Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
on 9/8/09 8:18 PM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote: > I don't think that this sort of moderation has been common in the > past, but I think the moderation of Greg Kohs went a bit far - and for > the reasons outlined by Greg Maxwell. > > Nathan I agree with you, Nathan. And I also agree with Mr. Churchill when he said, "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Strategic planning task force application
on 9/21/09 7:00 PM, Philippe Beaudette at pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: > Just to follow up - I just sent a test submit, and it acted correctly, > and sent me to application submission successful. > > Philippe, Did you receive my application successfully? Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> The entire page is founded on unsubstantiated and generic complaints >> which all lists share. I'm on moderated lists which are completely horrible. >> And I'm on unmoderated lists which are absolutely excellent. >> >> Jimmy Wales himself has stated, and I've quoted him in one of my articles >> that when he ran his own discussion group he allowed people to talk >> themselves >> out. There will always be people who unsubscribe, there will always be >> new subscribers. There is no fix which will address that issue. >> >> There will always be people complaining that something is broken, there >> will always be people saying nothing is broken. >> >> Let's see some actual numbers, actual citations and actual research >> that others can test, prod, and comprehend. The page right now has >> nothing like a scientific approach to even a description of the problem >> let alone trying to find any "solution". >> >> on 10/1/09 8:00 PM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote: > What a novel idea! ;-) > > Letting people talk themselves out works best hand-in-hand with "Don't > feed the trolls." A troll in this context is whoever you subjectively > fell is talking too much. > Exactly, Ray! Or they are saying something you definitely do not want to hear. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
> 2009/10/10 Michael Peel : >> >> On 10 Oct 2009, at 00:41, Samuel Klein wrote: >> >>> In my experience, high-school teachers were 90/10 anti Wikipedia 3 >>> years ago, and are slightly in favor of it today. This sort of thing >>> would be a fascinating survey to run year after year. >> >> Does the WMF commission surveys like this? It would seem a natural >> thing to do - there are third party organizations that are capable of >> performing this sort of survey in a statistically unbiased way. >> >> (Am I correct in thinking that the only surveys done to date are >> those held on-wiki, and possibly that done by third parties such as >> ComScore without the request of Wikimedia?) >> >> Mike > on 10/10/09 10:00 AM, geni at geni...@gmail.com wrote: > The complexity is that in certain groups being anti-wikipedia is a > requirement for fitting in. A statement that you take knowledge > seriously. Geni, it is not "anti-wikipedia" to recognize and understand the difference between information and knowledge. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
> 2009/10/10 Marc Riddell : >> Geni, it is not "anti-wikipedia" to recognize and understand the difference >> between information and knowledge. on 10/10/09 11:36 AM, geni at geni...@gmail.com wrote: > > That enitrely depends on context. In the context of the sentence the > where I used the term the two are synonyms. > Geni, in true scholarship, "information" and "knowledge" are not synonymous. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
> 2009/10/10 Michael Peel : >> I'm sorry; I can understand those sentences separately, but not when >> they are combined. Wikipedia is a way to take knowledge (and the >> spread of knowledge) seriously. That's why I'm here. >> >> I would hope that being anti-wikipedia (or anti-knowledge) is not a >> requirement for high-school teachers. >> >> Mike on 10/10/09 11:32 AM, geni at geni...@gmail.com wrote: > > Depends on the school. By being anti-wikipedia you make a statement > that you insist on a certain quality in your sources. You could view > it as a form of snobbery "Wikipedia may seem okey to the peons but we > know better". > A goal of a good teacher is to introduce their students to scholarship. And a one-stop visit to Wikipedia does not accomplish that. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
on 10/10/09 7:31 PM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote: >> > At the high school level what may be acceptable when the students start > may not be acceptable when they graduate. They should be learning how > to think critically, and looking beyond what the teacher and the > textbook [and Wikipedia] > have to say. That's scholarship. > Much depends here on the sort of students that are enrolled in that high > school. In a program for dysfunctional kids who > are never likely to become scholars any kind of outside source may be > the most that you can expect. If it is behavioral "dysfunction" you are referring to here, Ray, that's giving up on them. With some help, some could become outstanding scholars. And a good, involved teacher can be the first person to touch them in a positive way. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff
> On 16/11/2009, at 1:04 AM, private musings wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects, >> self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved >> in >> routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably >> describable as porn (one example is 'Masturbating Amy.jpg'). >> >> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27358&st=0&p=204846&#entry2048 >> 46 >> >> I think this is wrong on a number of levels - and I'd like to see >> better >> governance from the foundation in this area - I really feel that we >> need to >> talk about some child protection measures in some way - they're >> overdue. >> >> I'd really like to see the advisory board take a look at this issue >> - is >> there a formal way of suggesting or requesting their thoughts, or >> could I >> just ask here for a board member or community member with the advisory >> board's ear to raise this with them. on 11/17/09 5:37 AM, Andrew Garrett at agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote: > > You just won't give up this topic, will you? > > I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's somehow inappropriate > for minors to be viewing or working on images depicting human nudity > and sexuality. Cultural sensibilities on this matter are inconsistent, > irrational and entirely lacking in substance. > > I'm also unsure how you propose to define "sexually explicit". The > definitions under law are elaborate, attempting to make distinctions > that would be irrelevant to any negative impact on children, if one > existed. Are images of the statue of David, the Mannekin Pis or the > Ecstacy of Theresa deserving of such restrictions? What about the > detailed frescoes of sexual acts displayed in brothels and living > rooms in ancient Pompeii and Herculaneum? How are those distinct from > the image you've used as an example, and how is that distinction > relevant to whatever supposed harm you are claiming to children? > > If it is truly inappropriate or harmful for children to be working on > such images, then those children should be supervised in their > internet access, or have gained the trust of their parents to use the > internet within whatever limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor) > believe is appropriate. > > It is absolutely not the job of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the > Wikimedia community, to supervise a child's internet access and/or > usage, and certainly not to make arbitrary rules regarding said usage > on the basis of a single culture's sensibilities on children and > sexuality, especially sensibilities as baseless and harmful as this one. > > -- > Andrew Garrett > Yes. Very well said, Andrew. Marc Riddell, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia
on 11/26/09 9:06 PM, Chad at innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: > We had that. They called themselves the "Association > of Member's Advocates." They were disbanded because > everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net > benefit. > Everyone? I'm not familiar with the one you mention, but, let's try again. Marc Riddell > > On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wrote: > > > I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness". Our current > state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor > with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to affect > a hearing. There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins. > > Until that situation changes, we cannot claim to be moving toward a friendly > environment. > > What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate. Any arrested person has > the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is > what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested > editor. > Great idea! MR ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
> on 3/11/10 12:10 PM, Tim Starling at tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: > Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would > choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even > more bizarre choice than last year. > > -- Tim Starling > "Bizarre"? See beyond the visible, Tim. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Internet nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
> Brian J Mingus wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Tim Starling >> wrote: >> >>> Give the Nobel Peace Prize to DARPA for designing the Internet. And >>> they've made so many other excellent contributions to peace, like >>> unmanned bombers and anti-missile lasers. >>> >>> Seriously, the only reason I can think of that the committee would >>> choose "the internet" as a recipient is if they wanted to make an even >>> more bizarre choice than last year. >>> >>> -- Tim Starling >>> >> I'm actually not sure how unmanned bombers are not a tool for peace given >> our current situation. As Obama noted very eloquently in his Nobel >> acceptance speech even though we may dream of world peace it is not yet a >> reality. The reality is that we have rogue regimes, unstable international >> relationships, religious wars, insane people who manage to get elected as >> POTUS, etc... on 3/11/10 1:03 PM, Michael Snow at wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: > Can we discuss something else, rather than having the list get > sidetracked into geopolitical debates that aren't at all useful to the > work we do? Aside from fantasizing about a share of the prize money, > even the original subject was not especially on-topic for discussion > here. Thank you. > > --Michael Snow "Sidetracked" from what? And, how does this discussion interfere with your work, or your day, Michael? MR ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
> on 5/8/10 12:21 PM, Mike Godwin at mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: > > I believe you misunderstand both what Jimmy was trying to do, and what the > consequences of it are. I could elaborate on this, and will be happy to do > so privately, but as I said, I think focusing on Jimmy means missing an > opportunity to do something constructive. > > Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a more Foundation-comfortable direction. Listen and Learn. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
> Marc Riddell writes: > > >> Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of >> this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important >> points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a >> more Foundation-comfortable direction. Listen and Learn. >> > > Marc, I've been listening all along. Neither expression of disagreement nor > an effort to focus on constructive solutions entails the conclusion that > someone isn't listening. > > Now, did you hear and learn from what I just said? > > Best regards, > > > --Mike Mike, my ability to hear is good and I learn from everything I hear, my ability to listen is excellent, and my ability to analyze is awesome :-). This Community is trying to tell you something and, via this List, the entire Foundation staff. Their anger right now is directed at a person whose recent actions have shown a total disregard of their existence. And they want some concrete assurance that it will not happen again. That is what they want to talk about. Yet you insist on trying to steer the conversation toward dealing rationally with policy. That rationality cannot be accomplished with the level of emotion that exists within the group you are trying to steer. In psychological terms, denial of an issue is really saying, "Anything but that". To admit that the "that" is the problem might mean having to confront, and possibly get rid of, the "that". There is a hint of that in your trying to steer this conversation. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia trade mark misuse
on 6/17/10 9:47 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote: > Wow, this thread just needs to end. > > Nathan Interesting, Nathan. "Needs to end" for whom? Would you say the same thing if this were a live in-person discussion? Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation
on 6/19/10 4:58 PM, Keegan Peterzell at keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: . > > There was a great TED speech that I need to look up but don't have the time > for at the moment. The premise of the presentation is that studies have > shown time and time again that things like games, prizes, awards and other > measures of gratitude are only temporary measures to increase motivation. > The folks that work for you that are the truly motivated ones and believers > in the process do not ask for these rewards. A pat on the back and a "good > job, thanks for your work because I value it very much" occasionally is the > only true recognition that is needed. The other fluff only inspires > distraction from the goal because it's creating other little goals which, in > turn, become more important than the end result. Yes! Prizes denote direct competition as in sports or, more subtly, with the science & arts awards. Person-to-person affirmation goes a very long way; and is what collaboration & community should be based upon. Give them the climate, and they will give you the culture. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation
Sydney, I agree with your thoughts here. But you are talking about activities community members can participate in. I am talking about how those community members interact with each other. Marc on 6/19/10 5:58 PM, Sydney Poore at sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: > English Wikipedia has numerous contests during the year. Some people > regularly participate in them and enjoy them. > > Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest is an example of one that is > ongoing. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MILCON > > Picture of the year is popular with some people on Commons. > > While everyone does not want to be involved in contests, they appeal to some > people and I see no problem with us introducing more of them in WMF projects > to see if they will draw people into the movement. > > I feel the same way about encouraging new ways to get different groups of > people involved with WMF projects. > > If gaming can be used to promote an interest in WMF then that is goodness. > Puzzles, board games, and even more complex fantasy games using content > might be a draw for some people. If someone wants to develop them I would > not stand in there way. > > Combining community service and socializing is very common in community > organizations, and is appealing to many people. By adding more social > components to WMF projects, we will most likely draw in people that > otherwise would not volunteer. I see this as an important tool and one that > should not be dismissed if we are going to broaden the base of our > volunteers. > > Sydney Poore > (FloNight) > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Marc Riddell > wrote: > >> on 6/19/10 4:58 PM, Keegan Peterzell at keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> . >>> >>> There was a great TED speech that I need to look up but don't have the >> time >>> for at the moment. The premise of the presentation is that studies have >>> shown time and time again that things like games, prizes, awards and >> other >>> measures of gratitude are only temporary measures to increase motivation. >>> The folks that work for you that are the truly motivated ones and >> believers >>> in the process do not ask for these rewards. A pat on the back and a >> "good >>> job, thanks for your work because I value it very much" occasionally is >> the >>> only true recognition that is needed. The other fluff only inspires >>> distraction from the goal because it's creating other little goals which, >> in >>> turn, become more important than the end result. >> >> Yes! Prizes denote direct competition as in sports or, more subtly, with >> the >> science & arts awards. >> >> Person-to-person affirmation goes a very long way; and is what >> collaboration >> & community should be based upon. Give them the climate, and they will give >> you the culture. >> >> Marc Riddell >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
on 6/30/10 10:06 PM, David Goodman at dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: > We are secure because of the volunteers, not the funding. If the > foundation were to disappear, the project could continue. The only > funding actually necessary is for the physical operation of the > project. Yes! Excellent insight, David. Marc Riddell > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: >> >> >> --- On Wed, 6/30/10, Veronique Kessler wrote: >> >>> From: Veronique Kessler >>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to >>> FoundationWebsite >>> To: susanpgard...@gmail.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" >>> >>> Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 3:53 PM >>> Thanks everyone for your comments >>> thus far (and for the thank yous too :)). >>> >>> As we progress through accomplishing the goals of the >>> strategic plan, we >>> will have a better idea of what level our operating budget >>> will need to >>> be to make everything happen and be sustainable. We >>> will have done some >>> experimentation with initiatives like geographic >>> investments and the >>> addition of more roles to support chapters. We don't >>> know what our >>> optimal operating level will be and what fundraising level >>> we can >>> sustain. We have made some predictions based on a lot >>> of factors and we >>> will be able to respond appropriately to new information, >>> changes in >>> circumstances, etc. as we progress through this fiscal year >>> and future >>> years. >>> >>> For the endowment, Eugene really summed up the endowment >>> issue well. I >>> want to point out that typically endowments do not fund the >>> ongoing >>> annual expenses of an organization. A portion of the >>> annual earnings on >>> the endowment may be allocated to help support operations >>> but it is >>> usually a small percentage. In the past, one could >>> estimate 8-10% >>> earnings each year and then allocate some to operations and >>> roll the >>> rest back to the endowment to continue to grow it. >>> Alas, these days, >>> 8-10% returns are hard to come by. Just to put it >>> into perspective, if >>> we were to support a $20 million budget with 5% earnings >>> from an >>> endowment, we would need $400 million dollars. >>> Endowments can be very >>> useful and we will continue to analyze this option for the >>> future but it >>> is unlikely that an endowment would ever provide our entire >>> operating >>> budget each year. >> >> I don't think anyone would expect an endowment to fund all that is being done >> in the current budget. I have always thought of the endowment issue as being >> about always keeping the lights on. Ensuring that the content will remain >> accessible in some worst case scenario. Access is probably the weakest link >> in the whole copyleft paradigm. I think most of us can name examples of how >> contract law has locked up what copyright law couldn't touch. >> >> WMF has not always been as stable as it is right now. Maybe it is hard for >> all the people who joined the movement during this upswing of stability to >> understand quite how some of the earlier adopters feel about the endowment. I >> think it is about people feeling that the work that we have all done is >> secure. Since the WMF is not moving in the direction of an endowment right >> now, it would be nice if they could highlight some other things that secure >> what has already been accomplished. The endowment is not about just about >> funding, I think it is probably also symbolic of endurance to many people. >> There is a worry about the content remaining available in the long term. If >> there is not an endowment to donate towards, I think people could use >> something else to symbolize a commitment to the future endurance of the >> content that has been gathered. >> >> Birgitte SB >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: >> Hoi, >> The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their >> mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them about >> what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what they >> are to do. >> >> The current talking TO them is not polite and will not lead to positive >> results. > Yes! Talk WITH not TO. That's what collaboration is all about. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Anti-ACTA protest tomorrow in Belgrade and blackout of Serbian Wikipedia
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:51:13 -0500, Marc Riddell > wrote: >>> It's really unfortunate that blacking out Wikimedia projects is > becoming >>> an >>> accepted method of protest. Maybe we should start keeping track of how >>> often different projects are blacked out, and for what purpose. When it >>> happened to the Italian Wikipedia, it was a first-ever event that no > one >>> thought would happen again. When it happened to the English Wikipedia, > it >>> was a uniquely forceful global statement that many argued might never >>> happen again for many reasons. Now Serbia, next who knows? >> >> Nathan, what problems do you see with this method of protest? >> >> Marc Riddell >> > > I am not Nathan, but the obvious argument is that a strong medicine only > remains strong if used rarely. If one starts using it on a regular basis > one gets adapted and the medicine does not have the required action > anymore. The same thing is here: one can blank out a Wikipedia main page > for a day and to exercise protest, but the protest is only visible if the > blanking is exceptional. If it starts to happen on a monthly basis, the > only reaction would be that people get upset because Wikipedia is not > available. > > Cheers > Yaroslav I agree with you, Yaroslav, that repeated and indiscriminate use of the method would dilute its impact; and could come back to bite the Project. But I think it unwise and unfair to put a flatly negative spin on the idea. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Anti-ACTA protest tomorrow in Belgrade and blackout of Serbian Wikipedia
on 2/24/12 1:35 PM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Marc Riddell > wrote: > >> >> I agree with you, Yaroslav, that repeated and indiscriminate use of the >> method would dilute its impact; and could come back to bite the Project. >> But >> I think it unwise and unfair to put a flatly negative spin on the idea. >> >> Marc >> >> > I was actually against both the Italian blackout and the subsequent > blackout of en.wp. I don't think a reference work (which is what Wikipedia > aims to be) should take political positions. A core pillar of the project > is its neutrality; neutrality underlies our articles so that they, and by > extension the project and its participants, do not take and aren't seen to > take a position on content. > > There ought to be a distinction between advocacy by the Foundation and > advocacy by content projects, in the same way we wouldn't expect Britannica > to argue its point of view in the pages of its encyclopedia but wouldn't > blink if it filed a legal brief or wrote to a lawmaker. Nathan, I do not agree with your characterization that the Project is arguing its point of view "on its pages". The neutrality/objectivity of the content of the Encyclopedia is not involved here. You appear more concerned with the Project's image, than confronting head-on an issue that could directly affect its content. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
on 3/7/12 12:52 PM, Juliana da Costa José at julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com wrote: > Hi Phoebe, > > so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from > surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people? > > Best > > Juliana >> 2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José : >>> Andreas, you seem really maniac fixed to this theme. I am since 7 years >> in >>> Wikipedia and never saw this pictures. >>> For me are pictures from tortured persons, from war and weapons torn >> bodies >>> and shot heads a much more terrifying that sex-pics (I spare posting >>> "spectacular" links, just for attending the voyeurism), but for some >>> mysterious reasons, this is no "controversial content". 2012/3/7 phoebe ayers >> >> Hey Juliana, >> >> As far as I am concerned pictures of violence certainly fall under >> "controversial content"; it's been defined that way in everything the >> board has written too. Images that could be shocking or unexpectedly >> frightening are definitely part of thinking about this whole issue. >> >> best, >> -- phoebe >> Phoebe, does this sound familiar? "We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That is our commitment". "We're in it for the long haul". (From: "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia") Should this read, "...the sum of all knowledge (except any controversial content that may upset some people." Are you concerned about the Project's image or its content? All knowledge - or none. Marc Riddell I will be intelligent enough to know that little can be known; inquisitive enough never to stop learning, and perceptive enough to understand that all things and all events contain infinite possibilities. - MR ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label
on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote: > The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is > just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's > best ignored, along with the people who use it. Nathan, how on earth do you equate the phrase "bible belt" with anti-Americanism? Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] CBC getting rid of physical archives(but not digitising all of them)
on 3/14/12 1:54 PM, Kim Bruning at k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: > "The CBC is getting rid of its physical music collections in Vancouver and > other sites across the country, a treasure > trove of over 100,000 artifacts amassed over decades. Valuable, rare and > historic recordings on vinyl and tape will be > destroyed or dispersed, lost to all of us forever. " > > http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-cbc-music-archives > > Is this accurate news? If so, can we (eg: commons/wikisource) help? > > sincerely, > Kim Bruning Kim, I just found this: http://calgary.openfile.ca/blog/curator-blog/curated-news/2012/calgary-music -store-buys-entire-music-archive-cbc-calgary Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Brain Calisthenics for Abstract Ideas
Hi. I realize this has nothing directly to do with the WP Project, but here's an article I thought many of you might find interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/health/07learn.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y Enjoy. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Nominating Committee
on 6/25/11 2:18 PM, Milos Rancic at mill...@gmail.com wrote: > On 06/25/2011 07:35 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: >> To clarify my position, I found the procedure as designed for handling >> appointed seats to be inherently unworkable. I don't think the procedures >> could have been followed during my service on the committee given the >> resources and time available. I imagine idealists will disagree with that >> assessment, but I feel energy is best directed to revising the by-laws for a >> more pragmatic process. > > My general position is that Wikimedian community is diverse enough to > fill expert seats from itself. In two years Language committee has found > four linguists inside of the community, one of them at the most relevant > job position for our work, one of them top class linguist. And there are > not a lot of linguists around Wikimedia projects. (Yes, there are some, > but not a lot.) > > I am sure that we could find enough lawyers, programmers, lawyers, > programmers, sysadmins, programmers, librarians, programmers etc. inside > of our community. ... I wanted to continue a serious mail, but I can't > anymore :) > Don't forget the psycholinguists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics) who may be working inside the Community. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter brainstorming: Personal filter lists
on 11/29/11 8:01 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > On 29 November 2011 12:56, Tobias Oelgarte > wrote: > >> ... And I still want to see the "good reason for doing so". So far i >> could not find one single reason that was worthy to implement such a >> filter considering all the drawbacks it causes. That doesn't mean that > > > Yes. > > The Board voted unanimously *twice* for the filter. They need to > individually reveal their reasoning and what convinced them so > strongly - the second time in the face of the threat of the > second-largest project forking. > > Really. You just haven't told us what you each personally find so > compelling about the idea, and we can't see it. So people presume > there's financial influence or some other reason going on. > > Board, if you want this problem to go away, you need to explain > yourselves, in a way that actually answers detractors. Your reasoning > is really not obvious. > > > - d. I agree with you completely, David. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. And the board should not be the law enforcement part of that collaboration. This parental, "We know what's best for you, and don't have to explain our decisions to you" makes a farce (or worse) of any claim of such collaboration. And the more silent they remain about the reasoning behind their decisions, the louder the suspicions become about that silence - and the motives behind it. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] THIS is why we support WMF! Sincere thanks for a blackout.
on 1/17/12 11:31 AM, Alec Meta at alecm...@gmail.com wrote: > Wikimedia is a movement. We're not a game, we're not a website, we're not > even just an encyclopedia-- we're a nonviolent revolution in information > sharing. > For-profit media is harder to trust-- we've seen that "For-profit" media > often means "For sale". > In a time where it's hard to trust a congress or mainstream media, one > thing we can agree to trust is each other-- in the form of the Wikimedia > community and its leaders. > > Today, I'm so proud to be a part of this community. It's _extra-clear_ > today that we do stand for something-- indeed, we stand for something quite > revolutionary. > MSNBC and CNN can never afford to go back-- they have advertisers. We are > one of the few truly-non-profit information sources-- and that gives us a > unique value unlike for-profit information sources. In a sea of alphabet > soup, three letters we CAN trust are WMF. > > I hope in 2012, the WMF will take its governance model and continue to > apply it outside the limited scope of encyclopedias. Genealogy is the > goto example-- Ancestry.com can't afford to blackout for good causes-- WE > can. > > We're not just another information source-- we're an information source > with a conscience. That makes all the difference. > > Good work, WMF. Thank you for what you've done, thank you for what you're > doing. Very nicely said, Alec. I would like to add something I posted on the English WP Mailing List: Why Wikipedia is important: Without knowledge, myths are born. With myths, fear is born. With fear, intolerance is born. With intolerance, ignorance is born. With ignorance, nothing is born. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Protest Progress
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2- key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1&nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua2 MR ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Protest Progress
> On 18 January 2012 23:08, Marc Riddell wrote: > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2- >> key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1&nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua2 > > on 1/18/12 6:16 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > Call me churlish, but I find it difficult to assume good faith in > Orrin Hatch having changed his mind on this issue. > Don't pick on him, David :-). Even the dinosaurs had a voice - before their extinction. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remembering the People (was Fundraiser update)
> Marc Riddell writes: > >> The Foundation - and those who represent it - seem to have forgotten >> that >> people are at the heart of what they are there to do. And, without the >> heart, it cannot live. on 1/8/09 4:22 PM, Mike Godwin at mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote: > > This is really an insupportable assertion. (I changed the name of this thread so that those who wish to keep their head in the sand may do so by avoiding it.) My message is supported by the countless number of patronizing, condescending missives handed down by your group. In them the people come across as an after-thought. A linguistic analysis by several experts in the field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group management. > The Foundation and those > who represent it are, if anything, hyperaware of the community on > whose volunteer efforts we depend. That awareness factors into > practically every decision we make. Anyone who tells you otherwise is > speaking out of ignorance. > > To name only one example: Every time we discuss Flagged Revisions at > the Foundation, someone will express concern about how it might affect > community participation if current edits of a sighted version are not > visible (for some period of time, at least) to those who consult > Wikipedia without logging in. Sometimes the person expressing concern > is me -- I know from my own long-term experience in online communities > that keeping people motivated to contribute is central to a > community's success. > > The idea that anyone at the Foundation ever forgets about the > dependence of the projects on the larger community of editors is just > nonsense, born out of the impulse, so common in online forums, to > Assume Bad Faith. This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help? > My message is not about Eric. The culture of product first - people second was established from the very creation of the Wikipedia Project. And it remains pretty much intact to this day. Wales, in his past statement, was wrong. Humans will not destroy Wikipedia; but rather the total disregard of them by its leaders will. > > Try assuming good faith. I have all the faith I need: in the people. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remembering the People (was Fundraiser update)
>> A linguistic analysis by several experts in the >> field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group management. on 1/8/09 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: > > WMF > doesn't manage its volunteer base, it keeps its hands off and lets the > community sort itself out wherever possible And when the community encounters a problem it can't seem to deal with, who can it turn to for help? Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remembering the People (was Fundraiser update)
on 1/8/09 9:20 PM, Erik Moeller at e...@wikimedia.org wrote: > 2009/1/8 Marc Riddell : >> This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time >> problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in >> the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help? > > Marc, can you give examples of what kind of help you'd like to see? Yes, Erik, I can. Just two for now, it's been a long day for me and I still have tomorrow's sessions to prepare for. * A person at the Foundation level who has true, sensitive inter-personal as well a inter-group skills, and who would keep a close eye on the Project looking for impasses when they arise. The person would need to be objective and lobby-resistant ;-). This would be the person of absolute last resort in settling community-confounding problems. *This is more of a cultural issue: I would like to see the more established members of the community be more open to criticism and dissent from within the community. As it is now that tolerance is extremely low. I'm not talking about me; I'm an old Berkeley war horse and have been called things I had to look up :-). But I have gotten private emails from persons in the community with legitimate beefs, along with some good ideas for change, but are very reluctant to voice them because of how they believe they will be received. Erik, there are some truly terrific, bright and creative people within the greater Wikipedia Community. We really need to have a culture that makes room for them all. Be healthy, Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remembering the People (was Fundraiser update)
>> on 1/8/09 11:02 PM, Alex at mrzmanw...@gmail.com wrote: > > And how is the foundation supposed to resolve this? Counsel people into > changing their opinions? Ban people who appear to be suppressing > criticism? Forcibly change policies? Act as proxies for people afraid of > criticism? I'm struggling to think of anything that could be done on a > foundation level that would be effective here. > > Alex, your hostile attitude in both your responses prove my second point. You, and attitudes like this, are a part of the problem. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remembering the People (was Fundraiser update)
>> on 1/10/09 3:56 AM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote: > Perhaps in the earliest days Jimbo performed that role, but even viewing > all of his actions in the best possible light still leaves the > insurmountable scalability problem. It is hard to imagine any other > Solomon scalably capable of fulfilling the theological side of the > god-king function. > > The difficulty with ArbCom in this context is that it remains by nature > a quasi-judicial process. Those who come before it on either side of a > dispute do so with pre-established positions, often based on legalistic > interpretations of literal rules. When an issue is caught up in such an > adversarial maelstrom it is far more difficult to arrive at a > collaborative solution. If we further treat ArbCom decisions as de > facto precedents, resolution of the problems themselves, apart from the > personalities involved, becomes even more difficult. > > My own vision of a volunteer council absolutely did not include a > Meta-ArbCom. That would almost certainly have doomed it to > ineffectiveness. My belief here is based on the principle of the > separation of judicial and legislative functions. Putting this in terms > of the scientific method: it conflates legislative theorizing with > judicial hypothesis testing. > > Impossibility notwithstanding, Marc does draw attention to a serious > problem. > As the one who first drew attention to the unfortunate phrase "23-member > organization" I don't want Marc to be the one taking all the flak for > this. I appreciate that the person who used the phrase is willing to > consider Marc's points seriously, and are refraining from increasing the > voltage in a Milgram experiment as some others are wont to do. > > The underlying difficulties are indeed with the decision making process, > the perpetual deletion/inclusion debate being only one flash-point > within that larger system. We have a significant number of editors who > participate actively and regularly on rules development. They spend a > great deal of time on such tasks, supported by a number of like-minded > individuals who readily arrive at a consensus. Often there is little or > no opposition to these developments, because the largest part of the > community either does not take time to follow keep up with these > developments, or may not be capable of analyzing the deeper implications > of these changes. Individuals who must budget their time available for > contributions would much rather spend that valuable time working on > articles related to their personal interests, and not on endlessly > fruitless debates about the minutiæ of rules. Unless they are directly > affected by the debate of the moment they won't say anything. There > are no doubt comments that I made here six years ago that anticipated > this state of things. > > I have also consistently had serious reservations about the WMF stepping > in to rescue us from ourselves. That could set a precedent. Your fear > that WMF blessings might hinder innovation and experimentation is well > placed. In some cases such blessings may be the only solution that > works. Wisdom may require a recursive mechanism where even the blessing > may be changed by following its own rules. > > That we don't know how to achieve change is painfully close to the > truth. There is the trite statement that Wikipedia is not a democracy, > but much of what happens is not at all consistent with that statement > either. That statement is nevertheless used by some to win arguments; > often equating voting with democracy and concluding that voting is > evil. Of course voting is evil, but only a narrow outlook upon > democracy will make it equivalent to voting. > The suggestion about trials strikes me as a bit gadgety, though there > are no doubt specific problems where that would be the preferred way to > go, and always a safeguard for community approbation. > > Philosophically, we need to reflect the paradigm shift of the > interconnectivity of modern communication in the way we make decisions. > To some extent the change is already beginning in areas of open source > and access, but we have a lot further to go before we can unlearn our > old habits about how decisions are made. > > Yes, I would support some WMF intervention, but I would also like to see > some seriously intense sessions at Wikimania that address matters of > collaborative decision making. This would involve more than a one-hour > lecture plus Q&A classroom presentation. It could cover a full day, and > should probably be led by someone who knows what he is doing, As many > potential decision makers as possible should be encouraged to attend, > and getting them there could be a major criterion for allocating > scholarships to attend Wikimania. > > I feel very strongly about the importance of resolving our decision > making difficulties, and we can't do it by keeping our thinking in a box. > > Ec Bravo! And thank
Re: [Foundation-l] Remembering the People (was Fundraiser update)
> 2009/1/9 Marc Riddell : > >> Erik, there are some truly terrific, bright and creative people within the >> greater Wikipedia Community. We really need to have a culture that makes >> room for them all. > on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > > I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to > work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred: > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-January/097693.html > > You claim to be defending the community in the abstract, but don't > appear to want to put in the effort to actually work directly with the > people in said community. > > David, if you mean the endless, circular, defensive battles that go on in the Talk Pages of the English Wikipedia, no; I am not willing to put what time I have there. The objective in such warfare seems to be to win at any cost; not a discussion to resolve issues in a cause both sides of the argument supposedly believe in and want to improve. There needs to be a better mechanism for such discussions; or, at least, a culture more skilled in the process of arbitration and decision making. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remembering the People (was Fundraiser update)
>> on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to >>> work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred: >>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-January/097693.html >>> You claim to be defending the community in the abstract, but don't >>> appear to want to put in the effort to actually work directly with the >>> people in said community. > 2009/1/10 Marc Riddell : >> David, if you mean the endless, circular, defensive battles that go on in >> the Talk Pages of the English Wikipedia, no; I am not willing to put what >> time I have there. The objective in such warfare seems to be to win at any >> cost; not a discussion to resolve issues in a cause both sides of the >> argument supposedly believe in and want to improve. There needs to be a >> better mechanism for such discussions; or, at least, a culture more skilled >> in the process of arbitration and decision making. > on 1/10/09 9:48 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > > Yes, people are difficult to work with and remain the key problem in > dealing with them. What do you propose to deal with this? It is the process of communication that is the problem, David, not the people. The process - not the people. Learn the difference. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for participation in Epistemia, a new wiki encyclopedia
on 2/3/09 11:07 AM, Al Tally at majorly.w...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> Your initial announcement was fine. Continuing to spam is not. >> >> Fred >> > > Agreed, please don't spam here further. This place becomes less civil, more unfriendly and more inconsequential with every passing day. It is no wonder more and more persons are avoiding it like The Plague. The universes-of-one are sealing its fate. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day. And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? That, alone, speaks volumes. Marc Riddell -- From: bawolff Reply-To: bawolff...@gmail.com, Wikinews mailing list Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:34:14 -0700 To: Wikinews mailing list Subject: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] [I happened to stumble upon what appears to be an aftermath of an edit war, and am quite disgusted by it. The following is basically a rant about it, as I'm not really sure how best to bring it up] I've recently noticed a marked increased in incivility between contributors on Wikinews. I find this really disturbing as it is often between admins who one would think know better. For example (And I'm not trying to pick on anyone, these are just some random ones i came across): *"But no, you've gotta be an asshole just like always" *"A small amount of brain activity would lead to the presumption that someone in my position knows what they're doing" *"I suggest you get the fuck off your high horse or get the fuck out of dodge" *"they are _MY_ comment sections and _I_ can write what ever the hell _I_ want." Now, I know I am taking these out of context, but to be blunt I don't care if the context was responding to poop vandalism - It is incredibly inappropriate for admins to say these things under any circumstances. If these were new users making these comments, they would have been blocked in the neighborhood of 2 weeks to a year, maybe even indefinitely. How can we really expect to recruit and retain new contributors, when this is how the long time contributors are treated? -Bawolff ___ Wikinews-l mailing list wikinew...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Marc Riddell > wrote: >> When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly >> wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? >> And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, objective >> look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The >> atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day. on 2/5/09 9:40 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8...@gmail.com wrote: > > Not all projects. I'd like to take this opportunity to shamelessly > plug Wikibooks, which is as close to utopia as we get here in wiki > world. We don't fight, there's very little hostility, and a relatively > small number of hardworking users are producing a pretty impressive > group of free textbooks. . There should be no shame in pride of one's work, Andrew ;-). I do congratulate you and your editors in maintaining a workspace that is both open and civil. > > Projects are self-administering. If you feel the projects are not > functioning properly it is the fault of the project, not the fault of > the foundation. Get your admins to block your trouble users, and if > the admins themselves are causing trouble then petition to have them > removed. Everybody wants the WMF "hand of god" to swing down from the > sky and deliver relief to various community problems. It won't happen > and it can't possibly work anyway. Change and solutions have to come > from within, or they won't come at all. I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself? > >> And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation with >> you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have >> done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? >> That, alone, speaks volumes. > > And what response do you want from him? This isn't his problem to solve. In a professional setting I would expect an acknowledgement that the email was at least received. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Marc Riddell > wrote: >> I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious >> attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are >> met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at >> all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself? on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8...@gmail.com wrote: > > The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is > willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the > authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality. A sad state of affairs. > > If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having > these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a > manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's > Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you > can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems > are likely to be unfixable. > Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control" and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group. It is my professional business to know such things. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Marc Riddell wrote: >> When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly >> wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects? >> And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good, > objective >> look at some of the dialogue occurring on the English Wikipedia. The >> atmosphere is becoming angrier and more hostile by the day. >> >> And, Erik, when I broached this subject in a private email conversation > with >> you, you never even acknowledged receipt of that email. What would you have >> done if we were speaking to each other in person - stare at me in silence? >> That, alone, speaks volumes. on 2/5/09 1:30 PM, Cary Bass at c...@wikimedia.org wrote: > First of all, Erik may or may not have received your email, and the > reasons he did or did not respond to you can be immense and varied. > You should not make assumptions based on a lack of communication by > anyone, staff or community member. This is an issue for Erik to respond to (or not); not for you to make excuses for him. > > Secondly, what gives you the impression that Foundation staff are able > to sweep in and make everyone behave; or furthermore, why should you > not assume that we've not already tried some way to encourage > conviviality and discourage attacks. Where? When? > I have personally found myself > in the predicament of trying to solve issues for people and getting my > head bitten off by the very people I was trying to help! This is not about solving specific issues for people; it is about teaching them how to civilly and constructively solve their own. Learn the difference. > At least one > of those individuals resorted to calling me denigrating names on > lists cc'd to numerous folks, including coworkers, Jimmy Wales, and my > boss; and his fellow complainants did nothing to object. > > The Foundation, as successful as the last fundraiser went, remains to > having limited resources. Oh, please, Cary, money has nothing to do with what I am talking about, and you should know it. > Our volunteering model is next to > impossible to define, given the enormity of our community. This is purely an excuse for your inaction. > > Discussions take place on IRC about the simple idea of removing admin > access to anyone who uses ugly or rude block messages. This idea is > met with huge opposition; by solid contributors. "Solid" (whatever that is) contributors are objecting to ruling out "ugly or rude messages"!?! Time for a new definition of solidity. > You're asking > people to stop acting like people. No, I am asking that people work and communicate civilly and constructively with one another so that important matters can be resolved. > > Perhaps we should follow the Wikinews discussion more closely...even > participate in it, rather than expanding it to include all of the > Foundation projects in one fell swoop. Given that the community is > much smaller there, a solution might take place that will result in > people being more proactive about reducing ugliness and being kinder > to one another and promoting an assumption of good faith. > > Maybe Wikinews can even come up with a model that can be adopted by > other projects. It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model. The question is: are the other Projects even listening? Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
>> Marc Riddell wrote: >>> It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model. >>> The question is: are the other Projects even listening? Michael Snow wrote: >> What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up >> with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem, >> rather than the solution. >> > on 2/5/09 4:36 PM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote: > I think he misunderstood something. Cary said: "Maybe Wikinews can even > come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects." Marc seems > to have read this as though they already had. > Thank you, Ray, I did misread it a bit. But, on the other hand, a model set here by Wikinews is the fact that someone from there is actually openly objecting and calling attention to it. That is the beginning of a successful model. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Civil Wiki (was: Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
> >>> Marc Riddell wrote: > >>>> It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model. >>>> The question is: are the other Projects even listening? > > Michael Snow wrote: > >>> What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up >>> with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem, >>> rather than the solution. >>> >> on 2/5/09 4:36 PM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote: > >> I think he misunderstood something. Cary said: "Maybe Wikinews can even >> come up with a model that can be adopted by other projects." Marc seems >> to have read this as though they already had. on 2/5/09 5:36 PM, Marc Riddell at michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: >> > Thank you, Ray, I did misread it a bit. But, on the other hand, a model set > here by Wikinews is the fact that someone from there is actually openly > objecting and calling attention to it. That is the beginning of a successful > model. > > Marc > A lot of good input so far regarding the state of communication in the wikis. I would like to take some time and construct a dialogue model for discussing this issue further. I feel this would be better - more productive - than me just listing a bunch of things that I think ought to be done (and a hell of a lot more interesting :-) ). And, you are right George; this is a serious problem. There are many truly creative people out there, with some truly creative ideas for the Project, but who are intimidated by the abusive nature of some of the dialogue. The result: they simply keep their thoughts and ideas to themselves - or take them elsewhere. Back soon, Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
> George Herbert wrote: >> Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I >> had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out >> the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are >> persistently abusive and disruptive to other users. Even being a long time >> positive contributor cannot overcome the damage done to the community and >> other editors in particular when one problem abusive user persists. The >> damage is both severe in the acute sense and insidious in the long term >> community values sense. > > on 2/5/09 6:44 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild) at pathosch...@gmail.com wrote: > I disagree that divine intervention is a solution, but I agree with > the principle that a productive editor who cannot collaborate is not a > productive editor. Perhaps you and others can take a look at < > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_first >, and put > together a convincing essay to that effect. > Convincing the silent > majority to take a cohesive stance against such behaviour is one > possible solution. Absolutely, Jesse. Confront it every time you encounter it. This may be the most important - and most effective - solution to the problem. The remaining problem is how to convince that silent majority that their silence is also a part of the problem. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility atwikinews [en]
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Phil Nash wrote: > >> ...and it's always (in my experience) a difficult >> dichotomy between kicking these people out of the door and culturing their >> behaviour so as to benefit the encyclopedia. > on 2/5/09 7:19 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: > > I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy - making a good faith effort > to warn and discuss and work with problematic editors is almost always the > best course, with banning an unfortunate less desirable second choice if the > situation persists for long periods of time. > > Most people do respond well to good faith efforts to get them to behave > better... Yes! We have no idea how many of the abusers have known nothing but in their own lives. We do what we know 'till we learn something different. For many, being treated well can seen quite strange, quite uncomfortable. Some will, at first, think they are being conned or manipulated. But with consistency and patience, when the axe they firmly believe is going to fall just doesn't, they can eventually be persuaded to become a part of the solution. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Civil Wiki (was: Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
on 2/5/09 6:27 PM, Marc Riddell at michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: > A lot of good input so far regarding the state of communication in the > wikis. I would like to take some time and construct a dialogue model for > discussing this issue further. I feel this would be better - more productive > - than me just listing a bunch of things that I think ought to be done (and > a hell of a lot more interesting :-) ). > Back soon, I'm back. A society is the "who's who in the zoo". A culture represents the values and mores of that society. And this is most clearly reflected in the manner in which the members of that culture interact. The wiki society is made up of persons with a wide variety of educational backgrounds, experiences and learning. To communicate effectively this means, for example, that the computer experts and nuclear physicists among you are going to have to simplify the lingo for me if we are going to communicate in any effective and constructive way. Otherwise I will be totally intimidated by your language and will most likely choose not to participate in a discussion with you. Likewise, this society is made up of persons with a wide variety of personalities and emotional tolerances. To communicate effectively in this case means that the more aggressive among you are going to have to tone down your language. Otherwise some in the discussion will be totally intimidated by your language and will most likely choose not to participate in a discussion with you. With the result that much valuable input will be lost, and the resulting Project's work will not reflect the total of its membership's potential. Every discussion, aside from the "how ya hangin'", "how's the weather" chatter has a purpose; whether it's to solve a problem or to determine policy. With that in mind, I am proposing the following: A guideline (or "rule" if you want) stating, Do not make any statement in a discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement of that discussion. And that, any statement found in a discussion by another reader of that discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement of that discussion be challenged immediately, openly and directly. This will take time, patience, and probably involve a bit of controversy. But with this very clear, direct approach a culture will be created. A culture of fairness and civility that will be the signature culture of the Wikipedia Project. Thoughts? Marc Riddell -- Give them the climate and they will give you the culture. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Civil Wiki (was: Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Marc Riddell > wrote: > >> [snip] >> With that in mind, I am proposing the following: >> >> A guideline (or "rule" if you want) stating, Do not make any statement in a >> discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement >> of that discussion. And that, any statement found in a discussion by >> another >> reader of that discussion that does not contribute constructively towards >> the advancement of that discussion be challenged immediately, openly and >> directly. >> >> This will take time, patience, and probably involve a bit of controversy. >> But with this very clear, direct approach a culture will be created. A >> culture of fairness and civility that will be the signature culture of the >> Wikipedia Project. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Marc Riddell >> on 2/6/09 11:33 AM, Chad at innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: > > It will never work. What's constructive? Who decides what's constructive? > Is calling someone a troll constructive? What if they really are trolling? > Is it constructive when I repeat a point I've already made? What if you just > disagree with me, could you then challenge my points as being non- > constructive since they aren't right? > > Such a system requires common sense. We wouldn't be in this mess if > people had common sense to begin with. > "It will never work." ? That's a pretty solid wall you've put up, Chad. The key phrase in your message is "common sense". And I don't believe the term "constructive" needs to be endlessly defined here. This is a collaboration and not a court of law. I believe the majority of editors in the Project possess enough of a sense to be able to determine whether a statement is constructive, i.e., helps build upon what's been said toward a reasonable conclusion and one that serves only to be an obstacle, a distraction to that construction. I am asking reasonable, intelligent persons to make reasonably intelligent judgments here. I believe we are capable of that. As for "calling someone a troll"; we shouldn't be calling anyone anything. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Civil Wiki (was: Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
on 2/8/09 2:41 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > I've proposed something that may help in this matter on en:wp: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard# > How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki > > Comments and suggestions there are likely to be read by the en:wp arbcom. > > Thank you for this, David. I can see from reading the dialogue on the Talk Page that many do feel a declining tone of civility in the Project. But I also see several who insist on going the "show me your proof" route. Thanks, also for not being dragged into that avoidance pit. In a city, when the cops are overwhelmed by the growing amount of crime, and seem not to have the sufficient amount of manpower to present to it all, the people form neighborhood watch groups. In this way, every person in that neighborhood becomes an enforcer of the laws and policies of that neighborhood. The well-worn phrase is "take back our neighborhood". I believe it is time for the quiet majority of us to stop being so quiet and to take back our culture. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The acts of raising a community thermal level
on 2/8/09 3:21 PM, Jon at scr...@datascreamer.com wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Friends, > > I just wanted to share some thoughts. This is not designed to address > any one situation, but to address a problem that is overarching. I > include myself in this address as I am sure I've been guilty as well. > I've recently seen some very respective contributers violate this. > > We need to remember that in a volunteer environment that all things > are volunteer. We someone does something "dumb" we should not > suppose that they knew better and respond with name calling, talking > down, and other such things. In all things that we do, and in all > areas; development, editing, press, meta, et cetera. We should be > kind to one another. Just a thought - if someone does something > "dumb" politely explain why such action was wrong, and the correct way > to do it. Remember, that all volunteers do not know better. > > Just a sane thought to ponder. > Thank you, Jon. You are a part of the thinking and the culture that is going to help this Project survive. Be healthy, Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Civil Wiki (was: Increased incivility at wikinews [en]
> 2009/2/8 Marc Riddell : >> on 2/8/09 2:41 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> I've proposed something that may help in this matter on en:wp: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboar >>> d# >>> How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki >>> Comments and suggestions there are likely to be read by the en:wp arbcom. > >> Thank you for this, David. I can see from reading the dialogue on the Talk >> Page that many do feel a declining tone of civility in the Project. But I >> also see several who insist on going the "show me your proof" route. Thanks, >> also for not being dragged into that avoidance pit. > on 2/8/09 6:17 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > > I specifically avoided giving examples, because the focus would then > be turned only on those. And also, if people don't see it then they > aren't going to be convinced by any number of examples. > > >> In a city, when the cops are overwhelmed by the growing amount of crime, and >> seem not to have the sufficient amount of manpower to present to it all, the >> people form neighborhood watch groups. In this way, every person in that >> neighborhood becomes an enforcer of the laws and policies of that >> neighborhood. The well-worn phrase is "take back our neighborhood". I >> believe it is time for the quiet majority of us to stop being so quiet and >> to take back our culture. > > > You've advocated top-down action at length - on en:wp, the closest > there is is not the Foundation, not Jimmy Wales, not me or various > Foundation volunteers like me, but the arbcom. And they're not really > a government, but have occasion to reluctantly be the closest there is > to one on en:wp. Starting at the top (the arbcom) and acting > specifically on chronic personal attacks by admins will, I predict, > have a *remarkable* effect on the tone of the place. > I have advocated "top-down" intervention because the situation seemed to be getting worse by the day. I trust your judgment about the effects of stronger arbcom intervention, David. I also see a great benefit in the average editors getting involved and confronting the problem every time they encounter it. Perhaps these two elements working simultaneously can send the strongest message of all. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Start an Epidemic
Civility, like courtesy, is contagious - it begins with you. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
> 2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen : > >> It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an >> excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost. on 3/5/09 6:02 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > > None of these were excessively difficult, Yes, perhaps they were, David - to him. > and now you know more English words. C'mon, David :-( Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content
> --- On Mon, 4/20/09, Samuel Klein wrote: > >> From: Samuel Klein >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual >> content >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" >> Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 3:39 AM > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:19 AM, private musings >> wrote: >> >>> Here's a few questions about the foundation's role in >>> ensuring the projects are responsible media hosts - >> Can the foundation play >>> a role in discussing and establishing things like what >> it means to be >>> 'collegial' and 'collaborative' on the various >> projects? Can the foundation >>> offer guidance, and dare I say it 'rules' for the >> boundaries of behaviour? >>> Is there space, beyond limiting project activities to >> legality, to offer >>> firm leadership and direction in project governance? >>> >>> I'm hoping the answer to all of the above is a careful >> 'yes'. >> >> I believe the answer to the above, as worded, may be a >> careful 'no'. >> These are important decisions, and should be made and >> improved over >> time, but I believe it is the community's role to make them >> - and the >> foundation's to help provide interface or infrastructure to >> support >> the community's resolutions. Feel free to elaborate >> if you disagree. >> >> A strong and sustainable group within the community can >> absolutely >> work towards and establish the definitions and guidance you >> suggest. >> Past discussions have generally been useful, and not >> spiteful, but >> never pushed through to a resolution at least on meta and >> en:wp. >> > on 4/20/09 10:03 AM, Birgitte SB at birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: > I second this. Does anyone really believe it is even possible to set one > standard of what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' for all > cultures? These things are not absolute values and each community needs to > work out what standards are most pragmatic for it's members. There is no > shortcut or appeal to authority that can solve this for en.WP. en.WP has to > do the work and find these answers from within. > I agree with you, Brigitte, it is up to the en.WP Community to establish its own common-ground culture. However, this is no small task since you are dealing with a multitude of individuals who have established cultures of their own. I believe that common ground should lie in the simple question: How do you treat another human being? Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] One Wikipedia Per Person (regarding the distribution of and the ability to read Wikipedia)
> 2009/5/31 Foxy Loxy : > >> Assembling a chain of production that long, particularly for a >> non-profit foundation that doesn't have the best reputation (I'm not >> saying it's justified, but many people in high places will go 'ew, >> wikipedia'). > > on 5/31/09 7:29 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > [citation needed] > > People in high places appear to love us and/or respect our power, in general. > [citation needed] The power to do what, David? Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] "antisocial production"
>> 'Forget altruism. Misanthropy and egotism are the fuel of online social >> production. That's the conclusion suggested by a new study of the >> character >> traits of the contributors to Wikipedia. A team of Israeli research >> psychologists gave personality tests to 69 Wikipedians and 70 >> non-Wikipedians. They discovered that, as New Scientist puts >> it<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians >> -grumpy-and-closedminded.html>, >> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to new >> ideas."' >> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php >> >> I wonder how the mailing list will react >> on 6/27/09 6:07 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > > Always knew this, Wikipedia is generally an outlet for folks who have low > interpersonal social skills, or at least insufficient outlets for self > expression. As to "Disagreeable and closed to new ideas", that is policy, > Wikipedia is a compendium of established knowledge, not a place for new > ideas, which we call original research. > C'mon, Fred; it is "policy" to be "disagreeable"? And as for "closed to new ideas"; that may be appropriate to the body of the encyclopedia itself, but it applies very much in the various Mailing Lists & Talk Pages. Take a good look. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] "antisocial production"
on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote: > While not exactly science, having gone to more than one Wikipedia picnic to > break bread with my fellow contributors ... the conclusions seem pretty > accurate to me. > > DM And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not in depth. Marc Riddell > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Steven Walling > wrote: > >> I concur with Phil. That thing is more press stunt than it is a conclusive >> scientific study. The key thing that makes me discount it is, just like in >> a >> survey of articles, Wikipedia as a community is both gargantuan and >> diverse. >> The motivation and character of the long tail of contributors who steadily >> make a few edits a month is obviously vastly different than the top hundred >> editors by number of edits. I've yet to see a serious sociologist break >> down >> and study the community like they would a meatspace culture (though there >> are those doing so from a purely statistical perspective). >> >> Steven >> >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Phil Nash >> wrote: >> >>> Eddie Tejeda wrote: >>>>> 'Forget altruism. Misanthropy and egotism are the fuel of online >>>>> social production. That's the conclusion suggested by a new study of >>>>> the character traits of the contributors to Wikipedia. A team of >>>>> Israeli research psychologists gave personality tests to 69 >>>>> Wikipedians and 70 non-Wikipedians. They discovered that, as New >>>>> Scientist puts >>>>> it< >>> >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16349-psychologist-finds-wikipedians-gr >> umpy-and-closedminded.html >>>> , >>>>> Wikipedians are generally "grumpy," "disagreeable," and "closed to >>>>> new ideas."' >>>>> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/the_sour_wikipe.php >>>>> >>>>> I wonder how the mailing list will react >>> >>> 1. Small sample, making statistical significance difficult to assess >>> 2. Selected sample, meaning likewise - did the Wikipedians contribute to >>> en:wiki or other wikis? >>> 2a. Sample selection for non-Wikipedia editors? How and from where? >>> 3. If the questionnaire isn't published, it's incapable of independent >>> analysis for bias in the questions asked >>> 4. Peer-reviewed research by whom? >>> >>> and that's just for starters. I look forward to seeing the whole lot, >>> because I, for one, disbelieve such wide conclusions. >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> foundation-l mailing list >>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Steven Walling | @StevenWalling >> mobile: 360.606.2930 >> skype: stevenwalling >> ___ >> 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] "antisocial production"
> Marc Riddell wrote: >>> on 6/27/09 6:35 PM, David Moran at fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> While not exactly science, having gone to more than one Wikipedia >>>> picnic to break bread with my fellow contributors ... the >>>> conclusions seem pretty accurate to me. >>>> >>>> DM >>> >>> And, until that changes, the Project will grow only in size, but not >>> in depth. >>> >>> Marc Riddell on 6/27/09 7:27 PM, Phil Nash at pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: > > I wonder how much of that is due to cultural differences, taking the Pokemon > vs Medieval Philosophy difference as one example? > Editors have multifarious interests, and IMO, the worst of them tend to > discount outside interests, particularly when it comes to "popular culture", > as irrelevant. I'd suggest that NPOV suggests that within a historical > perspective, it is not for us now to judge such issues, after all, it's not > as if we are short of disk space for our articles. I'm reminded of > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Cultures but these days, we have many more > than two cultures represented in en:wiki, so diversity should not only be > expected, but encouraged; this, to me, means that editors should > occasionally step outside their comfort zone and see what is going on > elsewhere. Perhaps, since I watchlist about 1600 articles of various types, > I get an overview denied to, or rejected by, others, but then also, perhaps > I have too much time on my hands. Ho hum. > Phil, I'm not talking about Article v. Article, or Subject Area v. Subject Area. I am presenting to an overall, cohesive cultural standard that would clearly define the entire Project. As it is now, what culture there is is very cult-like in that its members religiously protect what is, and are very resistant to what could be, i.e., change. For the Project to truly grow in depth, and get itself out of the box it has placed itself in, this resistance to change must be confronted. The Wikipedia Project has been virtually without competition for its entire existence. That may very well soon change. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] "antisocial production" & pt:wiki policies
on 6/29/09 8:35 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado at v...@fct.unl.pt wrote: > Talking about antisocial... It's quite interesting what I experienced > in this very list. > > I wasn't aware of the study published in the New Scientist until I > read about it here on the list, and appreciate the information very much. > > Earlier this month I wrote about my perception of the same inadequate > behavior on the Portuguese Wikipedia and the adverse consequences > that might have. Not surprisingly I met a pretty derogatory comment > and plenty of silence. I certainly don't have the status of the New > Scientist. I also don't have, yet, any study to back up my observations. > > Nevertheless I'm saddened by the undeniable evidence, that even on > this list it is easier to find displeasure than empathy, camaraderie, > not to mention friendship. As I was told: That doesn't really fly here. > > Sincerely, > > Virgilio A. P. Machado > You are not alone in your observations, Virgilio; more agree with you than will admit. It is truly a sad state of affairs. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Rest in Peace, Walter Cronkite
on 7/17/09 8:39 PM, Chad at innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: > All, > > For those of you who have not read the news yet, Walter Cronkite, > icon of the CBS Evening News, has passed away. > > We are the continuation of the media industry that he helped define > in many ways. My thoughts are with his family. > > -Chad This is, indeed, very sad news. I can still see in my mind's eye his very moving announcement of the death of President Kennedy. His values were unshakeable. He leaves quite a legacy. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Donation Button Enhancement : Part 2
on 7/21/09 10:33 AM, Birgitte SB at birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Donate Now Every donation helps us to keep free for everyone. > Donate Now Keep Wikipedia free for everyone. > > Is no one else concerned by the use of the word "free" in the message options > being tested. I wouldn't want these ambigous messages like these on the site > no matter if they beat out the no message option by 10 to 1. Why can't we > test messages that are actually clear and honest? Wikipedia will still be > free for everyone if not a single further donation is ever made. > > Birgitte SB I agree with you very much, Birgitte. Both of these messages sound like threats. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A brief, high level analysis of the total number of contributors and the anatomy of a decision
on 7/26/09 9:47 PM, Brian at brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: > These are some excellent mailing list and Wikipedia stats that Erik has > cooked up/refreshed, although kind of a pain to do meta-analysis on. You can > however paste the html tables into OpenOffice Calc which is nice (after some > serious complaints from your cpu!). The csv format was not very fun. > > http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/ > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm > > I notice that the 364 power posters (posters with more than 200 emails > across all lists) account for 312569 / 458349 ~= 70% of all mailing list > posts. Also, 164 of these power posters account for 46579 / 52201 ~= 90% of > all posts to foundation-l. I denote this subclass of power posters uber > posters. Combined with the project statistics we have (I realize this is > somewhat arbitrary, but still quite interesting in my view): > > 1 benevolent dictator, 7 board members, 27 foundation employees, 164 uber > posters, 364 power posters, 635 wikimania attendees, 12927 very active > wikipedians, 91067 active wikipedians, 744752 monthly wikipedians and 928022 > total wikipedians. > > There are many other interesting numbers you could include. I couldn't find > the total number of mailing list contributors and only an admin with access > to all lists could give us the total number of subscribers. We could also > compare the number of sysops etc.. across all wikis in addition to the total > number of visitors and especially donors. > > The most interesting part of this data to me is the power posters and uber > posters. It would take a careful analysis of the anatomy of a decision to > draw any conclusions from it. For example, you would need to draw links > between conversations on the lists, conversations on the wiki and > conversations in person to know how many people actually contribute to a > decision, and it would be interesting to see the average number of > contributors to decisions weighted by the importance of that decision, > further scaled by other factors. My feeling though is that a relatively > small number of uber posters act as voices that are representative (in the > eyes of the foundation) of the much larger number of contributors across the > projects (these data are largely specific to Wikipedia), and that foundation > staff then make an assessment of consensus based largely on the opinions of > foundation staff which has been informed by whatever conversations happened > to occur on list. > > It is hard for someone to be everywhere all at once given the astronomically > large number of places that one can hold a conversation across all WMF > hosted media and I know that some foundation staff are excellent at > patrolling and knowing absolutely everything about places such as meta and > the english wikipedia and that many important conversations happen in person > that most of us never hear about. All that said, I continue to > worry that our benevolent dictator, board members, foundation employees, > power posters, uber posters and wikimania attendees are not very > representative of the the community at large. Part of the problem is that we > have almost no way of measuring that. Even if the community only included > everyone up to wikimania attendees it would appear that only a tiny fraction > of contributors account for all of the decision making. When we include all > contributors we see an awesome consolidation of power. > > To put it simply, I am not very happy with this consolidation. I would like > to see the foundation use technology to bring more of these contributors > into its fold and involve them in the decision making process. We can use > technology to increase the signal to noise ratio while simultaneously > improving the quality of decisions and finding alternate and optimal > solutions that would only occur to less than 1 person in a thousand. As it > stands, those solutions are not being found. As the foundation continues to > bring in employees it gains more and more power and takes it away from the > community. That's my view at least. I would like to drastically reverse that > trend so that there is no consolidation - so that it is easy (and indeed, > beneficial for us all) for anyone who wants to be involved in whatever > decision to get involved and make a difference. Starting mailing list > threads just doesn't seem like it. I also note that the mailing lists have > been on the decline since June of 2006. > > /Brian Thank you for this excellent work and analysis, Brian. I, too, am concerned about the consolidation of power; because it is power groups such as this that set the values, direction, and very tone of a project community's culture. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
on 7/27/09 8:32 AM, Dennis During at dcdur...@gmail.com wrote: > It is not entirely a matter of recruitment. > > To me the problem appears in the form of how welcoming the projects are to > the different types of contributors and types of contributions. That, in > turn relates to the value system and cognitive and social biases of those > who control the projects. And it is this control group, this "consolidation of power" which was described earlier in this discussion, that is keeping the Project from reaching its full potential. This issue has been brought up many times in the past, but each time has been conveniently ignored by this group - which in psych language constitutes denial. In fact, this practice of ignoring persons and/or issues they don't want to confront appears to be a handy refuge for members of this group. There appears to be a fear in some of the more forceful in this group that, if they loosen their grip, they will be left behind. Perhaps they will if they don't grow with it. In any case, this is one of the most pressing issues facing the Project today. And one, if not confronted, which will cause the Project to fall into mediocrity as newer, more tolerant, more innovative projects come into being. Marc Riddell > > As we have more to protect (formatting, layout, content organization, > stylistic unity) there is a negative attitude toward anyone who might > jeopardize it through clumsy attempts at improvement. I sometime notice and > feel a tendency to be more cooperative and patient with someone I perceive > as being older. I'm pretty sure that younger contributors sense my efforts > to communicate with them as, um, adult. This provides a bias against > younger would-be contributors. > > Facilitating contributions by newbies is part of what might help make for an > easier induction of all new users, which provides a modest tendency to favor > the young without disfavoring the old. Having a bit more structure to new > user induction seems to be the inevitable direction to go to elicit breadth > on the projects. Out existing low-structure approaches need to be > supplemented with attractive more-structured paths. > > Perhaps inviting structured feedback (eg article ratings with links to > article talk pages) to draw folks into low risk-of-damage active involvement > would enable us to get more from those a little less bold and motivated. > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: > >> Bleh. >> >> When did this become an either-or proposition? >> >> You go recruit retired professionals. I'll go recruit young people. >> Someone else can recruit soccer moms, and yet another person can go >> after teachers. Everybody wins. >> >> The only way to lose is if either: >> >> A) You believe one of these groups should not be participating in Wikipedia >> >> or >> >> B) You believe efforts to recruit professionals will actually >> interfere with my efforts to recruit young people, etc. >> >> If you believe A) then frankly I believe you are out of touch with the >> ethos of the projects. Different groups may need a different amount >> of guidance before they are prepared to contribute, but there is no >> group of people we should be categorically shutting out or >> discouraging. >> >> If you believe B) and somehow think that recruiting one group somehow >> interferes with recruiting other groups, then I'd like to see an >> explanation of that. It seems unlikely in most cases. >> >> Besides which, there are many things we can be doing (such as >> improving the editing interface and documentation) that should widely >> benefit most groups of potential new editors. >> >> -Robert Rohde >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Paths (was Analysis of statistics)
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Marc Riddell >> wrote: >>> And it is this control group, this "consolidation of power" which was >>> described earlier in this discussion, that is keeping the Project from >>> reaching its full potential. This issue has been brought up many times in >>> the past, but each time has been conveniently ignored by this group - which >>> in psych language constitutes denial. In fact, this practice of ignoring >>> persons and/or issues they don't want to confront appears to be a handy >>> refuge for members of this group. There appears to be a fear in some of the >>> more forceful in this group that, if they loosen their grip, they will be >>> left behind. Perhaps they will if they don't grow with it. In any case, this >>> is one of the most pressing issues facing the Project today. And one, if not >>> confronted, which will cause the Project to fall into mediocrity as newer, >>> more tolerant, more innovative projects come into being. >> >> Fully agreed, especially with the last couple of sentences. >> >> ... And except the last one. There will be no similar project to >> Wikimedia, at least during this century. Projects like Wikipedia are >> extremely expensive. Which [rational] projects have or had one million >> of direct contributors? Great Wall, Chinese electrical system, Indian >> railway system? Maybe. Wikipedia had momentum (and because of that >> Jimmy's role is priceless) and it is very hard that we'll see another >> project of such dimensions soon. >> >> As we are inside of the project, we are not able to realize the >> dimensions of what we are building. The biggest number of articles, >> number of words, contributors... -- are just trees in the wood which >> we have created. Numbers are just statistical facts which are not >> important as is. But, all of them make a wood which existed never >> before (and, probably, which won't exist for a long time again). >> >> The point is that we, now and here, are making much bigger decisions >> than how to keep ~10TB of data and build another 100TB of [very >> useful] data in the next couple of years. Our work affects the whole >> human civilization. Would we be able to keep or not our projects as >> healthy places, this would give the answer which path would be used by >> our civilization. >> >> We have two non-exclusive possibilities: (1) centralized >> on 7/27/09 1:36 PM, Milos Rancic at mill...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hm. Mail hasn't been finished. I wanted to save it and consider > finishing it later (probably, I wouldn't send it). So, probably, you > should forget for this email :) > No problem, Milos :-). I've done the same thing myself in the past. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Thanks to the WP Tech people
It's very good to see the English Wikipedia back and running smoothly again; my withdrawal symptoms were getting hard to handle :-). Seriously, thank you to all the people who fixed the problem. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board election spamming
> Thomas, > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> I have just received an email telling me I am eligible to vote in the >> board elections when I have already voted. Please don't send >> untargetted mass emails - they are spam. on 8/9/09 5:15 PM, phoebe ayers at phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: > > You think nothing of routinely filling up all of the list subscribers' > inboxes with your opinions, as the top poster on Foundation-l.* But > you are complaining here about one email, sent specifically to active > and thus presumably interested members of Wikimedia projects reminding > them about a single, important election? I find complaints about this > being "spam" -- as if you can't handle one extra email about > Wikimedia, when you clearly manage to get through hundreds of much > less important missives on the mailing lists on a regular basis -- > pretty mindblowingly hypocritical. > Yes!! Thank you Phoebe. This comment was long overdue! Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How bureaucracy works: the example
>> - Original Message - >> From: "Gerard Meijssen" >> To: ; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" >> >> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 10:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How bureaucracy works: the example >> >>> [...] Wikipedia is one of the >>> biggest websites in the world. Obviously that is not how the reality of >>> our >>> success is measured. >> >> Of course not. The reality of its success would be: being a comprehensive >> and reliable reference source. It is not, yet. >> >> Peter > on 9/26/10 7:09 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > When you're a big success it is very hard to continue to take the > necessary actions to achieve genuine greatness. The usual response to > suggestions of change is to circle the wagons. > Yes. And a part of true greatness is the willingness, and the limitless ability, to innovate and to evolve. Three quotes come to my mind regarding this: * - "If we don't change, we don't grow. If we don't grow, we are not really living." -- Gail Sheehy * - "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein And, to describe what the Project did in the beginning: * - "Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: "David Gerard" >>> That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked: >>> *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy, >>> in your opinion? Please be specific. > > David, I think one of the reasons that biologists and others may be > happier than philosophers to edit Wikipedia is that everyone assumes > they know something about the latter and don't need to study for it, > > Academics don't have the time or patience to explain basic points for > years on end to people who feel that reading books or papers about the > subject is unnecessary. I'm sure the biology experts would give up too > if their area of expertise were undermined in such a basic way. > Very well said, SV. I encounter the same thing in my field. You cannot teach someone who will not be taught. You cannot teach someone something they think they already know. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
>> on 10/2/10 6:01 AM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>> From: "David Gerard" >>>>> That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked: >>>>> *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy, >>>>> in your opinion? Please be specific. >>> >>> David, I think one of the reasons that biologists and others may be >>> happier than philosophers to edit Wikipedia is that everyone assumes >>> they know something about the latter and don't need to study for it, >> >>> >> >>> Academics don't have the time or patience to explain basic points for >>> years on end to people who feel that reading books or papers about the >>> subject is unnecessary. I'm sure the biology experts would give up too >>> if their area of expertise were undermined in such a basic way. > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Marc Riddell > wrote: >>> >> Very well said, SV. I encounter the same thing in my field. You cannot teach >> someone who will not be taught. You cannot teach someone something they >> think they already know. >> on 10/3/10 4:49 AM, David Goodman at dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: > > Sure you can, if you can just get their attention. This is the basic > method behind good instructional and popular writing, as well as such > specific genres as biography. You need to provide an especially > attractive format and very clear presentation in a manner that > implies that the presentation is expected to be entertaining, to get > people started reading or listening, and then to keep them going > provide intrinsically interesting material and clear dramatic verbal > and pictorial illustration, and write or speak in language and manner > that is at the right level of sophistication--a slightly better > informed friend is usually the right level, and aim at an overall > effect when finished that w;il give people a feeling of satisfaction > and increased confidence. > > It's not easy. Few people can do this really well, and they are only > occasionally professional academics. Good advertising people can do > it; good journalists can do it; masters of popular non-fiction can do > it; some fiction writers can even do it. It may be beyond practical > levels of community participation to expect it in Wikipedia, at least > on a routine basis. (Though we do have one additional factor--the > attractive browsing effect. ) > > People do change their mind. People can be persuaded. But there are > almost no articles in Wikipedia written well enough to could persuade > people to pay attention to the arguments. Probably that should not be > our goal. for I don't think we can accomplish it by an assortment of > amateurs. Probably our basic principle is right:aim for NPOV, for > those people who want it. We're always going to be dull reading--even > the best professional encyclopedias usually have been. Anything more > than that belongs in other media. Much of what you say here is true, David. However, the task becomes an arduous one when the students rule the classroom. The prevailing culture in Wikipedia, whose dogma seems to be, "this is our encyclopedia, and no 'expert' is going to tell us what to do", may seem liberating to some, but is preventing the Project from being the truly collaborative one it has the potential to be. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> on 10/4/10 11:06 AM, Noein at prono...@gmail.com wrote: > Wouldn't self criticizing, openness of mind, intersubjective references, > shared arguments, and the empathic capacity to understand what the other > see a better approach to star a discussion? > Yes! With this you describe the very essence of collaboration. The facts of something can have very different appearances depending on the angle of sight - what's most important is the dialogue those different angles produce. It's also wise to know that there are things you are never going to know. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Liu Xiaobo
on 10/10/10 1:44 PM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote: > I agree that Peter's post exaggerates the problem the English > Wikipedia sometimes has with groupthink and an entrenched, > self-perpetuating bureaucracy. The comparison is unfair to Liu > Xiaobo's history and work. > > Still, it's ironic that the first response to his somewhat > inflammatory remarks was to moderate him (in other words, require the > approval of an apparatchik before his words can be publicly seen.) I'm > not Peter's biggest fan... but his recent participation on this list > has been civil and thoughtful, and maybe a warning that Wikimedians > are sensitive to unfavorable comparisons would have been sufficient. > Excellent observation, Nathan. "Moderation" (which is merely the denial term for censorship) in an open discussion forum such as this should be extremely rare. Wisdom, not power, is called for here. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
on 10/17/10 8:05 PM, Austin Hair at adh...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi guys, > > After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've > enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member. > Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l. > > Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on > moderation for the indefinite future. > Why? Would you like to share your reasoning with the rest of us? When someone else decides that what another person has written isn't suitable for someone else's eyes - what else do you call it but censorship. The only reason words are ever banned is out of fear of the consequence of their use. Has either of these persons threatened anyone with harm? As I understand this Forum, it is for discussing all issues related to the Foundation that controls the Project we are all working on. The Community should be able to openly discuss all of the laundry that belongs to it - both clean and dirty. This way, we may not always like what we hear, but we can always trust that we are hearing it all. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
Let's see what we've got here: A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god; an "Executive Director" who answers only to this "Board"; a group of "Moderators" who claim (with a straight face) that they are "independent", but whose "moderations" are clearly designed to keep the first two in a favorable light; and, dead last, you have the people who, not so ironically, create the substance of the thing that makes the first three possible. This setup sounds achingly familiar. And, like all similar setups throughout history, is set up to fail. Marc Riddell on 10/20/10 12:44 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado at v...@fct.unl.pt wrote: > Brigitte, > > I agree with you. You raised some very good points. > > Sincerely, > > Virgilio A. P. Machado > > > At 03:47 20-10-2010, you wrote: >> From: Austin >> Hair To: Wikimedia Foundation >> Mailing List >> Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 12:35:07 PM Subject: >> Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian On >> Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan >> wrote: > If it pleases the >> moderators, might we know on what basis Greg >> was > banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled? >> Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that >> he's been on moderation for the better part of >> the past yearnamely, that he was completely >> unable tto keep his contributions civil, and >> caused more flamewars than constructive >> discussion. Peter Damian is only on moderation, >> and we'll follow our usual policy of letting >> through anything that could be considered even >> marginally acceptable. We really are very >> liberal about thisotheerwise you wouldn't have >> heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six >> months. I'm sure that my saying this won't >> convince anyone who's currently defending him, >> but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs >> was retaliatory. I'll also (not for the first >> time) remind everyone that neither the Wikimedia >> Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter >> or other organizational body has any say in the >> administration of this list. I hope that clears >> up all of the questions asked in this thread so >> far. It is not about defending anyone but about >> the fact that the "I know bannable when I see >> it" theory of moderation is unconstructive and >> leads to dramafests. The next ban is the one >> that will likely cause a real flame war. I >> suspect *more* people would be on moderation if >> any sort of objective criteria were being >> used. The lack of explanation over this bothers >> me so much because I suspect that you *can't* >> explain it. It seems to be the sort of gut-shot >> that hasn't been thought through. Moderate more >> people based on real criteria, rather than how >> you feel about them. Birgitte >> SB >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > 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] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
You are very right, Virgilio. The body of work, of the Project, is quite salvageable; as well as ultimately sustainable. But it is quite clear that the present management doesn't have the slightest clue, nor apparently, the vaguest interest in learning, how to work with people, beyond their own hubris-driven circle. That's where the change needs to begin if sustainable is the goal. Marc on 10/20/10 2:16 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado at v...@fct.unl.pt wrote: > Marc, > > I agree with you. I would rephrase your statement as the present > setup is not sustainable. You can only fool some of the people some > of the time... There are many bells ringing, many whistles blowing, > lots of lights going on and off. It is foolish not to give them a > second thought and make amends while there still time and > opportunity. Sometime down the line it will be too late. We're making > a sincere and honest effort here. The last thing we want to say is "I > told you so," but the audience keeps on screaming "Kill! Kill!" Its > hard to hear anything else over the crowd roar. > > Sincerely, > > Virgilio A. P. Machado > > > At 13:58 20-10-2010, you wrote: >> Let's see what we've got here: >> >> A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god; an "Executive Director" >> who answers only to this "Board"; a group of "Moderators" who claim (with a >> straight face) that they are "independent", but whose "moderations" are >> clearly designed to keep the first two in a favorable light; and, dead last, >> you have the people who, not so ironically, create the substance of the >> thing that makes the first three possible. This setup sounds achingly >> familiar. And, like all similar setups throughout history, is set up to >> fail. >> >> Marc Riddell > > > ___ > 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] Ban and moderate
on 10/22/10 8:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen at gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: > Hoi, > People who appreciate an upgrade from totally useless... obviously... > Thanks, > GerardM To what "use" are you talking about, Gerard; groupthink-l? Marc Riddell > On 22 October 2010 14:27, Anthony wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:54 AM, David Gerard wrote: >>> Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as "troll-l" and lots of >>> chapter people refuse to even look at it. Pulling it out of the mire >>> might make it even slightly useful again. >> >> Who want's a list that's slightly useful? >> >> ___ >> 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] Ban and moderate
> on 10/22/10 10:11 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > This is a public list for discussion of matters which concern and affect > the Wikimedia Foundation. It is open to supporters and critics of our > projects; to novices and old hands. > I am listening, and do hear what you are saying, Fred. But banishment from something, whether it be from a working project or a country, means that person is being openly, or even surreptitiously, destructive of the body, the substance, of the project or country, not merely being critical of it. Has either of these persons, Greg or Peter, been destructive of the substance of the Project: the body of the Encyclopedia? And could we please stop the disingenuousness of calling what is clearly censorship, "moderation"? And, when someone's constant (and seemingly only) answer to anyone who doesn't agree with them is to call them a name - like "troll", the accusation should bounce right back to the accuser. In psychology it's called "projection". Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
> On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote: >> >> But it does have authoritative perspective. That is exactly my point >> and the point at which you railed at, from a position that was >> extreme. Your contention is that we should not report *any* thing in >> our work on a drug except what the manufacturer puts on the label. > on 10/23/10 5:42 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk at wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > > If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information > contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a > calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two > numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its > results, even when it added the numbers correctly. > > For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little > importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if > one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate > information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way > authoritative. > Very well put. I agree with you completely. Marc Riddell, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Wikidata
on 11/24/10 6:10 PM, wjhon...@aol.com at wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Would this project answer the question I am trying to address today? > > "Which American actors died in 1970?" > > There does not appear to me, to be any obvious way of using the built-in > search engine to answer this question. Searching for "Actor 1970" generates a > lot of false positives, an overwhelming number. > > Is there no way to find the intersection of two categories ? > > W W, Could it de done with a Category: 1970 Deaths - Actors, or some such thing? Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Wikidata
on 11/24/10 6:33 PM, wjhon...@aol.com at wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/24/2010 3:29:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, > michaeldavi...@comcast.net writes: > > >> Could it de done with a Category: 1970 Deaths - Actors, or some such >> thing? >> >> Marc >> > > > Evidently the phrase "Category: 1970 Deaths" is not indexed. Try it, and > see if you get anything. I got zip on doing that. I tried several different ways and, like you, got nowhere. If there were only some way to take the existing Category, "1970 Deaths" and the Category, "Actors" and combine them for a search. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Wikidata
on 11/24/10 6:59 PM, wjhon...@aol.com at wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/24/2010 3:56:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, > phn...@blueyonder.co.uk writes: > > >> Try http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php >> >> plug in values "en", "Deaths in 1970" and "American Actors". >> > > > > > Articles that are under American Actors and under Deaths in 1970: > > no matches! I just pulled up the Articles on two actors who I know died in 1970. One was in the Category "English Film Actors" and the other in "American Film Actors". M ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Wikidata
on 11/24/10 7:25 PM, wjhon...@aol.com at wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/24/2010 4:11:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, > michaeldavi...@comcast.net writes: > > >> I just pulled up the Articles on two actors who I know died in 1970. One >> was >> in the Category "English Film Actors" and the other in "American Film >> Actors". >> > > > The category intersect PHP is very finicky. > You have to use the right case. > > "American film actors" and "1970 deaths" > > NOW I get a list of 61 articles > > > W Unless we're both missing something, I think you've hit on an important issue the tech people should look at. I would make the encyclopedia an even better tool for research. M ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Re: [VereinDE-l] Bericht zur Verleihung der Zedler-Me...
> In a message dated 11/25/2010 3:31:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, > geni...@gmail.com writes: > > >> On 25 November 2010 22:15, wrote: >>> We have Geni, many ways to determine if someone is an established >> editor. >> >> Name one that doesn't boil down to editcountitis >> >>> We have flags already to mark people as established editors in addition >> to >>> that. >> >> I for one have no wish to turn requests for rollback in a mini RFA >> more than has already happened. >> > on 11/25/10 8:35 PM, wjhon...@aol.com at wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > The police always think they are doing a fine job and don't need any > accountability. > All democracies have checks and balances. Those who do not, are police > states. > > Our single hierarchical structure is just such a system with no checks and > balances. > The point of having three parts to the US Government is to ensure that if > you are harassed by the police you can turn to your legislator, if you are > attacked by your legislator, you can turn to a judge. Wikipedia has a single > structure. If you are harassed by an admin, you have no recource except to > another admin. The police policing the police. I see no justice in that > system. Plenty of abuse. If you're not an admin, you have no power > whatsoever over a single admin deciding to silence you. And other police > simply back > them up. > > That Geni, is the entire nature of the police state. And why a police > state is not a system of government under which enlightened people wish to > operate. It only takes one run-in of this sort to send the promising editor > away. Suggesting this is an appropriate system to retain only shows the sort > of > disconnect Admins have with Editors. > > You assume that any editor who wants to protect themselves from this sort > of abuse should become an admin. Tantamount to any citizen wishing to > protect themselves from the Police should become a policeman. I find that > sort of > attitude to be alarming. > > Will Johnson Very, very well said, Will. But that's exactly the way it is. That's the way it is when people who construct and manage an environment like this don't know the first thing about working constructively with other people. And that's the way it will be until it can't afford to be that way anymore. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Tendrl to Knowino
>> On 19/12/2010 23:07, Fred Bauder wrote: > > There can be no viable alternative to Wikipedia. > This is the type of thinking that sets you up to being blindsided. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Slowness, error messages, and being logged out, since around January 15
on 1/26/11 7:09 PM, SlimVirgin at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: > A few editors on the English Wikipedia have been noticing a problem since > around January 15 of "connection timed out" messages, very slow performance, > and being logged out. > > Preview is getting hard to use because so slow, or failing entirely, and > some edits are not being saved. > Some discussion here -- > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Slowness_a > nd_timing_out_error_message > > Does anyone know whether there's work going on that might be causing it? > > Sarah I'll second everything problem you described, Sarah. The site has been extremely slow and unpredictable for days now. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Since Egypt has shutdown internet, should we too?
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 15:34, Ting Chen wrote: >> the Wikimedia movement is like a big family. Even though we sometimes >> quarry with each other but especially in time like this we are all with >> you. In the last days I often think back of the hospitality from all of >> you to so many Wikimedians from all around the world back in Alexandria. >> Read your line about following TV ans Twitter also reminds me of June >> 1989 when I followed radio news hour after hour for every news through >> sleepless nights. Back then, very alone, without the community that >> gathered here. on 1/29/11 12:09 PM, Milos Rancic at mill...@gmail.com wrote: > I have similar feelings... > > It is not the same when you are worried about people which you don't > know personally; and people which you know. For the most of my life, > the most of people which I know were living in Belgrade, but Wikimedia > movement has changed my perspective. > > For the first time I've realized that people which I know may be in > problem after L'Aquila earthquake. Then, a number of other events > followed: Iranian protests and present Egyptian protests, but also big > smoke in Moscow and recent Brisbane floods. Even financial crisis in > Ireland makes me to think about my Wikimedian friend there. And > whenever I hear about severe weather conditions somewhere in US, I am > thinking do I know anyone there. I mean, it is not the same to me to > hear about protests in Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt or Iran. I know > Wikimedians from Egypt and Iran. > > From one point, it is burdensome. I don't care just about my close > surroundings, but about thousands of people all over the world. But > from the other, it makes happy to know that I have friends all over > the world and that we care for each other. > > But, I would like that we don't stop here. I would like to see > Wikimedia movement (WMF, chapters, Wikimedians) to be able to give > real help to Wikimedians -- but not just Wikimedians -- all over the > world in such circumstances. It is not just about keeping information > free. Wikimedia movement has enough resources now to give some real > help: it could be about organizing donations of laptops with Wikipedia > on itself with OLPC; it could be about food. > > Mido, please, keep us informed! > Ting and Milos, wonderfully said, and very warmly received. Thank you. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New General Counsel!: Geoffrey Brigham
Welcome to you, Goeff. Your academic and work credentials and experience are
impressive. Congratulations. I especially like your background as a busker.
And your bringing your music to work. You should be a healthy addition to
the Wikimedia staff.
Marc Riddell
on 2/5/11 3:11 PM, Theo10011 at de10...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Geoff,
>
>
> {{welcome}}
>
> Welcome !!!
>
>
> Regards
>
> Theo
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> Welcome to Wikimedia, Geoff! May you find both challenges and
>> inspiration on our legal frontiers.
>>
>> SJ
>>
>>
>> Sue writes:
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> I'm delighted to tell you that the Wikimedia Foundation has a new
>>> General Counsel.
>>>
>>> Geoff Brigham, formerly of eBay, will start with us March 7 once he's
>>> relocated from Paris to San Francisco. He'll report to me.
>>>
>>> To recap: In late October, I hired m|Oppenheim to find us a new
>>> General Counsel. I expected it to be a tough search, because
>>> appropriate GCs for the Wikimedia Foundation don't exactly grow on
>>> trees. As a growing U.S.-based non-profit that operates one of the
>>> world's most popular websites in partnership with a global network of
>>> volunteers, we need a GC who can handle a broad range of legal issues
>>> including the legal defense of our projects in an international
>>> context, an array of matters related to policy and regulatory
>>> compliance, issues such as privacy, and helping us with the challenges
>>> of opening a new office in India. Very few people have that kind of
>>> breadth. And for our GC as with all our jobs, we are also looking for
>>> someone who is passionate about the mission, has a collaborative and
>>> inclusive personal style, is inclined towards transparency, and
>>> ideally is a bit of an iconoclast. It's a lot to ask of one person :-)
>>>
>>> So we braced ourselves for a long and difficult search. But in fact it
>>> turned out to be highly enjoyable. Over a period of several months,
>>> m|Oppenheim talked with hundreds of connectors and candidates, and in
>>> the end we interviewed about a dozen finalists. They were terrific,
>>> inspiring lawyers: I was glad to meet them all. And I am delighted
>>> that we discovered Geoff.
>>>
>>> Geoff spent eight years at eBay during its main growth years, which
>>> gives him important experience managing the legal challenges and risks
>>> inherent in operating a popular site. His work at eBay encompassed
>>> North America, Europe, Asia and Australia where he handled legal
>>> issues throughout the world. He's worked alone and led large teams. He
>>> is hands-on, collaborative, open-minded and inclusive. And he is
>>> extremely excited about working with us.
>>>
>>> A little more about Geoff's background: Most recently, Geoff was
>>> Vice-President and Deputy General Counsel at eBay in San Jose,
>>> California. There, he directed legal affairs in more than 15 countries
>>> throughout North America, Europe, Asia and Australia, encompassing
>>> litigation, copyright and trademarks, privacy, ethics, product and
>>> site content review, policy and regulatory compliance, new market
>>> advice, contracts, governance and site security. Previously he worked
>>> for eBay in Bern, Switzerland for four years as Vice-President &
>>> Senior Director, and in Paris, France for two years as Senior
>>> Compliance and Litigation Counsel.
>>>
>>> Prior to joining eBay, Geoff was Assistant United States Attorney in
>>> Miami, Florida. Before that he worked for the U.S. Department of
>>> Justice in Paris and Washington, was an Associate with Finley, Kumble,
>>> Wagner et al. in Washington, and was a law clerk for the Honorable
>>> Howard F. Corcoran, U.S. Judge for the District of Columbia. Geoff
>>> received his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in
>>> Washington DC. He also holds a B.A. in Political Science and French,
>>> from Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
>>>
>>> He speaks English and French. He's a passionate music fan and an
>>> accomplished flute player: he used to busk many years ago, playing
>>> jazz and classical music on the Parisian streets, and he was well
>>> known at eBay for playing his flute in the office in the early
>>> mornings. Maybe that will happen at t
Re: [Foundation-l] Criticism of employees (was VPAT)
> On 2/18/2011 12:38 PM, Zack Exley wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM, phoebe ayerswrote: >>> And it's worth pointing out the obvious -- the reason there are so >>> many places is because it's nearly impossible to keep up with >>> *everything* going on in the communit(ies)* all the time. Even a >>> subset of that discussion can be too much for those of us trying to >>> get other things done as well; most of the subscribees of the list >>> probably skim it at least some of the time. And the vast majority of >>> our community is not even on Foundation-l but a pretty large >>> percentage (I'd guess) of those people who interested in governance, >>> foundation and meta-issues probably are subscribed, which is just one >>> of the reasons why it's worth trying to make it a useful forum -- a >>> perennial hope and dream! >> I'd just like to add my perspective as a relatively new staffer at WMF. >> People in the office really do read Foundation-l and all the other movement >> lists. They are very much influenced by them and take them very seriously. A >> couple of times, someone on this list has said that WMF staff call >> Foundation-l "Troll-l". I've never heard anyone refer to it that way. on 2/18/11 3:47 PM, Michael Snow at wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: > In my experience, it's actually mostly community members frustrated with > the quality of discussions who call it that. The staff avoid that kind > of tone, understandably, as it might seem unprofessional. Personally, I > prefer not to suggest that anyone is a troll, except for Domas (he likes > it). > Yes. Often a person with a need to control a conversation or discussion will resort to that name-calling tactic. They don't like the POV the messenger is bringing so they try to discredit them. 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)
> 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
[Foundation-l] FW: [Gendergap] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia
-- From: Marc Riddell Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:34:48 -0500 To: Sue Gardner Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia > On 20 February 2011 14:24, Marc Riddell wrote: > >> Sue, as you know, this is the area of my greatest concern regarding the >> future of the Wikipedia Project. The gender gap is a part of the larger >> problem you described above: That of a combative, hostile and defensive >> culture that presents an unchecked arena for Community Member harassment and >> abuse - that prevents the type of healthy, intelligent and productive >> collaboration that can, and will, improve and maintain the quality of the >> Project. Is there, are there, plans to mount a similar initiative to tackle >> this larger problem? To approach it as a gender-neutral problem? > on 2/20/11 5:46 PM, Sue Gardner at sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: > Yes, absolutely. And it's not just plans: people are actively working > on the issue, today. This is the primary work of the Community > department at the Wikimedia Foundation -- the staff there are > currently working with community members on a bunch of projects and > activities to help make the Wikimedia projects more inclusive. A lot > of that is happening on the outreach wiki -- for example, the Account > Creation improvement project, the Bookshelf project, the Ambassador > program, support for student campus associations, and so forth. > > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf_Project > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Ambassador_Program > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_student_clubs > > There's also some outreach-related/outreach-supportive activities that > have been announced on the Wikimedia blog: > > http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2011/01/12/new-wikimedia-fellow/ > http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/11/30/upload-wizard-launches-beta-wikimedi > a-commons/ > http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/30/two-new-community-department-fello ws> / > > I agree with you Marc that our central challenge is the need for deep > culture change, to help Wikimedia be more inclusive and open. I think > the gender challenge is part of that, but it's obviously not the whole > story: we need more women, and we also need more editors from outside > North America and Europe, as well as other underrepresented groups. > And we want current editors to be having better, more positive > experiences on the projects, as well. > > Thanks, > Sue Thank you, for this, Sue. And, at the most basic level, we a faced with the reality that this cultural change can only begin, and grow, at the most basic level: The individual. Sue, there are key persons in the Project that, by virtue of their official position or, simply because they are more frequently vocal on the various Project conversation sites, who must lead by example. Each one must be actively working toward this healthier culture. They, and all of us, must set the tone. I truly believe that if the climate is healthy, the culture will be also. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Points to Ponder
All, Familiar points to ponder. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/us/politics/21civility.html?nl=todaysheadl ines&emc=tha23 Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Ponts to Ponder
All, Familiar points to ponder. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/us/politics/21civility.html?nl=todaysheadl ines&emc=tha23 Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)
> On 22 February 2011 12:02, Erik Moeller wrote: >> IMO every single Wikimedia project would benefit from dedicated >> community effort to 1) catalog the most widely used templates on talk >> pages, 2) systematically improve them with an eye on the impact they >> can have on whether people feel their work is valued and the >> environment in which they're contributing is a positive and welcoming >> one. This is something that anyone can help with, right now. > > +1 :-) > on 2/22/11 4:38 PM, Sue Gardner at sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: > I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the > English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been > trying to make constructive edits. I was trying to imagine the world > through their eyes --- what their early experiences felt like. Some > had welcome templates and some didn't, and many also had templates > added that were probably intimidating for new people (warnings and > corrections of various kinds, mostly). > > So yes, I think efforts to make templates and bot notices friendlier > would be time well spent. > > I also wonder if we do any templating that's meant to be purely > encouraging good behaviour. Like, "Your edits to [x] article were > constructive and useful: thank you for helping Wikipedia," or "You > have just made your 100th edit: congratulations." That kind of thing. > Does anyone know: do we do much of that? And if not, should we? > I don't know whether or not it's done now, Sue, but it's a great idea! Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness: a radical proposal -- some proposed details and a diagram
on 2/26/11 3:52 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote: > The actual work of helping new editors and monitoring quality does not > require an admin, and most of the people doing it are not admins. The > main thing I use admin tools for is to delete hopelessly unacceptable > articles, but almost everything I delete has been spotted by a > non-admin. However, most of what I do is not the use of admin tools, > but explaining to the authors of these who have come in good faith > what was wrong and how they can do better, & encouraging the > potentially good ones to stay. Anyone who has sufficient learned or > innate politeness & understanding can do that. Yes! > > And anyone with politeness and understanding can pass rfa, if they > care to, if they are willing to tolerate some stupid remarks. The > ability to patiently tolerate stupidity is and ought to remain one of > the requirements for being an admin. As it is with clinicians :-). I've been called things I had to look up!:-) Yes, David, this is what I meant when I have said that a culture cannot be mandated or legislated. It must happen one person at a time, each time we communicate with another person. And the ability to interact with another person in a civil manner should be a requirement for everyone working on the Project. It then becomes the hallmark, the distinguishing feature of a Wikipedian. Marc Riddell > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Neil Harris wrote: >> Here are some more details to flesh out my proposal for new admin creation. >> >> Proposed rate of automatic new admin creation: 5% a month, until back to >> early-Wikipedia proportions of admin number relative to edit rate. >> >> Although this sounds a lot, it's only about 3 new admins a day. >> >> - >> >> State transitions: >> >> IP user >> | >> | Creates an account, passes captcha test >> V >> User >> | >> | Time passes >> V >> Autoconfirmed user >> | >> | Time passes. User gets chosen at random from pool of all editors, >> followed by machine checking for good participation. The daily rate of >> random selection is tuned to generate the correct rate of new admins >> over the long term. >> V >> Proposed new admin >> | >> | Gets message. Sends a request message to a list. Any "old admin" >> checks for human-like edits, then performs one-click action to issue >> admin bit. If they don't respond within (say) two weeks, the invitation >> is withdrawn, and they have to wait to be be drawn again at random. >> V >> New admin, with limited powers >> | >> | One year passes without being de-adminned >> V >> Old admin, with full powers >> >> -- >> >> Some possible machine-detectable criteria for "good participation", >> based on edits: >> >> * Account age: Has been a Wikipedia contributor for at least two years. >> * Recent activity: Has made at least one edit in at least X days in the >> last three months. >> * Recent blocks: has not been blocked at all in the last year >> * Responsiveness: Has edited a user page of an editor who has edited >> their user page, at least Y times in the last three months. >> * Edit comments: Has added a non-trivial edit comment to at least Z% of >> their edits >> * Namespaces: Has edited some balanced mix of articles, talk pages, user >> talk pages, and project talk pages, within the last three months >> >> Note that this is a satisficing activity -- the aim is not to find the >> best editors, or to be fair, but just to select active Wikipedia >> participants who know their way around, and are not misbehaving, and >> then select some of them by lot. >> >> The final test, for humanness, necessarily needs to be performed by a >> human being, to avoid the threat of bots gaming the system, but, if as >> suggested above, there are only about three or four candidates proposed >> each day. >> >> Note also that almost this process can be implemented in a bot, >> independently of the actual wikipedia software itself. >> >> -- Neil >> >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
> On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: >> Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and >> they >> choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general >> need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This >> situation >> strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public >> relations >> material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of >> applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the >> other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you >> have >> done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what >> their >> "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they >> believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a >> new >> employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a >> more >> open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to >> apply >> for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. >> Narrow >> and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and >> uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening. on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: > This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described > is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a > somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and > allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation > I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different > positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background, > skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for > us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the > hiring process in how we think about the position. > Michael, do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community that is at the heart of this Project? Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Psych That Almost Wasn't
H. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13rubin.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail 1=y M ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Knowledge
"It's the oldest temptation. Not gold or the power it can buy, not love, not even the deep, drumming fires of lust: What we coveted first was knowledge." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Lee_Carrell "Haunt Me Still" Chapter 1 Line 1 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Message to community about community decline
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:20, MZMcBride wrote: >> Going along with this >> theory that we've brought in a majority of the people who are willing to >> work on these free projects already, perhaps the focus should shift to >> making their lives easier? And maybe from there, the pool of those willing >> to get involved might grow a bit. > on 3/28/11 10:19 PM, Sarah at slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: > It's been a regular theme since I joined in 2004 that people have > minimized the contribution of established editors. We highlight > research emphasizing the percentage of edits made by anons; or studies > showing the real problem is that newbies don't stay long. And we > emphasize an ideology that ignores creativity and talent by saying it > doesn't matter who writes articles -- which amounts to saying that > people don't matter as individuals. All are replaceable. > > But I believe that when the history of Wikipedia is eventually > written, we'll be astonished by the very small number of people who > created, wrote and maintained this project. And every time one of > those people leaves, real damage is inflicted on Wikipedia's future. > > I wish the Foundation would focus on nurturing those people. The > difference that would make would be truly amazing. > Exactly! Nicely said, Sarah. One of the things that has made the Wikipedia Project so powerful is the emotional commitment that has gone into its creation and maintenance. Technology cannot do that - only persons can. Marc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
on 4/8/11 3:35 PM, Ting Chen at tc...@wikimedia.org wrote: > Dear community, > > on the IRC board meeting at April 8th 2011 the board approved > unanimously the following resolution: > > > > We, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, believe that the continued health of > our project communities is crucial to fulfilling our mission. The > Wikimedia projects are founded in the culture of openness, > participation, and quality that has created one of the world's great > repositories of human knowledge. But while Wikimedia's readers and > supporters are growing around the world, recent studies of editor trends > show a steady decline in the participation and retention of new editors. > > As laid out in our five-year Strategic Plan, and emphasized by these > findings, Wikimedia needs to attract and retain more new and diverse > editors, and to retain our experienced editors. A stable editing > community is critical to the long-term sustainability and quality of > both our current Projects and our movement. > > We consider meeting this challenge our top priority. We ask all > contributors to think about these issues in your daily work on the > Projects. > We support the Executive Director in making this the top staff priority, > and recommend she increase the allocation of Foundation resources > towards addressing this problem, through community outreach, > amplification of community efforts, and technical improvements. > And we support the developers, editors, wikiprojects and Chapters that > are working to make the projects more accessible, welcoming, and > supportive. > > The Board resolves to help move these efforts forward, and invites > specific requests for Foundation assistance to do so. We welcome and > encourage new ideas to help reach our goals of > [[strategy:Openness|openness and broader participation]]. > > We urge the Wikimedia community to promote openness and collaboration, by: > * Treating new editors with patience, kindness, and respect; being aware > of the challenges facing new editors, and reaching out to them; and > encouraging others to do the same; > * Improving communication on the projects; simplifying policy and > instructions; and working with colleagues to improve and make friendlier > policies and practices regarding templates, warnings, and deletion; > * Supporting the development and rollout of features and tools that > improve usability and accessibility; > * Increasing community awareness of these issues and supporting outreach > efforts of individuals, groups and Chapters; > * Working with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, > more collaborative culture, including more thanking and affirmation; and > encouraging best practices and community leaders; and > * Working with colleagues to develop practices to discourage disruptive > and hostile behavior, and repel trolls and stalkers. > > > ;Resources > : > [[strategy:Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary|Wikimedia_Movement_Strate > gic_Plan_Summary]] > : [[strategy:Editor_Trends_Study|2011 Editor Trends Study]] > ([[strategy:March_2011_Update|Executive Director's summary]], > [[strategy:Openness|ideas]]) > Thank you, all, for this. This resolution is great news; and a great commitment of support for the Wikipedia Project, as well as for the individual Community Members who are at the heart of it. Marc Riddell, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Very slow load time for the last few days
I posted this on the English WP on April 11: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-April/108899.html The responses I received suggested it might be a problem with my provider. I spoke with a Comcast tech. She considered the problem and concluded that I needed to clear my cache & cookies. This I did & it got better - for 1 day. Since then it has gotten back to being slower than ever. Marc on 5/19/11 9:52 AM, John at phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: > The first reported cases where May 9th. Its been intermittent since then. > > John > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Sarah wrote: > >> Could someone from the Foundation or one of the developers say whether this >> is being looked into? >> >> Sarah >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:28, Thomas Morton >> wrote: >> >>> Yeh, that was when it was turned on. So maybe :) >>> >>> On 18 May 2011 19:27, Sarah wrote: >>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:24, Theo10011 wrote: > I had problems with load times and time-outs, ever since the email > notification was turned on. I asked the tech team if they were >> related, they > didn't think so. Maybe, its a co-incidence, but did anyone notice if >>> the > slowness increased when email notifications were turned on? > > Theo It started for me on May 16. I don't know what date email notification started. Others at the PUMP began to report problems on the 10th, though that might have been a separate issue. It's really getting to the point now where it's hard to do anything. 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 >>> >> ___ >> 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] Very slow load time for the last few days
on 5/20/11 5:26 PM, Erik Moeller at e...@wikimedia.org wrote: > [Also posting to Bugzilla] > > According to the ops team, there are a number of separate and > unrelated ops issues that have come up in the last few days: > > 1) Not all users are experiencing slowness, but a subset of users are. > There's no definite smoking gun, but the most likely cause are ongoing > issues with one of our routers in Tampa. The router will have to be > taken down for maintenance to fix this issue, and order to perform > this maintenance operation with minimal disruption, we need to have > key ops engineers on standby to deal with any issues that may arise. > My understanding is that the best available maintenance window is > Tuesday next week. > > 2) There was a software deployment on May 18 which caused an > application server overload; it was reverted the same day. > > 3) The mobile servers are currently intermittently overloaded, > throwing internal server errors, and servers to provide additional > capacity have been racked today. > > 4) In case you're looking at it, ganglia.wikimedia.org is not > displaying correct server status information (as of yesterday); it's > in the process of being fixed. > > We're still in the process of setting up a new primary data center > location in Ashburn, VA, which will give us higher site reliability in > general, and also create the possibility of safe failover in > maintenance or emergency situations. Thank you for this, Erik. Even this computer-challenged person could understand what you wrote :-). Be healthy, Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Wkii Way (was: A local chapter without Wikimedians)
on 11/25/08 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lots of independent > action loosely coordinated... the wiki way). > Jimmy, In this type of "loosely coordinated" situation, how do you prevent the more aggressive persons from dominating a project? Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
