction than how they perceive it themselves. I think it only proves the > concerns that have been raised before, the foundation might just stop > communicating altogether and use this list for announcements, whether > anyone > likes them or not. > > (snip) > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Jon Davis wrote: > > (Snip) > > Then who do you expect to follow and reply on the list, if not that staff. > You know, the people being paid to run the projects, the majority of > discussions are related to their work and operations. If they don't want to > spend their paid time on doing something so unproductive as answering the > community's concern then who should. Oh...you meant it's for all us > non-employees, who have jobs and responsibilities outside of Wikipedia, > only > we are expected to read the list...silly me. I think I understand why it's > seen as wasteful. It's for all the volunteers who give their time reading > and thinking about Wikimedia related activities, we can't expect the paid > employees to do the same...or care. I think that's what it comes down, > people complaining on this list care for the most part, and the staff might > not, as much. it's just a job to them like any other, or that's what your > justification led me to believe. > > Just a thought here, but maybe the "Community Department," should actually > include some people from the community. I know it might be against > some super-secret policy of avoiding community members but at least the > "Community Department" could try including someone from the community. > > ___ 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)
I meant more exactly, a staff member whose role is not just to watch over and be aware, but in fact to actively liaise with community members, respond on lists or wikis, etc. Rob did a bit of that as have others, Jimbo still answers posts on his talk pages, but someone whose role is to liaise and discuss, who can be relied on as their job to pass things on and ensure they don't lapse or get forgotten, and to get answers when a routine ordinary question comes up, might be no bad thing. FT2 On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > > > > One suggestion I made was that, since communication between office and > > community is so critical, it might be worth the foundation employing one > > person at the office purely for community/office liaison (via this list, > > on > > Meta, etc). In other words their role is to be at the office and > > responsive > > to the community on lists and wikis, ensure community questions and > > concerns > > are addressed or not lost, where other staff may not be able to do so as > > fully as some would wish. It'd cost, but it may well be worth it. > > Worthwhile? Or wasteful? > > > > > > FT2 > > Yes, worthwhile, although this list would be only a minor part of such > monitoring. An experienced Wikipedian needs to monitor the mailing lists, > Village Pump, requests for arbitration, and the administrative > noticeboards regularly and prepare a brief summary for staff daily. > Emphasis would be on issues which have potential to or already affect > public relations or Foundation resources. > > Fred > > > ___ > 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] The matrix, reloaded (movement roles, or who does what in Wikimedia?)
Apologies for my unusual denseness here, but this matrix makes no sense to
me, and lacks any information needed for constructive improvement.
What I'd be looking for is a description of what the role and responsibility
is, in each box. Knowing that Business partnerships/Foundation is
"Globally", or that Advocacy+lobbying/Groups is "Support groups", tells me
precisely zero of any value about any organizational matter, roles, work
needed, and so on.
Can someone expand this considerably? Thanks.
FT2
2011/2/18 Delphine Ménard
> Hi all,
>
> The Movement Roles Project (which you've probably heard about but are
> not really sure what it is about [1]) continues to go forward. After
> an in-person meeting two or so weeks ago, which produced a whole lot
> of (interesting) notes [2], we're breaking down the main outcomes of
> the meeting for you (yes, you, and you, and you over there) to
> comment, twist, change, add to, substract from, develop and {{insert
> new collaboration-related word here}}.
>
> The first part of those notes put up for scrutiny is known as "the
> roles matrix."
> To make a long story short, this matrix was put together after a
> brainstorming session at our last meeting to try and define what roles
> and responsibilities exist on the organisational level in Wikimedia,
> and who fulfills those roles.
> It sounds daunting, but really, it is a lot more fun that one may think.
>
> So. The roles matrix is here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix
> for your perusal.
>
> If you're interested in some background about the matrix, read the
> whole page. It's not too long.
> If you're not, please just hack away in the matrix here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix#The_Roles_Matrix:_Reloaded
> or share your ideas on the talk page here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_project/Roles_Matrix
>
> Bottom line is: we need you.
> Really, we do.
> We need you to bring new perspectives, fresh ideas, insight and
> hindsight, crazy and thoughtful proposals, and most of all,
> constructive criticism.
>
> So please, follow the links and tell us a piece of your mind.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Best,
>
> Delphine
>
> [1] If I had to summarize it, I'd probably start by calling it "the
> organisational development project". The next level of summarizing
> would be "Trying to put together a comprehensive charter which
> captures the roles and responsibilities of different people and
> organisations in the Wikimedia movement, as well as defines a frame
> for their interactions". For the next level, you might want to read
> the meta page about it here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Proposal
>
> [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/2011-01-29
> --
> @notafish
>
> NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get
> lost.
> Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive -
> http://blog.notanendive.org
> Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org
>
> ___
> 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] The matrix, reloaded (movement roles, or who does what in Wikimedia?)
The thing is, I don't understand what it's saying, or that it is providing any framework or useful information on the point of ""what roles exist and who's covering them how", to the point I actually can't contribute. It appears to say nothing. I'm sure that isn't the case, but it is incredibly rare something is posted as a community notice and I literally cannot make anything of it. If a bare empty frame was created and users asked to fill it in, that would be one thing. But the existing frame suggests some thought has gone into it already. I just don't understand even the slightest, what thought that was or what tentative results it reached. By way of example, looking at the bare text of that page for "advocacy", what conclusions were reached on who is covering what aspects of advocacy, and to what extent, and what that area of operations involves? If some kinds of advocacy will be handled by the office and others by chapters what distinctions are important in that decision? Is advocacy (but not lobbying) a major chapter activity or a minor one? Saying that WMF does do "advocacy" and chapters "can but some might not wish to" is almost self-evident, so it doesn't add anything knowledge-wise. Ditto fundraising, what kinds of "support" is it initially anticipated might be provided by "individuals"? And ditto what on earth does "business partnerships" - "foundation" - "globally" mean and what does it say about how business partnerships will be selected, created or managed, decisions made about them, and choices about resources used on them? Without that kind of level of data it's not possible to say whether the conceptual structure being created is excellent, poor, has loopholes, can be improved, or misses the point. It becomes a set of truisms or jargon. FT2 On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Austin Hair wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:54 PM, FT2 wrote: > > Apologies for my unusual denseness here, but this matrix makes no sense > to > > me, and lacks any information needed for constructive improvement. > > > > What I'd be looking for is a description of what the role and > responsibility > > is, in each box. Knowing that Business partnerships/Foundation is > > "Globally", or that Advocacy+lobbying/Groups is "Support groups", tells > me > > precisely zero of any value about any organizational matter, roles, work > > needed, and so on. > > Well, that's sort of the point. > > It's the start of something that we hope to have extensive community > input on—it's the first step, not the last. Thirteen people > brainstormed over the course of a few hours two weeks ago, and we > wanted to throw what we had out there so everyone has a chance to > participate. > > The definition of "groups" is particularly vague, as noted in the > description. It's not something that I expect to resolve this week or > next, but with some help we might have it mostly clarified within a > few months. > > If you have specific questions, let's discuss! There's plenty of space > on the wiki, and I'm happy to address stuff on this list and make sure > it's integrated into the main body of work. > > Austin > ___ 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)
Of note, arguments against the spirit of the civility policy badly miss the point Marc and others are making. The expectation for collegial conduct between editors (by whatever name) is not a means of repression as some cast it. Its a means to ensure those who will leave if bitten, don't get bitten. It's a necessary culture for long term project growth and survival. People who care about the project should strive for more respect for its spirit, and to live within that. Not less. To underline that, I've been an editor for close to 7 years, dealt with horrible POV warriors (later Arbcom banned, often after months or a yar of engagement on talk pages), dealt with abusive admins. I can speak to the need for incivility. It's vanishingly rare. I can think of 2 occasions by email, one on a web site off-wiki, and none on-wiki, that I've dropped civility in a Wikimedia-related context, and each of those was due to a specific situation involved (where little else would have effect), and after consultation with other experienced users. It may be some people's habit, but so is original research and making claims without evidence, and we don't think twice about expecting people to restrain those habits when they edit. In brief, we don't (as a community) take manners to others seriously enough. That starts at the top and works down (anything else would be hypocrisy). If admins are expected one day to toe the line on the spirit of being supportive, helpful, courteous-if-firm, to everyone, then that would percolate to new admins and the community as a whole. Doing so does not affect people's effectiveness or ability to control problems as admins. Those who cannot may simply disqualify themselves as admins until they learn, much as those who cannot avoid original research would disqualify themselves for various positions of trust and reputation. Good conduct is not alien or hard. Expecting it is not "civility police", it's a basic need of a community this size seeking to engage people who are not hardened veterans of internet wars. It's a habit. It can be learned, and it can be expected, and it can happen here as well. You'd be surprised how fast people learn when it's needed to do what they want. FT2 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Marc Riddell wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, James Alexander > wrote: > >> > >> I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop > >> responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion > >> and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture where > >> goes against the very thing we say we vocally fighting for. This > >> is definitely not just a foundation-l thing and you're right to say it > like > >> that is a bit of a red herring and ignores the real issue... It is also > >> something that I think has roots in all of the active > >> aspects of the community. > > on 2/18/11 8:08 PM, Samuel Klein at meta...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > James, this was a good post. We do need a more active focus on > > kindness, effective skepticism, and constructive criticism. > > > > And I agree that the problem being expressed here (not MZM's comment > > about transparency, which is valid and should be considered > > separately) -- the universal trouble with people attacking one another > > and making public spaces feel unsafe -- affects many parts of the > > community. > > > > The fact that we associate "active Wikipedia work" on en:wp with AN/I > > is indicative of the trend. That noticeboard is hardly relevant to > > the work of most editors, lingering on conflicts of various sorts. > > > >> So frequently whenever someone opens their mouth they get bitten, > regardless > >> of what is happening the tenants of assuming good faith are just thrown > out > >> the window. > > > > This is where not having safe spaces to discuss what's going on limits > > transparency... > > > > > >> Maybe this is how I work but I feel like we want a culture where it is > >> perfectly acceptable for someone to respond without all the data, for > them > >> to make mistakes and get corrected and have that debate and those > arguments. > > > > So do I. > > To James: This is one of the most accurate, and articulate, descriptions of > the present enWikipedia culture that I have read. Thank you. But, so far, > any suggestions for change has been met with apathy or, those advocating > change being considered malcontents and troublemakers. Yes, I have been > accused of trolling:-). I have been trying to call attention to this > problem > of a dysfunctional culture in the Project for 4 years now. However, the > initiative for change, and the know-how to create it, doesn't appear to > exist at the highest levels of the Project. Pity. > > To Samuel: And, so do I. > > Marc Riddell > > ___ 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)
Actually, scrap that. I can think of a few more than two. But the extra ones are all from one common cause - robust views being stated off-wiki to fellow users with advanced privileges, who were badly failing to live up to expectations of the role. On a few occasions that's happened. I'm thinking of a handful of cases from 2007 onwards, where advanced users attacked users or made claims that were unsupported and just shouldn't have. People get heated but personal attacks and dubious claims are not the response I like to see from trusted others. Not rehashing the past but self-correcting (hence no details given and no response sought). Sorry for the incorrect statement though. Still all-in-all, a very small number of cases in 7 years, and not on-wiki. The thrust of the point I was making, is unchanged. As a cultural issue, interaction style is serious in its project impact. That's by *both admins and non-admins* (no reason to give excess leeway to long term non-admins to harm the project by discouraging bona-fide users, any more than we would give excess leeway to long-term repeated mis-citers or persistent original researchers). FT2 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:07 AM, FT2 wrote: > Of note, arguments against the spirit of the civility policy badly miss the > point Marc and others are making. The expectation for collegial conduct > between editors (by whatever name) is not a means of repression as some cast > it. Its a means to ensure those who will leave if bitten, don't get bitten. > It's a necessary culture for long term project growth and survival. People > who care about the project should strive for more respect for its spirit, > and to live within that. Not less. > > To underline that, I've been an editor for close to 7 years, dealt with > horrible POV warriors (later Arbcom banned, often after months or a yar of > engagement on talk pages), dealt with abusive admins. I can speak to the > need for incivility. It's vanishingly rare. I can think of 2 occasions by > email, one on a web site off-wiki, and none on-wiki, that I've dropped > civility in a Wikimedia-related context, and each of those was due to a > specific situation involved (where little else would have effect), and after > consultation with other experienced users. It may be some people's habit, > but so is original research and making claims without evidence, and we don't > think twice about expecting people to restrain those habits when they edit. > > > In brief, we don't (as a community) take manners to others seriously > enough. That starts at the top and works down (anything else would be > hypocrisy). If admins are expected one day to toe the line on the spirit of > being supportive, helpful, courteous-if-firm, to everyone, then that would > percolate to new admins and the community as a whole. Doing so does not > affect people's effectiveness or ability to control problems as admins. > Those who cannot may simply disqualify themselves as admins until they > learn, much as those who cannot avoid original research would disqualify > themselves for various positions of trust and reputation. > > Good conduct is not alien or hard. Expecting it is not "civility police", > it's a basic need of a community this size seeking to engage people who are > not hardened veterans of internet wars. It's a habit. It can be learned, > and it can be expected, and it can happen here as well. You'd be surprised > how fast people learn when it's needed to do what they want. > > FT2 > > > > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Marc Riddell > wrote: > >> >> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, James Alexander >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm not sure I would say it like that (that they would simply stop >> >> responding at all) but I worry that the method at which discussion >> >> and criticism has developed is encouraging the growth of a culture >> where >> >> goes against the very thing we say we vocally fighting for. This >> >> is definitely not just a foundation-l thing and you're right to say it >> like >> >> that is a bit of a red herring and ignores the real issue... It is also >> >> something that I think has roots in all of the active >> >> aspects of the community. >> >> on 2/18/11 8:08 PM, Samuel Klein at meta...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > James, this was a good post. We do need a more active focus on >> > kindness, effective skepticism, and constructive criticism. >> > >> > And I agree that the problem being expressed here (not MZM's comment >> > about transparency, which is valid and should be consid
Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications
A license is not a finite resource. It's not something that "runs out" in quantity or duration. So usual arguments for multiplicity fail. Free licenses aren't needed to back up each other in case one "fails" or ceases to exist, or in case one starts to charge more. Multiple licenses add benefit when they offer significant variant choices of value to a licensor that other licenses don't offer. They reduce benefit when they divide "free X" into proliferated mutually incompatible X's, divided by use and reuse conditions that confuse or cause difficulty. FT2 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Pronoein wrote: > Le 19/02/2011 10:14, David Gerard a écrit : > > On 19 February 2011 12:56, Teofilo wrote: > >> 2011/2/19 David Gerard : > > > >>> Please detail the legal problems in question. So far you're making > >>> blank assertions which contradict pretty much everyone else's > >>> understanding of them. > > > >> In my view, the existence of "Canada French", "Canada English" etc... > >> versions of CC 2.0 affects usability (or uploader-friendliness), but I > >> don't see this as a legal problem. > > > > > > And yet you claimed legal problems. > > > > > >> `If you are talking about the legal > >> problems I mentioned in my other mail, please have a look at > >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Crystal_Clear_icons . They > >> are licensed under LGPL (I mentioned GPL in that email, but LGPL is > >> probably enough). LGPL licensing ensures that the SVG code (which is a > > > > > > Noine of which is anything whatsoever to do with CC by-sa, which you > > claimed originally to be talking about. > > > > Unless you can distinguish the concepts you are talking about quite a > > bit more clearly, you will not convince anyone there is a problem in > > the world, as opposed to a problem in your understanding. > > I don't want to interrupt. Just wanted to say that I'm monitoring > closely this conversation. I find it of interest and I hope you will > reach at least an understanding of each other that would benefit the > whole community by clarifying what is at stake. > > ___ > 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] VPAT
Spreading free knowledge implies a good free knowledge infrastructure, including reputable free knowledge tools. We don't need the US govt to use any given software, it pays to make it as widely usable and not block ourselves from any major group who might want to try using Mediawiki. Not least 1/ the US govt is not the only such body (other groups receiving federal funds?) and 2/ we ourselves have a genuine interest in ensuring we think hard how those with disabilities experience Wikimedia in everyday use, when creating our platform. FT2 On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Ting Chen wrote: > Since we are not funded by the government and we have no relation what > so ever with the US government I don't see what VPAT has any relevance > to us. If the US government think MediaWiki doesn't fulfill the > condition, they had to use another wiki engine I am afraid. > > Greetings > Ting > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
During the strategy taskforce, the quality team came to two conclusions that are similar to some ideas in this thread, but avoid the issues mentioned. We didn't consider breaking up the projects, but we did feel that the concept of subject-related collaboration (ie WikiProjects) were not being used to best advantage. We considered it could help the project if WikiProjects were accessible between different wikis, so that users would more commonly work with others on a topic area and gain from doing so. Specifically we thought about the advantages of global WikiProjects. By way of example, a global MilHist WikiProject would allow all editors with an interest in Military History to collaborate across different wikis. It would give users editing in that field in small wikis access to the resources, information, collaborative support of those on larger projects and users on larger projects access to knowledge from countries they might not cover well for lack of knowledge. It would mean that sources could be located in foreign languages (including English sources which are "foreign" on most wikis by definition). Users who might feel isolated could find peers on other projects in the same field. Knowledge could better flow between wikis to the benefit of smaller projects needing help. users who might be the only ones focusing on a topic area on a smaller wiki could be part of a larger collaboration on that subject with users from other cultures rather than isolated. It would also mean that experts who did not want to argue with trolls, high school editors or POV warriors could have a more clear role where they could help, providing responses and reviewing articles as requested, within the topic area WikiProject, where trolling is unlikely. (To clarify one point, the concept is one of collaborative editorship and support across projects, we rejected any kind of control over articles or wikis, nor overriding local WikiProjects) The other thing we thought was that there is benefit in recognizing editors whom the community agrees are competent, edit well sourced neutral good quality material, and act well, across the board. If that's what we want then let's find ways to develop and encourage it. At the moment adminship is granted following a searching process but there is no equivalent for editors who seek recognition as competent and consistently good quality editors. If there were some way to communally recognize such users (call them "proven editors" lacking a better term) it would have some immense advantages. Right now every editor who is autoconfirmed but doesn't write FA's is pretty much in the same category of editorship. Newcomers can't distinguish those who edit well and those not shown to edit well. Users should be helped to improve themselves as editors - setting some kind of formal recognition they can achieve will help focus that. Recognition becomes something all good-faith users aspire to, and once acquired they will not want to lose it by poor editing or poor conduct. So it locks in our goals as a community (good editors) and aligns them with a personal motive. The aim is to make recognition of this kind very widespread within the community and to actively coach and encourage uptake and success -- a recognition routinely won by many editors who have been active for over a year or so. It means that one can see easily in an article history which edits were made by users the community recognizes as proven editors and one can focus on other edits for issues. It encourages holders to act to the standards expected and encourages others to seek that recognition for themselves, and therefore to learn to be better editors. In edit wars it provides a bias towards endorsement of probably better edits. In the case of massively disputed topics such as ethnic wars it provides a dispute resolution tool - editing might be restricted for a time to those editors considered "proven" by the community. Finally it is egalitarian (or at least as much so as anything on the wikis) -- it is a recognition anyone can achieve from the community by editing and behaving well, and anyone can lose by editing or behaving to a visibly poor standard. It carries no formal powers, but by peer pressure alone encourages improvement generally. Two ideas. FT2 On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Sat, 26/2/11, John Vandenberg wrote: > > From: John Vandenberg > > Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness > > (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay) > > Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness > > > > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Ryan Kaldari > > wrote: > > > On 2/25/11 3:11 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > > >> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM, > > wrote: > > >>> .. > > >>> I think it could also be considered to divide > > our huge la
Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
The contradiction resolves in that "routinely" means "commonly" not "automatically". Your 2nd paragraph says it -- a carrot that required the acquisition of editorial skills that were within the reach of just about anyone who applied herself, and which passed the scrutiny of the community as good quality editor activity, not just non-idiocy. Many newcomers (POV warriors, trolls etc) wouldn't care but the kind of users we want to see more of and nurture, would care. We could provide a route and coaching, so that most users who cared to try, would be able to gain that community recognition after some time (I've suggested typically after a year). On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM, SlimVirgin wrote: > This is a good idea, but your first and second paragraphs contradict > themselves somewhat. If "proven editor" were a status people had to > strive for, and really didn't want to lose, it couldn't be something > awarded routinely to anyone active for over a year. We have lots of > people active for over a year who are very poor editors. They > currently have no reason to improve themselves, because so long as > they don't engage in behavioral problems their status continues > uninterrupted. > > If we could create a carrot -- "proven editor" or whatever we call it > -- that required the acquisition of editorial skills that were within > the reach of just about anyone who applied herself, it would give > people something to aim for other than adminship. But there would have > to be a real improvement in their editing, not just "you've shown that > you're not a complete idiot," otherwise it's patronizing and > worthless. > > Sarah > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
hat doesn't > work either - people just keep on their fighting on the talk page > until someone gives up, after which the page is unlocked and their > opponent can declare their victory on the page. Or the fight simply > moves to the next page. > Yes. Now imagine we had 3000 users whom the community has scrutinized their editing and conduct and feels they act well and edit well across the board. We don't have to lock down the article to admins, we can restrict editing to any of those 3000 users, and anyone else who wishes to edit can seek community recognition and then do so as well. The editing is then open, but undertaken by users who have proven they know how to cite, discuss, seek NPOV, etc. Give it 3 or 6 months the article (or topic area) will probably be in good order and can tentatively be unrestricted again. Note I have very severe "mass participation" edit wars such as ethnic topics in mind here, where we have tried for years to bring good editing. We don;t have any solution. This could help. It means that instead of locking articles down to admins (who mustn't edit anything contentious), or snails pace development, we can restrict it to proven editors of which we have thousands, and anyone gaining that recoignition can join them. The article stays open, but poor conduct and mis-citing or tendentiousness vanishes - because any "proven" editor who does act up will be in a peer group of users who are overwhelmingly good quality, proven, who know bad conduct when they see it, and know how to deal with it appropriately. > > > Finally it is egalitarian (or at least > > as much so as anything on the wikis) -- it is a recognition anyone can > > achieve from the community by editing and behaving well, and anyone can > lose > > by editing or behaving to a visibly poor standard. It carries no formal > > powers, but by peer pressure alone encourages improvement generally. > > So we are supposed to add a load of work to the editors' workload in > judging the edits of prospective proven editors, but then don't even > make that choice have any real effect? I don't feel safe in voting for > someone to be considered a 'good' editor in this sense unless first > checking a few hundred of their edits. And definitely in the beginning > there will be several such applicants per week, certainly if we are > going to make this something for 'everyone' to aim for. I would expect we can find a way to do it that is fairly straightforward. How it works is a separate issue, I think solvable, but for now I'm looking at the principle of it. In the beginning I would suggest we "Grandfather" in groups that are broadly trustworthy, such as "all users who have written 2 GAs or one FA and also passed RFA - between these criteria we can be fairly sure they can edit well and also know policy and conduct norms well. > Again, forgive me if I sound too cynical, but I do get the feeling > that such a system might well be a nice thing to have, but would be as > effective in promoting good editing behaviour as a Barnstar. > > Not quite. A barnstar means one person, somewhere, wanted to say "well done". It doesn't mean the user's work generally or their conduct generally is good quality, that they generally edit neutrally or cite well, or treat others well, or that the wider community has reached agreement they are of proven competence and approach. Once you have that, you can do good things like motivate and coach newcomers, provide goals to head to, or develop new dispute handling methods. If you can draw on a pool of a few thousand users whose capability and appropriate behavior can largely be assumed. FT2 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
To clarify/correct this - the idea was not that they can be "given the role of" resolving disputes. Rather, their conduct in helping (as ordinary editors) to resolve disputes, can be relied upon. They will follow (as editors) dispute resolution, focus on project-related issues, look at the topic neutrally, ask about policy related issues, be fair and courteous, etc. FT2 On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > > Are you suggesting something like a second, parallel arbcom if the > > first has finally stalled? > > This was also a part of the discussion of the Quality Taskforce/Strategy > mentioned earlier by FT2 in this thread. One of the ideas of getting the > "trusted editor" status, whatever it means and whatever are the criteria to > get it (if I remember correctly, we never came down to such details) was > that these trusted editors can resolve disputed related to content (POV > etc), whereas the arbcom role is to resolve conflicts between users. These > are two different issues and require two different (possibly overlapping) > sorts of arbitrators: to fix the POV or BLP issue one has to be experienced > in writing Wikipedia articles, whereas to solve for instance a personal > conflict one has to be a good mediator but not necessarily a good article > writer. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
Nobody has suggested putting WikiProjects "in charge" of anything. What is suggested is that they could be beneficially used as a more immediate point of contact for newcomers, where people can get to know other editors working on the same topic areas, and also on a cross-wiki level as a means of better cross-wiki collaboration and flow of knowledge and support. FT2 On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:09 AM, brock.wel...@gmail.com < brock.wel...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with helping wikiprojects collaborate but couldn't disagree more > with making them more powerful or in charge of certain wikis. > (snip) > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
I revisited Wikipedia as a newcomer to test the idea and newcomer experiences a year ago and didn't really see that. What I *did* experience was that it was complicated and *that* was discouraging. Part of the issue is that standards are stricter and quality expectations are such that newcomers are less likely to edit appropriately first time round, and therefore some kind of support or inculturation is needed that wasn't in 2004 - 05. Some knowledge is needed before (or as) you "edit this page" whereas before intuition was enough. Our approach to new joiners has not updated to reflect the fact that "just get on with it and find your own way" is no longer appropriate. Specifically, we aim to encourage groups who are not net geeks, and therefore need a different kind of support and induction, and at the same time the project has got more quality conscious and there are more policies affecting what may and may not be done than there were in 2004 - 05. Both of these argue that our means of inducting joiners is hopelessly out of date, and it is this which causes newcomers to leave or be discouraged; what is perceived and sometimes described as a hostile environment is mostly a reflection of the divergence it involves. FT2 On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > It doesn't work. Even now, if you show up on some projects, create a new > category, write a few new articles, you have to claw your way through > nominations for deletion and a blizzard of nonsense from regulars, based > on being "new". Not that I can't do it, but it is just wasted energy. > > Fred > > > > ___ > 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] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Allowing votes based on donations is likely to send the wrong message, however noble it might be. It really is too problematic - if the level is high then it allows "buying votes" where lower level donors could not; if it is low then paid-for voting swamps the informed users who may know the candidates and makes it more "political". If donations are to be a criterion then I would suggest it must be met at least the last 2 years, not just one year - regular donors may be seen differently to "once off" donors. But this one is a can of worms and more trouble than it's worth - best not. What I would be interested in is some representative way to involve our other big category of the community - readers. Speculatively one could allow up to 50 or 100 reader votes, invite non-logged-in readers to apply by submitting their email address, select 50 - 100 by random poll proportionately by country (after checking for obvious duplicates) and allow them to vote. Again may be more trouble than it's worth, but it is important to consider if readers may have a say in what matters at the election. After all they are whom the project and all of our efforts are aimed at supporting. FT2 2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby > Hello, fellow Wikimedians. > > On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your > input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election > (2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election > began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit > counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive > members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the > community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits > within 6 months. > > This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more > than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server > administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members. > This > still does not account for all community members though, and we would like > your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and > how to quantify other types of contributions). > > In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and > others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up: > > * Advisory Board members > * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain > number of commits (what number is "sufficient"?) > > * Donors > ** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the > limit?) > * University students in the Ambassadors program > * Researchers with access to the research user right > > So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are > the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all > right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be > eligible to vote? > > Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board > elections/2011]]<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011 > >or > to the board elections list, > board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your > thoughts on the matter! > > On behalf of the Election Committee, > Jon Harald Søby > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by > ___ > 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] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Relevance is a good point. I've always been a bit dubious about purely platform based voting, where you get "N" candidates and each says what they hope to do. It is common experience that once emplaced it's often difficult to deliver on promises. Wikimedia is built on radical grass-roots openness. Perhaps consider whether a different way might be better. Try this as a completely different approach, where the community suggests its priorities *prior to the election *. 1. This is done via a 2 week staging area where anyone can suggest a possible priority, duplicates can be dealt with, and proposed priorities getting more than 25 supports and 50% form a pool of “community priorities” 2. The resulting community priorities are listed 3. All candidates can comment briefly on each. This provides a far more focused election, where candidates can actually know and focus on what the community cares about. Matters that the community cares about will have received a specific comment from each candidate. The community can compare candidates' views on specific issues of wide interest, and vote based on the candidates' specific views on these. FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Harel Cain wrote: > (snip) > The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections > more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to > take part in them. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > But, let's say $100 based on US nominal GDP PPP (let's say, according > to CIA Factbook, as it is giving the widest range of countries) and > adjusted for other countries' nominal GDP PPP would be, actually, a > positive sign. That would mean that inhabitant of Qatar would have to > give ~$350 to vote, while inhabitant of Burundi ~$0.5. That would, > actually, raise a level of awareness that Wikimedia projects are > working thanks to everybody's donations, while it would say that there > is no need to be rich to give valued contribution. > Even so, it means that within a given country one can "buy votes", and distribution can be very lop-sided. Still sends the wrong message. > I would give that right not to 50-100 > random users, but to 10,000. It is not likely that more than ~10% > would use that right and readers are important to us. > Because most readers would not vote (you reckon 10%, could be right), I suggested a different way of handling it. Instead of giving 10,000 readers at random a right to vote and expecting 10% to exercise it (=1000), I'd solicit all readers interested, and offer the desired number the right from within those who express interest. This means we know fairly closely how much "say" readers have in voting terms and aren't wrong-fotted by under or over response. An alternative would be that we decide the fixed percentage of the total vote given to readers (1/4? 1/3?), then however many readers vote, scale it as the agreed proportion of the cast votes. FT2 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Given our readership is random and a significant proportion of the global population, that seems quite appropriate. Not all readers will care but there will be enough who do and it's appropriate to give them a voice. (Also noteaworthy: we may also engage readers whom we otherwise don't reach as a byproduct. Not a big point but a "plus") FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > I do also think giving people voting rights based only on > being 'readers' basically means giving it out to random people. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
In the sense of members as "participants", the world and our readers are ultimately our "members". If one considers "members" to be "those who tangibly contribute" then I would say Wikimedia is not a "members club". Its work is not done "by members for benefit of members". It exists on a voluntary basis for the world as a whole, ie non-members (by that definition), and that is where our focus should always ultimately end up. FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > 2011/3/20 marcos : > > I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, > for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable > entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy > ... > > > > Hm, it is actually very common that those who pay a fee have voting > rights, we usually call them "members". :-) > > I understand well that those who already have voting rights are > reluctant to extend them to other people. The ideas of the election > committee deserve more consideration. If donors can vote isn't that > similar to a membership the Foundation had planned in its very > beginning? > > Kind regards > Ziko > > > -- > Ziko van Dijk > The Netherlands > http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ > > ___ > 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] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
That's a different possible category. Should people who do not have capacity to vote as editors, but are paid-up members of a chapter, be able to vote in that capacity? (Alternatively, are chapter members' voting rights and involvement limited to the chapter if they haven't taken part in any wider activity?) I don't have a problem with it, provided their membership is long enough (6+ months?) before the election. There are probably good arguments both ways. A lot depends on personal philosophy: whether you see the foundation and chapters, as effectively different arms of the same thing or as distinct. For example, if they are "different arms of the same thing" then there would be commonsense reasons to share donor lists (as John Vandenberg raises) as there is no reason why 2 parts of the same project would withold information from each other. If they are distinct then paying membership to one may not lead to voting franchise for the board of the other. There's considerable philosophy here that spreads far beyond the election, it may be better to discuss it before it's a problem in any way while it's fresh and malleable, but the board election isn't really the context to do so. FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > Not so quick - I am paying fees, for Wikimedia Nederland and Wikimedia > Deutschland. Would you say that they are not Wikimedia?`:-) > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
Thumb placed on problem. FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we ... forget that becoming part of the community is a process > and state of mind rather than a single event. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vector, a year after
I do, but that's mostly because I like a data-dense interface and smaller font, and probably because I'm comfortable enough with it not to need to change personally. Then again I like classic menu on Windows too. It's quite likely that most people we want to attract would like a more modern style. FT2 On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Sarah wrote: > Do we know how many editors still use Monobook? > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vector, a year after
Thread title? FT2 On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:27 PM, David Gerard wrote: > See the current thread on wikitech-l about how chronically broken > most site JavaScript is and what to do about the problem > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vector, a year after
I'm not seeing discussion of "chronically broken" code there. Just discussion of redundant code (due to 1.17) and cleanup. Any chance of a pointer to something that sums up the "chronically broken" nature of site script? FT2 On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 4 April 2011 16:33, FT2 wrote: > > > Thread title? > > > "Focus on sister projects". Lots of the archive page as of today: > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-April/ > > > - d. > > ___ > 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] Board Resolution: Openness
Both excellent ideas. To which I'd add - a lot of websites have live chat support, "click here to chat to a customer service agent". A *"click to get help from an experienced editor"* button, along with the reverse suggested *"An experienced editor would like to talk to you, click to accept"* popup/notice, would probably work wonders in terms of support and perceived friendliness. You'd want user groups for "respond to request for help" and "initiate dialog", and then to leave it to the community how those are given - whether either is bundled with adminship, or handed out like rollback and reviewer rights. Also you'd want "chat logs" as an item in *Special:Log* so that all chats of this kind are "on the record". As a bonus feature, the infrastructure to invite other users to join a chat (eg to add extra expertize or to mediate a minor disagreement) would be worth noting for future. FT2 On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > I too loathe the wall of text displayed to new users and believe it is > highly > ineffective. Some possible solutions I thought of are: > > Perhaps each newbie could get a short welcome message from "their" > experienced > Wikipedian who will later mentor them with specific errors the newbie made. > > Perhaps it would be helpful if, when creating a new account, a user could > write a short message about what would they like to do on Wikipedia (this > would become their user page). It would give us an idea on what part of > guidelines to present to the new user, and also very needed insight on why > do > people just create account and leave. > > And I believe the most helpful, but the most difficult, would be the > ability > of on-site chat. If I see a new user making a rookie mistake, I open a chat > window, the user sees "someone would like to chat with you" message, and we > could talk about the mistake. Bonus point: there is no good free software > on-site chat that I know of so we give one to the world :) > > ___ > 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] In reply to Virgilio's comments
More comments: *1 "What would happen if all administrators, bureaucrats and so on were told to take a hike" * Apart from the oddness of having a community choose people it wishes to do these roles and then telling them to "take a hike" (the community choose these, they aren't imposed), WereSpielChequers has it right. * ** 2 What would happen if new requirements for being administrator and so forth included assuming real identities, * If you want to identify influential users I suggest you start with Featured Article writers, for surely the people who write content and are involved in its assessment as being shown to the world on the main page and described as highest quality (and most authoritative by implication) are highly influential users. Which is to highlight the illogic of the question. Administrators are not highly influential compared to two other groups - those who write high quality content (main page, tagged as "featured article" etc) and the mass of general users who together create the ethos of the site and a lot of any social issues. Administrators get a lot of attention because they have a disproportionate involvement in addressing abuse and inter-user misconduct, which is largely what the tools handle, but not convinced this makes administrators of any great stature in the community. *3 and a set of real world qualifications. * What would the point of this be? Neither in theory nor practice do administrators have specific roles in content work. Should we require real-world qualifications from editors generally? I think not - the skill an editor needs is editing, which is to say the ability to review sources and summarize them fairly. They usually don't need topic-specific qualifications to do that. *4 What it would be like to grant amnesty to all that are currently banned and/or blocked. * Probably dispute and disruption mayhem. Most bans and significant duration blocks - the vast majority - are people whose interest is vandalism, attacks, and spam. Of the rest the vast majority again are people whose way of working involves incidental or deliberate degradation of the editing environment for others or for readers. A small minotiry may well benefit from review, but not nearly enough for a general unconditional amnesty to the vast majority who probably would not. *5 What it would be like if there was separation of powers * This prsumably means we have people who edit, and people who handle disputes/operate the tools. Presumably those who use tools would either be recruited directly as non-editors, or would give up editing. I cannot see a better way to create a group of users who don't know how to use tools wisely, than to demand one or the other of these. It's far better that we keep as it is - users who use enhanced tools are editors first and foremost, come from the community, are nominated by the community, and still remain immersed in the community as editors thereafter. *6 and secret balloting. * Not convinced either way on the "secret ballot" issue nor a strong view on it. There are also advantages to seeing specific views and being able to weigh them and comment on / discuss them. *7 I wonder what it would be like if Wikimedia projects would borrow a little more from democratic principles. * You don't say which principles. The ones that polarize society (Republicans/Democrats, for example, who attack each other rather than look for points of similarity)? On a wiki page people ultimately have to learn to co-exist. Those who can't or won't gradually sooner or later gain wider attention for that reason. I think that's a lesson most democratic countries could learn from us, not the other way round. *8 Scary thoughts aren't they? * No. I don't find them scary at all. Thanks for them. FT2 On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:28 AM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > In reply to Virgilio's comments: > > 1 "What would happen if all administrators, bureaucrats and so on were > told to take a hike" > > I don't know about other projects, but within a few days, perhaps > hours the English Wikipedia would be trashed. With no admins to block > vandals or delete attack pages, and no pages that were admin only for > editing then not only would spammers and cyber bullies have a field > day and the most common templates would be magnets for penis picture > vandalism. Within a few days or at the most a week or two the > foundation and all the wiki mirrors would either have to go offline or > revert to the last "clean" version of the pedia in read only mode. > > Then the foundation and or one or more other organisations would > reopen for editing having recruited a set of moderators. I'd hope that > one of the forks would be an advertising free volunteer run wiki much > like Wikipedia and with
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
I disagree strongly. They are spelled out *as well as we can using current, one-flat-page methods*. That isn't the same as easy, intuitive, inviting, or comfortable, for most people. We expect a lot from newcomers. Too much. When a user can click a button and type *"I want to delete an article"* and get a step by step helping hand (wizard fashion), or an experienced user to chat to "on the spot", or a newcomer typing an edit has the (disable-able) software popup *"You look like you're trying to reference a blog post. Here's the 3 bullet point summary on that, and a link to the current policy. Click OK to confirm if you mean to do this or HELP ME to talk to an experienced user"*... ... *then* I will agree we are making progress. FT2 On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Sarah wrote: > In fact a lot of those issues are spelled out very clearly. See > [[WP:BLOGS]] for whether you can reference a blogpost. See > [[WP:INCITE]] for a quick way to add a footnote. See > [[Category:Infobox templates]] for how to add an infobox. > > The deletion process does look daunting, but actually if you just > clunk through the instructions, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion > it's pretty easy, and I say that as someone with a template phobia. > > We work on a complex website that caters to lots of different needs > and skill levels, so there's a limit to how simple these processes can > be made. > > Sarah > > ___ > 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] Better user experience and retention through e-mail notifications
"Oh gods yes. +1 Ja ja D'accord" FT2 On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > >> it's just not enabled on > >> larger sites such as the English Wikipedia. It's being tracked by bug > >> <https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5220>. > > This is definitely needed. (I remember the debates about implementing > this at all when it was first under development; I am quite glad that > it exists.) > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
I don't think so. You license the material to be published subject to certain conditions. You don't release it without any conditions on the reuser, nor disclaim ownership of the text. You remain the copyright holder. If the reuse conditions are breached, you are the owner of the rights that were breached and have standing. What you don't have is a case that the loss was of any economic impact to you. You also might not have an argument that they used your text, if "your" edits have been significantly reworked or only a minor part was in fact used. You may have other remedies but that depends on local law - not all countries recognize the same legal structures (equitable remedies, injunctions/orders, etc). In many ways the Foundation may be the sole body that could take *effective* action if it came to law. This is a definite weak area of copyright law, which mainly seems to have been designed with the primary purpose of covering identifiable works whose reuse was clear, identifiable and economically impacted on the creator. A wiki article, made of edits by 20 people, where any one person's contribution is a sentence or so, and where no economic gain (just attribution) was sought by the author, is not copyright law's main focus. Deferring to lawyers on the list :) FT2 On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:13 PM, wrote: > > get from that content is obtained from my work they have translated > > without my permission? > > How do they put a dollar figure on the damages suffered if the income > they > > I don't believe you could make the case that individual contributors have > any standing to sue for copyright violations. Similarly, when you > contribute > to the project, you are intrinsically giving up any rights you may think > you possess in what you have written. "Your permission" is a non-existent > entity in the case of what you give to Wikipedia. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Copyright problems of images from India
Why would the creator's citizenship, or the place of its creation, be decisive? The works of an Indian citizen are granted copyright under US law in the United States, on a parity with the works of a US or any other citizen, even if copyright has expired or still continues in India -- and it is US law that governs Wikimedia. FT2 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:07 PM, wrote: > Welcome to the problem of Orphan Works. what you have to show is that > either of the following is true? > > (i) the author of which is a citizen of India; or > (ii) which is first published in India; or > (iii) the author of which, in the case of an unpublished work, is, at the > time of the making of the work, a citizen of India; > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
This does all raise an interesting question of what jurisdictions actually cover. In the "superinjunction" case for example, which of these is legally able to be sued: - A UK citizen who posts the names online from their home in the UK and then remains in the UK after - obviously "yes". - A US citizen who reads the names on Twitter and re-posts them online from their hotel while on vacation in the UK, then remains in the UK for some time - A UK citizen who reads the names on Twitter and re-posts them online from their hotel while on vacation in the US 1/ actionable while still on vacation in the US? 2/ actionable upon return to the UK? - A US citizen who reads the names on Twitter and re-posts them online from their home in the US 1/ actionable while in the US (having not traveled)? 2/ actionable when they travel to the UK on vacation a while later? Just curious which of these is litigable or in contempt, and which is not. FT2 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
I ask since clearly a US citizen in the US can post these online, so - can a UK citizen on holiday there? Or a US citizen in the UK? Or...? In other words, how do the factors interact such as -- 1/ the country you're a citizen of, 2/ the country whose laws were claimed to be broken, 3/ the jurisdiction you were in when you took the alleged breaking action, or 4/ the ability of local legal process to access you, in deciding what's legally actionable? Lawyers welcomed :) Curiosity and enlightenment more than anything. FT2 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
One interesting thing jumped out at me from this article: "Google argued that the users of Google News were responsible for the acts of reproduction and communication, not Google. It contended that it only provided users facilities which an enabled these acts and so was exempt from infringement..." Interesting that Google's defense is basically the same as P2P website hosts. "We're just indexing, it's the people who download that are responsible for any breach". I can't decide if this dismissal is reassuring (shows they are consistent between big sites and smaller ones how the legal knots are tied) or worrying (because of the severity it implies) in copyright terms.. FT2 On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:28 PM, wrote: > One might want to factor in a Google News Case in Belgium that dealt > with which laws apply where: > http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/05/17/is-google-news-legal/ > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
"Dead wood" has been suggested, but I strongly disagree with it. While there are issues and it needs careful work (nobody's denying that) I'm not seeing hard evidence that so many BLPs - even minor BLPs - are the train wreck that some represent nor as hard to manage as some portray. What I wouldn't mind seeing is one of three easy ways to improve BLPs: - *Creation limited to editors with some kind of non-trivial track record * (and a suggestion/request mechanism so IP users and newer editors lacking that record can contribute suggestions) - *Creation of BLPs always in some kind of [[Draft:]] namespace or BLP incubator* that's NOINDEXed and not allowed into mainspace until of a reasonable quality of sourcing and balance, with [[Draft:]] articles removed or blanked after 10 or 14 days of inactivity. - *Community support for the principle behind notability*, rather than the lazy version. Too many users still assume that verifiability + coverage = notability. Notability is a *proxy measure* for enduring or lasting significance -- not just brief coverage, promotional coverage, minor or transient coverage, coverage that doesn't speak to lasting human cultural significance. More emphasis on questioning whether a subject really has true historic significance as a reference item, and less reliance on a mention here or there, would probably help. We're in a world of changing data and information. We need to be responsive as well as high quality, and we do that best in the same way that the whole project was created - by innovating ways to achieve it. If BLP's are not satisfactory then we develop and learn how to do BLP's well. Not by merely refusing to host biographies under the same content standards as other content. Not really inclined to endorse defeatism. FT2 On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Sarah wrote: > We could solve that by hosting only BLPs that have already had > encyclopedic or extensive treatment elsewhere, i.e. have already been > the subject of (a) an encyclopedia article; or (b) a book or book > chapter from a reliable publisher; or (c) a profile or in-depth piece > in a high-quality newspaper (one about the person, not about events > the person was involved in). > > I know this has been suggested before, but it's coming time to > consider it seriously. > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could we not write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical article has been created on them on the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", inviting them to review it, explaining what it's about, and pointing them to remedies for fixing minor or major issues or requesting deletion? Hearing from us might at the very least be seen as "us trying to do something right". Anyone with notability will surely have email or contact details. While this would not stop poor articles initially being created it would probably be seen positively and allow early input from the subject. The fact that most subjects would probably have criticisms, thoughts, or requests for changes should not be a negative - that's their right and the fact some don't know or don't hear about a Wiki entry, doesn't change this. Can we somehow engage better with subjects? FT2 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
A specific email address isn't always available but virtually anyone notable will have a method of contact that can be found fairly quickly. Businesspeople have a business, academics have their university website, politicians and high ranking officials have a political website or governmental office, authors have a publisher, and a vast number of people have an easily located personal website, agent, or known organization they are closely affiliated with. Even alleged criminals have a lawyer or a means of contact. The kind of stuff needed for contact details is almost always noted in any "keepable" BLP, or a minute's web searching. A few may need Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, but I suspect not many. Only a very small minority will not be easily identified with a means of email or other direct contact within a few minutes. Worth it, I think. FT2 On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Delirium wrote: > On 5/23/11 1:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2 wrote: > >> Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could we > not > >> write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical > article > >> has been created on them on the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", > inviting > >> them to review it, explaining what it's about, and pointing them to > remedies > >> for fixing minor or major issues or requesting deletion? Hearing from us > >> might at the very least be seen as "us trying to do something right". > > I've not heard that idea before; I like it. We should do that. It > > wouldn't be difficult and would, as you say, show that we are at least > > trying to do the right thing. We would need to be prepared to deal > > with the increased traffic to OTRS that it would inevitably result in, > > but that's not too big a problem. > > I don't think it's impossible, but I think finding an email address for > the average person is going to be harder than you think. I do a good bit > of email-finding to contact journal-paper authors whose email address > has changed from the one published in the journal, but especially > outside of the sciences, this isn't particularly easy. Many professors > have no websites, and many who do don't have an email address on the > site. You end up having to dig up the university's "find person" > database and search, and sometimes that database isn't even publicly > available. And for celebrities, they actively go out of their way to > hide their email. CEOs and similar in the business world usually don't > have emails publicly listed either. > > At the very least, it'd be quite a bit of work, and would probably > require someone willing to use non-email communication channels, like > LinkedIn messaging or Twitter or something, to achieve reasonable > coverage. Might be an interesting experiment. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Interesting legal action
I agree with the point you make, but still think it's the right thing. Essentially the counter argument boils down to "if they don't know there's a BLP they can't make work for us about it". Whatever is in the BLP will be there whether they know it or not. So the question is, is it ethically better, and likely to improve quality, if they do know about it? Probably yes. We will for sure get some irate replies or requests that we simply can't meet (ie demands or expectations that won't work with a neutral reference site). But we will also be recognized as trying to do right in a way few other sources do. I don't think that the problem outweighs the clear benefits of doing so. I'm also inclined to believe innate human decency will help us - a few people act like jerks but the majority, given a fair explanation, will appreciate the effort, thank us, understand they are being consulted on any issues they notice, and try to help. Maybe we can design a possible email, experiment on a couple of batches of 30 - 50 newly created and older BLPs, and see what happens? FT2 On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > I'm not so sure. As much as living persons have a history of > raising/catching important errors in their articles, they also take > exception to negative material. > > I had one rather protracted issue with a BLP where the individual feels he > has been attacked by other parties and the media for a number of years. He > viewed the associated Wikipedia articles (which were reasonably balanced, > but did include negative information about him) as an extension of that > attack. His attempts to insert his version of "the truth" caused > disruption, > but more importantly it really really upset him. > > I can forsee this happening a lot more if we *tell* everyone they have a > biography :) > > Sending something like that out is basically an invitation to edit their > biography; and the combination of being a WP newbie, and writing about > themselves is not usually a good one. > > If we can address that issue at the same time, then sure, it's a good idea. > > Tom > > On 23 May 2011 14:28, FT2 wrote: > > > A specific email address isn't always available but virtually anyone > > notable > > will have a method of contact that can be found fairly quickly. > > Businesspeople have a business, academics have their university website, > > politicians and high ranking officials have a political website or > > governmental office, authors have a publisher, and a vast number of > people > > have an easily located personal website, agent, or known organization > they > > are closely affiliated with. Even alleged criminals have a lawyer or a > > means > > of contact. The kind of stuff needed for contact details is almost always > > noted in any "keepable" BLP, or a minute's web searching. > > > > A few may need Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, but I suspect not many. Only > a > > very small minority will not be easily identified with a means of email > or > > other direct contact within a few minutes. > > > > Worth it, I think. > > > > FT2 > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Delirium wrote: > > > > > On 5/23/11 1:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > > > On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2 wrote: > > > >> Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could > > we > > > not > > > >> write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical > > > article > > > >> has been created on them on the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", > > > inviting > > > >> them to review it, explaining what it's about, and pointing them to > > > remedies > > > >> for fixing minor or major issues or requesting deletion? Hearing > from > > us > > > >> might at the very least be seen as "us trying to do something > right". > > > > I've not heard that idea before; I like it. We should do that. It > > > > wouldn't be difficult and would, as you say, show that we are at > least > > > > trying to do the right thing. We would need to be prepared to deal > > > > with the increased traffic to OTRS that it would inevitably result > in, > > > > but that's not too big a problem. > > > > > > I don't think it's impossible, but I think finding an email address for > > > the average person is going to be harder than you think. I do a good > bit > > > of email-finding to contact journal-pap
Re: [Foundation-l] No rights to participate
Oh dear. This just lost a lot of respect (whatever respect is remaining). So if someone (anyone?) can cause another person problems, they will? I must remember that as the default expectation of society, or Wikipedia communities at least. Documented as being that extreme by reliable sources no less. Instead of complaining, you might like to notice how your own attitudes lead to fairly predictable results, and a genuine, noticeable and enduring change of them changes the results. FT2 On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > Furthermore, if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can > turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of > the game here, as it has been extensively documented on reliable > sources, which makes this statement verifiable, as required. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Scheduled intermittent downtime on all Wikimedia projects on May 24
I don't get this. Would it be possible in future, if the sites are unresponsive, or will be unresponsive due to planned maintenance, to establish a fallback that simply displays an explanatory status message to the public? FT2 On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > (snip) > The people who might have been able to > change the error message were busy diagnosing and fixing the problem. > > When we have a lengthy period of downtime, more sysadmins arrive > online, and a wider perspective on the problem develops, including > attention to community impact and communication. But since the > downtime in this case was only half an hour, there was not enough time > for this to happen. > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Scheduled intermittent downtime on all Wikimedia projects on May 24
In future can I have vanilla and strawberry with that? :) FT2 On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote: > In future we will have five nines availability and no downtimes will > happen. > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Scheduled intermittent downtime on all Wikimedia projects on May 24
Me - no. Readers who didn't know - yes. Wikipedia going down without a temporary explanation page is roughly of the same scale as apple.com going down with no explanation, google.com going down with no explanation, microsoft.com going down with no explanation, and so on. "Top 5 website" means we have that kind of use, perception, stature -- and a similar scale of response within the general public if it suddenly doesn't work. Most members of the public do not have the insight you or I would. FT2 On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Austin Hair wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:32 AM, FT2 wrote: > > I don't get this. > > > > Would it be possible in future, if the sites are unresponsive, or will be > > unresponsive due to planned maintenance, to establish a fallback that > simply > > displays an explanatory status message to the public? > > Would it have changed anything for you? > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Scheduled intermittent downtime on all Wikimedia projects on May 24
As a non-tech, don't all reads (at least) pass through the squids, so we can identify and report in a nice way a lot of connection errors at that point? FT2 On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > There are dozens of places where error messages are generated. It's > not trivial to replace them all. Some of them are hard-coded in > compiled binaries, some are on the client side. > > The error message in question comes from DBConnectionError in > Database.php in the MediaWiki source. It's hard-coded and the source > would have had to have been patched. Since no database problems were > anticipated, even if we had tried to implement your plan, we wouldn't > have thought to patch Database.php, and the result would have been the > same. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Scheduled intermittent downtime on all Wikimedia projects on May 24
The measure is "impact to users", not "revenue losses"... Access to Wikimedia is ubiquitous - it pops up in other tools, it's linked from other sites, it's used to track events of interest to the reader, it's used for work, leisure, projects, and social activities. Imagine people browsing google.com, apple.com, microsoft.com, and suddenly for an extended period getting "server not found" with nothing more of explanation, no details, no idea when they can use the site again (minutes? days?) or if it will repeat. The impact is similar for Wikimedia's readers. FT2 On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote: > > Wikipedia going down without a temporary explanation page is roughly of > the > > same scale as apple.com going down with no explanation, google.com going > > down with no explanation, microsoft.com going down with no explanation, > and > > so on. > > WHOAH THERE IS QUITE SOME SELF ENTITLEMENT THERE. > > Microsoft revenue: $62B (though you should look at their internet division > losses) > Google revenue: $29B > Apple revenue: $62B > Wikimedia revenue: ??? > > Tech staffing and such is somewhat proportional :) > > Oh, by the way, I don't know where you look, but I somewhat missed > communication about maintenance events ongoing in Google or Microsoft or > Apple - you think they have none? > Did you get lots of clarification why your gmail was unreachable? > Did you get explanation/information why search index was outdated? > Do they use site-wide sitenotices for that or what? > > > "Top 5 website" means we have that kind of use, perception, stature -- > and a > > similar scale of response within the general public if it suddenly > doesn't > > work. Most members of the public do not have the insight you or I would. > > *shrug*, would be interesting if anyone would actually explain policies of > other website incident handling. > > Domas > ___ > 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] No rights to participate
You appear to have a different definition of "kind or nice word" than I'm used to. The words have been posted to help you. That is both kind (because it helps) and nice (because it was volunteered, taking up time from my life, for your potential benefit alone). I cannot control if you find them helpful, if you are predisposed to a way of thinking that forces you to ignore or dismiss them, or anything else. None the less they are my understanding of the factual information you probably need to consider to obtain what you are describing. What is not "kind" or "nice" is to say things that provide unlikely expectations that will eventually be dashed. For example, agreeing with a perception that I didn't find accurate because it would please you. FT2 On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote: > Thank you guys. I knew you wouldn't let me down. > You outdid yourselves. On this illustrious > mailing list where from «you know who» all the > way to the neighborhood young kid posts, I made > an apparent innocuous statement that included: > "if someone, under the false pretenses of helping > you can turn things from bad to worse for you, > they will. That's the name of the game here," > Now, check the archives. Do you find there a kind > and/or nice word? NO. Do you find posts by four > volunteers who made a point of proving me right? > YES. I'm absolutely sure they were doing their > best to help, weren't you? Of course you were. > It's not nice to make personal attacks, right? Right. > > Y'all have a nice day. > > Virgilio A. P. Machado (Signing with my true > Wikimedia credentials, now go find a reliable source) > Executive Editor, > <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/pt:Log%C3%ADstica>Logística > a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese > The One and Only Editor to ever develop and > complete > < > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pt:Wikip%C3%A9dia:Projetos/Escolares_e_universit%C3%A1rios#Projectos_em_curso > >academic > projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia > ___ > 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 Wikiepdia.org
Endorse Foundation action on this obvious bad-faith domain which trades off the name and domain of Wikipedia and the proportion of users who will mis-spell it. Is there a way to identify the most common other mis-spellings and how common they are? FT2 On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:40 PM, HW wrote: > Dear all, > > Now, some user report that the website wikiepdia.org is copying the > Wikipedia > logo without Wikimedia Foundation permission. And, it will make user > misunderstand it is the real Wikipedia. Same case happen in wikiedia.org , > and > the website all is redirect to http://www.inforewardsurvey.com/ . Should > the > Wikimedia Foundation take action? See http://zhwp.org/WP:COMPLAINT > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] About Wikiepdia.org
Game<http://www.google.com/search?q=wikimedia+oren+shatz+site%3Aisoc.org.il> over<http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mmF6BbenBEcJ:www.isoc.org.il/docs/4008-13-8_-_Wikimedia_Foundation_v_Oren_Shatz_IL-DRP_Panel_Decision.pdf+wikimedia+oren+shatz+site:isoc.org.il&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiQNeG1IBcuX-Tia-mM_mhaDtdHyHoxU5ce1TDLb2Mvm-aUgasm6kxWqglvKYI0WSzhXa-i6nmbtadbbVpt4BNSBzekfJpryNmPCFC7VzvyF42ZKeX7rENwP5uCUvC24dDfGzVl&sig=AHIEtbSKuqmmggNFiXz_hjIquy8QLluFlQ>indeed. FT2 On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > FT2, 01/06/2011 15:01: > > Endorse Foundation action on this obvious bad-faith domain which trades >> off >> the name and domain of Wikipedia and the proportion of users who will >> mis-spell it. >> > > *game over* > Go back to < > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-May/065547.html> > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Doctors Again
There's a huge difference between "consulted Wikipedia on any matter in their professional arena" and "relied exclusively on Wikipedia for a medical matter about a patient's treatment". A doctor might well use it as a regular place (one of several) to double check something, especially obscure areas, or when writing a professional letter (eg to a professional magazine or colleague) FT2 On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Nathan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > > "Across all markets a surprising 75% of doctors in the 51-60 age groups > > stated that they regularly used Wikipedia for professional use." > > > > http://www.responsesource.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=65076 > > > > They edit a lot too. > > > > It is unlikely that any doctor while under oath in discovery or > > testifying at a trial would admit that they consulted Wikipedia regarding > > any matter, especially regarding any erroneous information they may have > > relied on. > > > > Fred > > > > > > Pretty bold statement - 75% of doctors in that age group would commit > perjury by lying rather than admit to having read Wikipedia? > > ___ > 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] Doctors Again
Indeed. The problem is we don't know. The survey doesn't ask what area they use it, how often or rarely, or whether they used it "instead of" or "as well as". Different people may have different guesses how to interpret it. But we don't know. FT2 On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > There's a huge difference between "consulted Wikipedia on any matter in > > their professional arena" and "relied exclusively on Wikipedia for a > > medical > > matter about a patient's treatment". > > > > A doctor might well use it as a regular place (one of several) to double > > check something, especially obscure areas, or when writing a professional > > letter (eg to a professional magazine or colleague) > > > > FT2 > > Sounds good, but I think that is probably at variance with human nature. > Doctors generally are behind on their reading, what they are > theoretically responsible for being up to date on is beyond human > capacity. They have no time to leisurely research relatively simple > matters in medical journals; thus they rely on Wikipedia as it is an > effective method to get basic information. > > They are smart and practical; a characteristic they share with the > typical student, who will also fail to cite Wikipedia as a source if > questioned closely by authority. > > Fred > > > ___ > 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] The Wikipedia-Ready Essay
I always took the central point about conflation to be the unwitting mixing up of separate ideas - usually but not always to the mild confusion or detriment of both. FT2 On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > > And Larry Sanger and Magnus may be remembered for popularizing > > "disambiguation" outside of linguistics... > > > > > http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sj/2009/06/25/on-disambiguation-and-the-atomization-of-meaning/ > > > > SJ > > Disconflation gets only 45 google hits while unconflation gets 267. > Conflation, I guess, refers to confusion of similar ideas rather than > similar words. > > Fred > > > ___ > 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
