Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote: > The plan may have been mentioned ages ago, but a press release about the move > would have eliminated the opportunity for trolling. They haven't moved yet. I bet we can safely let this topic drop, though. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?
Thanks for bringing this up, Mike. I think WikiReview sounds like a great idea, WikiJournal sounds like it would suffer from a number of very serious flaws, WikiWrite could be interesting, and that there are probably a number of other project ideas that are equally interesting but not necessarily ideal for Wikimedia expansion. My sense has been that some of the newer projects, including Wikiversity, tend to have limited readership and limited participation. I'd be happy if someone could provide some data to stack against this sense.[1] I think that without making a major splash early on, new Wikimedia projects tend to languish. While projects without widespread popularity are still useful, particularly if they are highly specialized, projects like WikiReview/Journal/Write would depend on public consciousness and participation levels to achieve relevance. We'll agree, I think, that relevance isn't a nice benefit, its essential in order to attract readers and editors. Any new project must meet a heretofore unmet need significant enough to draw an active and self-perpetuating community. It isn't enough, then, to offer a cc-by-sa alternative to a proprietary but sufficient source - we have to be able to do whatever it is better.[2] Wikimedia has done this with fantastic success with Wikipedia, other projects fill smaller but vibrant niches - but we have some that don't meet this sort of criteria, and any new project ought to. Lastly, can we reconsider the naming scheme for future projects? The "wiki-" prefix shouldn't be mandatory. Something like "writereviews.org, a project of the Wikimedia Foundation" could be an interesting alternative to "wikiwrite.org" or "wikireviews.org" that doesn't immediately bring to mind the proliferation of personal wikis on the web. Nathan [1]: The English Wikiversity, for example, has less than 12k "content pages", while the German Wikiversity has only 1800. En.wikiversity has 175k registered users, but only 25 administrators. The English WikiSource, with roughly the same number of users and administrators as en.wikiversity, has ten times as many content pages. [2]: A limited resource of uneven quality is not a preferable substitute for an easily accessible, free-to-use and reliable resource that is owned by a for-profit corporation. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Michael Peel wrote: > > There's a big difference between starting a new section of something, > and starting something completely new and fresh. With the former, you > get all of the baggage of that project so far - e.g. if you want to > start something slightly different on the English Wikipedia, then you > have to modify huge numbers of policies, argue with many thousands of > people, etc. Sometimes it's easier to split something off and do it > seperately - as WikiSpecies has been doing, for example. > > There's also a big difference between testing a project and launching > a project. Tests are normally small-scale, aimed at just trying > something out, rather than actually doing a project. It's very > difficult to establish critical mass with that approach. Launching a > project involves announcing it loudly to the world, and getting the > attention of lots of people. As long as the basic idea is sound, you > then get a large influx of people who want to try it out. Perhaps > they don't all stick around - but some of them will. > > Of course, you can't do either very often, otherwise people will stop > paying any attention. But for some projects, it could work very well. > Especially if there's the backing of e.g. a funding body, which could > easily be attracted now that Wikimedia is so large and popular. > > Mike > I think you can test a project in the incubator, get an idea of how it will work, set up the initial structure and *then* launch it publicly. The publicity part is the simplest. We've got a built-in megaphone; any launch that is incorporated with the fundraising drive, or given a similar level of extended publicity on Wikimedia pages, would reach many millions of people who already appreciate free collaborative projects. That would require a somewhat different philosophy from the current approach to "advertising" (not in the commercial sense) the fundraising drive, which emphasizes minimal intrusion and a once-a-year limit. Perhaps the community would be more amenable to Wikimedia-wide publicity if it promoted projects? I'd like to see a role like that in launches for future projects; the foundation hasn't been involved in promoting or fostering new projects in a deep way in the past, from my understanding, and real support from the moment of establishment would go a long way towards protecting promising ideas from abandonment in the incubator. Erik's point is well made, that developing many promising projects beyond the idea point requires the commitment of resources that remain scarce. But there are lots of avenues the Foundation can take in this direction that don't require the direct allocation of foundation money; a "lesson plan / course material" wiki, or a "student wiki" designed for collaborative use by students could be developed jointly with innovative school systems or teacher groups, or even partnerships between schools in different countries aimed at allowing international cooperative learning. We may not be able to organically generate the Wikimedia community interest and expertise necessary for building the content these projects would need, but with the Foundation as technological facilitator and enthusiastic booster... Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009-
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Jennifer Riggs wrote: > The discussion about a budget line item being appropriate in one context > and not in the next has been very interesting to me. And especially in > this case as it involves the provision of food, which is one of the most > deeply held cultural norms in many communities. > > Frugality is certainly a consideration for the WMF. I can say with my > staff hat on that while we do get generous grants from foundations to > help support your amazing work, everyone here also thinks about the $5 > that was donated by a student and feels a responsibility to that student. > > However the word and concept of "frugality" differs significantly across > cultures. In my experience with many non-Western cultures, asking people > to bring lunch from home or spend their own money for it would not only > exclude participation, it would insult people. If the purpose is to > encourage participation and commitment to a newly forming organization, > it seems it would be very important not to insult people. > > In many cultures I've worked in, if you didn't bring cigarettes, you > couldn't get a goat to listen to you. These may seem to be extreme > cases, but I'm thinking about WMF and the Wikimedia movement as truly > global. So I don't think we should dismiss this concept just because > currently we aren't working with any people who require cigarettes > before thinking about editing a Wikipedia. > > I have no idea what the cultural norms for providing food at initial > meetings are in Portugal or many other places. I just add my crumb to > the discussion as a reminder that if we are wearing limited cultural > lenses when we create policy, it will forever limit us to working within > communities who are interested and able to live within those restrictions. > > Jennifer Riggs Thanks Jennifer for your comment. I hope that people go a little easy in their responses to this e-mail, so that we don't accidentally discourage Foundation staffers from replying to this list. I have some questions, Jennifer, if you don't mind: * The idea of tailoring funding to cultural norms is valid, in theory, but I personally have a hard time understanding what major cultural distinctions separate Portugal from other European chapters in this regard. Does allowing for cultural norms in funding grants require that the grant-makers familiarize themselves with the relevant norms? (I was originally going to ask if you were aware of characteristics unique to Portugal on this, but you've written that you are not). * I'm curious about the process of distributing funding like this in general, and what criteria for a pre-existing structure or evidence of community support you look for ahead of making grants - and in the same vein, what sort of follow up is planned to ensure funding is spent and appropriately. If I'm wrong please let me know, but is it accurate that the chapter is in its earliest stages, with no chapter agreement, no review or involvement from ChapCom, limited organizing activity on wiki and no legal structure for bearing responsibility for money? * Was there a series of off-wiki exchanges with the Portuguese chapter folks about the best way to utilize funding, and whether face to face meetings were appropriate for an extended series of planning meetings? * Will the reaction to this grant will influence future grants, whether similar requests and grants will be publicized in the future (and to what extent)? What type of engagement the Foundation would like with the community on the issue of community funding? Hopefully this doesn't come across as entirely critical; I haven't seen other finalized grants, don't know anything about the behind-the-scenes communication, or even whether extenuating circumstances (such as all founding members in fact living in different cities) make the funding level more appropriate than it seems on face value. Thanks, Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Waldir Pimenta wrote: > Hi Thomas, and all who showed concern about Wikimedia Portugal's planned > expenses. > > I am one of the persons who calculated that budget, and thus I feel I should > provide you with some information. > > First of all, I'd point out that none of us has any experience in > nation-wide nonprofit organizations. We thus had no way to know what we > would need to make it work, and chose to play safe. Obviously, we were aware > that the value for meetings was fairly high, and we pointed that out in our > proposal, as you can read in the page you linked: > > "We are (...) willing to reduce the frequency of the meetings if the total > value is considered too high" > > And we indeed were advised to do so, when the grant was conceded: > > "The award was reduced from the requested USD $7,909 to encourage a smaller > budget for travel." > > Let me assure you, we are as much as yourself concerned in not wasting the > grant's money with "lunches for the members". We have plenty of planned > activities (as you can see in > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Portugal/Actividades) for which we > didn't include a budget in our request, since it was for the start-up only. > But we are very much willing to find ways to meet less and apply the money > in these projects instead. > > We would love to receive advice on how we can make the chapter work (well) > with people so spread across the country (almost all the involved people > live in different cities), and since much of the money WMF has was > volunteer-contributed, we will take into account the wishes of the > community. If you feel we should meet less (how many times do you think are > enough? let us know your thoughts on our mailing list: > wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org), then we certainly will consider your > advice. > > Thanks, > Waldir Thanks for commenting, Waldir. The last thing anyone wants to do is discourage or impede the formation of a new Wikimedia chapter, and I think any constructive criticism of the grant process should focus on the Foundation and not recipients. As you say, new chapters are *new* - you have the opportunity to benefit from the experience of the Foundation staff and other chapter groups, and the grant review process should be seen as an avenue to deliver that experience in addition to funding. I'm curious - Portugal isn't on this list of officially recognized chapters[1], but the grant criteria[2] say that grants are contingent on chapter recognition by the WMF. Has that happened and just not made it to meta? Thanks, Nathan [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/WMF_grants ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Michael Snow wrote: >> I'm not sure what part of the criteria you're reading to paraphrase them > in those contingent terms. To quote from the page itself, "If your > chapter is still in development, you can still apply for funds > (especially when they are relevant to getting your chapter off the ground)". > > --Michael Snow >> [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters >> [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/WMF_grant > > -- You're right, Michael - in an e-mail to the other thread I was a bit more clear with my question, which was in two parts - had the chapter been recognized, and if not was ChapCom involved? (I have no reason to doubt this, just thought I'd ask.) I also asked how money was disbursed in the absence of a legal entity to take responsibility for it, and what monitoring steps were planned, which I'm still curious about. Sorry for the unclear wording. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia being sued
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Sage Ross wrote: > Italian Wikimedians are reporting that Wikimedia Italia (the Italian > local chapter) and former chapter president (and former Wikimedia > board member) Frieda Brioschi are being sued for an outrageous sum > over alleged defamation in a (now-deleted) biography on Italian > Wikipedia: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gianfranco/Wikimedia_Italia_sued_for_20,000,000_%E2%82%AC > > -Sage > Interesting. Although the Italian media also reported that I (and Jimbo and various others) was being sued for 50 million euros, and I haven't seen that lawsuit yet. If the edits in question were made during a time when Frieda was on the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation (and even if not), I wonder if the WMF will contribute to her legal expenses. And if the case moves forward, I would very much hope that Wikimedia Italia makes an announcement on how to contribute to its legal defense fund (assuming it does not declare bankruptcy/dissolve based on liability alone). Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Jennifer Riggs leaves Wikimedia
Thanks Sue. You mention a sort of re-envisioning process for the Chief Program Officer role - can you give us an idea of the challenges that you and Jennifer encountered with the current concept of a CPO, and what types of changes you might consider making? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia being sued
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Brian, 18/09/2009 17:15: >> To restate, there is a tendency in Italy for a media sensation to be >> made of purportedly legal matters when no legal actual legal processes >> have been initiated, and no legal documents drafted. > > Cfr. Marco. > >> As you can see, >> the statement has nothing to do with Wikimedia Italia. >> > > And it's completely irrelevant to the case. > > Nemo > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > It was relevant until it became clear that Wikimedia Italia had actually been served, which was not evident from the initial post. Nathan ___ 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 Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:10 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > > Right. What's a program expense? What *should* be a program expense? > * keeping servers online? > * Wikimania? > * producing how-to guides? > * improving mediawiki? > > > Since all the documentation is readily available, like Mike Snow said > it seems like a more valuable discussion to talk about what we are > actually spending money on and what we should be spending money on (cf > strategic planning) than to talk about what a 3rd party's rough > assessment of what we're spending money on. What should WMF money go > towards? > > -- phoebe > Exactly. "Program" expenses in the Wikimedia sense might be those that go to the generation and distribution of content; technology expenses, then, and anything the Foundation spends on events like Wikipedia Academies. By this measure, the usability initiative is a program expense but fundraising costs are not. It's clear that some level of fundraising expenses is necessary; and if the expenditures on fundraising produce reasonable returns (i.e., increased donations) then that's great. Whether or not the spending on fundraising versus technology meets some golden ratio isn't that relevant, and comparisons to other (dramatically different) organizations aren't very useful. So the question then becomes, what should be done with the money now that it's been raised? And that's a very important question that I think the Foundation is grappling with, because the answers aren't necessarily obvious and few options will have universal agreement. The strategy project is an attempt to hammer out some good ideas and a general direction for the Foundation. I'm not sure the wiki format being used is really ideal, but I suppose its the best choice among the various ways to allow engagement from the community. Either way, folks with a serious interest in how the Foundation spends its money should be contributing there. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Charity Navigator rates WMF
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote: > > It may be equally accurate to say that I have earned "a few thousand > dollars" this year, or in my lifetime, or that comprises the budget of the > State of Indiana. I was hoping for an accurate figure, not a carefree > estimate, Brion. > > A more efficient organization might have waited to launch the Usability > Initiative staff/contractor expansion until AFTER the Foundation moved to > larger space. I'm just trying to get you guys another star the next time > Charity Navigator rolls around with an impartial review. So far, I've seen > a lot of puffing about "overhead" and "strategy", but nothing very tactical > about how this organization efficiency rating might be improved... unless, > the point of the official response is to simply downplay the importance of > such a rating, in which case, I would say mission very well accomplished. > > Greg I'm curious what importance you attach to the Charity Navigator rating, and how you think it is (or should be) relevant to the operations of the WMF. Care to explain? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [openmoko-announce] WikiReader
That is really neat. I wonder if they made arrangements with the WMF to use to the trademarks? It's unfortunate they didn't give it a USB port for the updates (can't be that many people with microSD readers, although some PCs in the last few years come with them installed). Otherwise, though, it seems like a cool gadget for people who don't have a smartphone of some sort. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)
> These people are not Wikipedia editors. Is it appropriate and/or > legal under the terms of the GFDL or the CC-by-SA for a > freely-licensed work to be "claimed" with a preposition such as "by", > which by any interpretation of the English language in this usage, > would connote authorship? Personally, I don't think it is appropriate > (thus that nauseous feeling I mentioned earlier). But, I'm not a > highly-paid lawyer, so maybe I just don't know better. I've been in > situations before where I know I am ethically correct, but helpless in > the light of the law. > > It strikes me that this is something that Creative Commons or other > organizations with Godwin-like attorneys should be aggressively > pursuing, but we didn't hear from any of them in the original thread, > did we? Mike, could you illuminate this conversation with your > professional opinion? > > Greg > What can Creative Commons or Wikimedia do in these cases? They aren't the rights holders, so even if they wanted to they couldn't sue. And if they could sue, they couldn't afford it. Legal remedies are available to the folks whose work is included, but I think generally speaking they may not have much motivation or means. Wikipedia content is reused all across the web and in print without the type of attribution required by the GFDL - this is nothing new. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam
What can Creative Commons or Wikimedia do in these cases? They aren't the rights holders, so even if they wanted to they couldn't sue. And if they could sue, they couldn't afford it. Legal remedies are available to the folks whose work is included, but I think generally speaking they may not have much motivation or means. Wikipedia content is reused all across the web and in print without the type of attribution required by the GFDL - this is nothing new. Nathan (Replying again on the thread with a subject.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
Why would you even ask that question, let alone expect an answer? Last I checked, no Wikimedian also carried the title of "majority shareholder" or anything close. You're not entitled to sordid details of personnel management. Try to remember that the Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and needs to operate with more professionalism than "announce everything announce often." Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
Geni, Thomas and MZMcbride suggest that the Foundation should announce the dismissal of low-impact employees because otherwise the rumor mill will make up stories. Perhaps you're right that the spread of rumors is inevitable, but you don't seem to acknowledge your own role in this. Even so, "Wikipedians will do what Wikipedians will do" is not the best argument for immediately publishing sensitive employment information, particularly when doing so may go against various elements of employment law and/or simple best practice. Gregory Maxwell argues that the Wikimedia Foundation should voluntarily submit to the type of openness required of government agencies; I suspect this is a fundamental difference of philosophy, and relates to why I mentioned "majority shareholder" in my initial post. As the Wikimedia community, what level of detailed control are we entitled to? We have some of the hallmarks of the role of the shareholder but not others, in that legally we have no particular rights to the Foundation but practically we control the Board composition through elections. The information given to shareholders of large, publicly owned corporations in the United States varies widely, but generally speaking announcements are not made about the hiring or departure of non-executive staff. Gregory cites a California statute, but all governments are not equally open: North Carolina: � 126‑22.� Personnel files not subject to inspection under � 132‑6. Personnel files of State employees, former State employees, or applicants for State employment shall not be subject to inspection and examination as authorized by G.S. 132‑6. For purposes of this Article, a personnel file consists of any information gathered by the department, division, bureau, commission, council, or other agency subject to Article 7 of this Chapter which employs an individual, previously employed an individual, or considered an individual's application for employment, or by the office of State Personnel, and which information relates to the individual's application, selection or nonselection, promotions, demotions, transfers, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation forms, disciplinary actions, and termination of employment wherever located and in whatever form. Personnel files of former State employees who have been separated from State employment for 10 or more years may be open to inspection and examination except for papers and documents relating to demotions and to disciplinary actions resulting in the dismissal of the employee. (1975, c. 257, s. 1; 1977, c. 866, s. 9.) Even California is not as permissive as you imply; see http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/pdf/sos_pra_guidelines.pdf (Records Exempt from Public Disclosure) and http://law.onecle.com/california/government/6254.html (Government Code Section 6254 Paragraph C, describing the exemption of personnel records from public disclosure). In my opinion we should be informed about changes and actions that affect the Foundation and its operations or substantially impact the execution of its mission. This can include broad employment information on some employees, as evidenced by the recent announced departure of Jennifer Riggs. Maybe some people want the gory details when anyone is fired; every office has people like that. But we're not entitled to it, its poor manners to ask, and the Foundation is right to decline such requests. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Nathan wrote: > >> >> Gregory Maxwell argues that the Wikimedia Foundation should >> voluntarily submit to the type of openness required of government >> agencies; I suspect this is a fundamental difference of philosophy, >> and relates to why I mentioned "majority shareholder" in my initial >> post. As the Wikimedia community, what level of detailed control are >> we entitled to? We have some of the hallmarks of the role of the >> shareholder but not others, in that legally we have no particular >> rights to the Foundation but practically we control the Board >> composition through elections. >> > > > Greg raises a very strong point that demolishes your reply. You say > "wikipedia is a business, therefore..." and of course... Wikipedia is not a > bussiness (perhaps you mixed up with wikia?) > ___ I'll stipulate that "corporation" is a more accurate term. I don't see how the semantic difference impacts my reply. But thanks for making sure I wasn't confusing the various entities. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has failed
We keep it because some people use it, some people contribute to it, and it costs us very little to keep it going. All projects that are useful and well used were at one point completely obscure, including the English Wikipedia. That obscurity is not, of itself, a good reason to delete the entire project. Is this because you're upset at being moderated on wikinews-l? Nathan On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:02 PM, wrote: > Wikinews should be gracefully shut down. It's long since failed to serve > any service to the community or to the world. Few to no Wikipedia articles > point at Wikinews even when there is a Wikinews article. And I submit that > no outside agency points at Wikinews articles for anything. > > Why do we still have this project? > > Will > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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
The Foundation, Commons and the English Wikipedia typically address problems associated with minors by refusing to engage as a group. Some individuals advise children not to put personally identifying information on their userpage, but that is advice haphazardly given and no effort is made to systematically identify situations where it would be useful. That one problem is a microcosm for the whole spectrum of "children" issues throughout Wikimedia - we encourage individual editors to advise other editors when they might be endangering themselves, but we don't allow (and often refuse even to discuss) more proactive solutions. Outstanding problems that have been identified in the past: * Access of minor readers to sexually explicit material * Involvement of minor participants / administrators in the administration of sexually explicit content * Sexually explicit imagery that features or may feature models under the age of 18 Our responses to these problems have never been more sophisticated than "Wikimedia is not censored." Perhaps its assumed that by refusing to budge from this absolute position, we avoid a war by inches where we will ultimately be forced to cave to all cultural sensitivities. Instead of evaluating what our responsibilities should be, what action we ought to take, we limit ourselves only to what we *must* do by law. I think that's a mistake. I'm not sure we can do much about minor readers and participants, except perhaps putting certain types of content behind a warning wall that can be easily bypassed. The types of verification and consent models used in the web industry are formatted on limiting liability, they don't need to be (and consequently are not) very effective. Adopting one of these models may not make sense for Wikimedia, but it certainly makes sense to have a discussion about it. Geni and Andrew's comments strike me as an attempt to foreclose any discussion. On the other hand, we certainly can do more on policing the sexually explicit imagery on Commons against possible violations of child pornography and privacy laws. We may not *have* to do this, but we ought to. There is at least one large category of images, from a specific photographer, where it has long been suspected that some models are underage. The only verification effort we make now is on licensing, but I think we ought to require actual model releases on sexually explicit photographs. We will gain far more by protecting the safety and privacy of image subjects than we stand to lose in the volume of explicit photos. Nathan ___ 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 Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Given that the WSJ is making a lot of noise about moving all its content > behind a paywall and is planning to remove its headlines from the "prying > eyes" of Google, I think it is appropriate to honour their wish and no > longer consider the WSJ as a verifiable source. It is appropriate because it > is the direct consequence of their actions. > > When this means that the blogs are part and parcel of this wish, then we > should not try to circumvent this even when they write about us. > Thanks, > GerardM > We should ignore them because they want to get paid for their work? Why? Frankly, I think the NY Times and other companies should require payment for much of their work as well. I'm willing to pay for their content, its worth it. Nathan ___ 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 Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi. > Maybe. However the request was to make available articles that are not > freely available.. Posting them somewhere so that people who do not have > access can formulate an opinion is probably not even legally allowed. > > A book can be found in a library and consequently there is a way to verify. > Thanks, > GerardM > The request was to summarize the main points. That's certainly legal. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
I agree with what Phoebe and William have written, and I'll just add a few minor points and then a thought about the process of new project creation. * When dealing with the WMF and Wikimedia community, you might want to avoid the language of business acquisitions; it's extraordinarily unlikely that the WMF will get into purchasing content for subsequent free distribution, if only for the (for us) perverse incentives it will create. * The Strategy wiki is not, in my opinion, a great place to propose new projects. It's aimed at long-term and big picture strategy, so it would be a good place to discuss the process of creating new projects, but it is not necessarily well adapted to considering specific proposals. * The Foundation and the community are not at a place where they can pursue people for project adoption. This is true for a variety of reasons, but the upshot is that you won't find a motivated adopter (someone who will actively court your project or facilitate an adoption) in either group. It might actually be easier to approach this as a "new project" proposal for the WMF, as opposed to the adoption of an already existing project. While the layout and formal written processes for creating a new project are (a) confusing (b) nonexistent (c) defunct (or some combination of all three), the general concept is fairly straightforward: (1) Demonstrate compatibility (i.e. resolve legal and philosophical issues, if any) (2) Demonstrate an active community (3) Resolve serious complaints / criticism in a community forum, most likely on Meta (may take some agitating for comments over a period of time) (4) Present the successful completion of 1-3 to an available employee of the WMF, like Erik Moeller, or a board member, who can see that hosting arrangements are made. If you can do 1-3, you can probably do 4. The Foundation should really facilitate the entire process, in my opinion, but the absence of their assistance doesn't *necessarily* doom the prospect of a new project. It just means that it won't be easy, and success will require the persistent effort of project advocates. The 4th step is the "official" approval, but history demonstrates that the actual work involved in step 4 is doable. While Wikiversity is the newest content projects, there are other hosted and distinct projects of other sorts (strategy, chapter projects, etc.) - proving that setting up a new MediaWiki instance with attendant arrangements isn't a major hurdle. Once you've accomplished all the steps, you can import your old wiki into your new wiki and get back to work. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees
2009/12/3 Delphine Ménard : > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 18:18, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > > I support Liam's idea and think we might want to look at a two-tier policy: > > 1- have "verified" accounts, which are used by some > companies/organisation to do "encyclopedic work" > 2- disallow using a company's name in one's user name if they have not > asked for a verification - and provided the right credentials > > This said, I am completely with Lodewijk on the fact that I find > incredible that we push companies to actually make what is nothing > else than sock puppets accounts, because we don't allow to have a > company's name in the user name. I am sure this has been debated at > length, but I fail to see how this can be better than being able to > identify staff from a company contributing to an article. > > > Delphine > The idea of verified accounts raises all sorts of questions and potential problems. The Wikimedia Foundation might be able to verify that users requesting a "company account" are connected to that company, if the account is on the English Wikipedia. But can the Foundation be sure that the existence of a company account is authorized by that company? Can they do anything at all in other languages? Should the process of "verification" be left to OTRS, or some other group on each wiki? If verified status is granted erroneously, and it impacts the reputation of a particular company, who is responsible? Among other reasons, the English Wikipedia bans role accounts (including corporate accounts) because we wish people to act on their own behalf, and not claim the support or backing of a corporation. With limited capacity to verify the basis for any claimed role, we end up treating all such claims as suspect anyway. This restriction may be inconvenient in some instances, but far more trouble is prevented by maintaining the simplicity of individual to individual interaction. As an example, Wikipedia administrators do not take action "on behalf of Wikipedia" when they enforce project policies. If the user behind the "ACME Cola" account earned a block, it would be an individual administrator on their own initiative blocking an account that represents an entire Fortune 100 corporation. This imbalance of agency could make administrators hesitate to take otherwise appropriate action. Personally, I would much rather deal with an individual than with an anonymous representative of a corporate giant - and very little that can be accomplished with a role account can't be accomplished with a personal account. Simply state on the user page "My name is John Smith, public relations representative for ACME Cola Inc. Please contact me at john.sm...@acmecola.com or 800-ACM-COLA, or use my talkpage." If they want to voluntarily identify their organizational affiliation, then nothing prevents them from doing so in this way. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
Personally, I'm glad the Foundation doesn't have the reflexively absolutist anti-capitalist stance that some on this list would like them to have. Happy to see an endorsement from Craig Newmark. Now, if it were Tiger Woods... Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] My new blog and foundation-l
> > I removed David Shankbone's blog because the most recent blog post (at > the time) was excessively nasty towards a living person who we have a > biography about. > > My edit was in no way an Arbcom edit. It even came after I resigned > from en:wp Arbcom. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nickj/open-wikiblogplanet-config.ini&diff=330197740&oldid=325150787 > > David Shankbone subsequently _deleted_ that post from his blog. > > I have a saved copy of the deleted blog post in case anyone wants to > review whether my edit was appropriate. > >> Suggest moving control page to Meta. > > I can edit on Meta too. > > -- > John Vandenberg > Can you explain why you think you should decide what content is and is not displayed on an off-site blog aggregator? I'm just curious. The control page seems like a convenient way for people to sign themselves up, not an invitation to Wikipedia editors to intervene when they find some content inappropriate. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] LiquidThreads almost ready for deployment
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 1:36 AM, David Goodman wrote: > I did not write that, except for the final sentence--The rest was an > earlier comment by someone who actually knows programming, not my > elementary awareness of html and the rudiments of regular expressions. > The only software I've ever developed is some VBA macros for Excel. > David, the part William quoted was his own prior post. I think he was replying to what you had actually written, but neglected to include it in his quote. ~Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fundraising banners
Hi folks, just curious - is the appeal from Jimmy going to be the standard banner for the remainder of the fundraiser? Congratulations, by the way, on the success of the drive thus far - it has raised 92% of the annual goal, or $6.498M, according to the fundraiser statistics page. Despite early hiccups with the banner content, this fundraiser appears to be (by a wide margin) the most successful in Wikimedia's history. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2010/1/13 private musings : >> G'day all, >> I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images >> on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull >> mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a >> bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. >> It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, >> and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see >> what the general feeling is out there what I'd really like is for the >> foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be >> necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some >> regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board, >> might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too. >> I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click >> through if you're over the age of majority; >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n >> ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where >> 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed - >> is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption >> to these requirements? > > Come on, even *I* would have given up on this argument by now... > you're not going to win... If you think there are legal concerns, > email Mike Godwin. > Part of the problem is that people who think they understand the whole of the argument being made actually don't. Arguments against censorship address only a part of the concerns Privatemusings and others, including myself, have expressed. PM's comment above referring to Section 2257 alludes to much of the rest of the concerns - specifically, the rights of the individuals featured in the photographs themselves. There are ~25,000 images in the Commons category of potential personality rights problems, but the Commons policy (COM:PEOPLE) essentially leaves it to the ethical discretion (and nose for appropriate sounding file names) of the uploader to manage rights issues. Attempts to address this problem are sporadic - an example is a group of over a hundred images from a Dutch photographer with a checkered past, whose work has been largely removed from Flickr (from where it was imported to Commons). After quite a lot of debate and delay, many of these images were deleted on Commons in 2008 - but since then, many new ones have been uploaded. To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2010/1/14 Nathan : >> To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are >> underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see >> Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for >> explicit images. > > And how exactly would they do that? Upload a picture of the model > holding their passport and a sign saying "I consent to pictures of me > naked to be used for any purpose" in a few dozen languages? That > doesn't sound practical to me... > I don't see that it is that unpractical. The language barrier is the most significant problem, but model releases are routine for professional photographers. It may be more difficult for amateur uploaders, but this only applies to sexually explicit photographs and the standard of attention to the rights of subjects may be more important than the convenience of amateur photographers in this area. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] video presentation on explicit images on WMF projects
> It's possible for system administrators to delete files entirely from > the servers for legal reasons, but because it is quite > labour-intensive, I for one have only ever performed such a deletion > when it is real child pornography (hint: a 16-year-old masturbating is > not "real" child pornography, and is in fact legal, though explicit, > in New South Wales, Australia). > > We don't really want to be handling any more than a request or two > each week/month under this system, and it's done mostly in the > interest of taste – the images that I've had to delete have made me > extremely uncomfortable, and deleting them is mostly about protecting > innocent snooping administrators from seeing them. > > If there are legal issues involved, they should be discussed directly > with our General Counsel, and not speculated about by volunteers who > may lack the requisite legal expertise to make a decision on the > Foundation's behalf. The community should be discussing editorial and > administrative reasons for dealing with these images, not legal ones. With respect, legal issues are debated on many projects practically every day. This particular issue is no different. In some jurisdictions, just accessing such files can expose one to legal risk. While Mike is a good lawyer, he doesn't represent individual editors - and the Foundation's interests and liabilities (as a host, not a content provider) may not fully intersect with the needs of individual editors. And in any case, permanently deleting such images (so that they can't be recovered without extraordinary effort) has its own editorial and administrative benefits. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2008/2009 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report
Great, great work folks. The report looks awesome and beautifully communicates the achievements of the Foundation and its projects in 08-09. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2008/2009 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Report
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bod Notbod wrote: > > I'm not sure whether to take you seriously given the reference at that > link but anyway... Since Veronique is the WMF employee responsible for the accuracy of the number, you probably should. I've seen mm used for millions in dollars used before; its uncommon, but not incorrect. Kind of a picayune criticism anyway, that could have been communicated directly rather than on-list. ~Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Living Person Task Force is starting up
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Risker wrote: > DGG, IRC is but one of the communication means being utilized. Further, this > is a cross-project, Foundation-led task group. > > Perhaps you might wish to review the summary of the preliminary work group, > and read the transcripts as they become available over the coming weeks, and > provide your opinion on the Strategy Wiki, where this particular task force > is being hosted. > > > Risker > Then the original message should perhaps have been made on Foundation-l as well. Here it is: Keegan wrote: Hey, folks. The Living Person task force should get rolling mid-week, we're finalizing the core and last plans (< http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_Persons>) We hope to hold weekly public meetings on IRC with the entire Wikimedia community, and we will be publishing the logs on strategy. I'm tossing together an informal "what do you care to see?" meeting at 3:00 UTC, 1 Feb, six hours from this post. I'll be keeping this list updated with meeting times, it should be at that time weekly I think. That's open to tweaking as well. Take care. ~Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Fw: Subscription Payment Failed
Think he meant to send this here. ~Nathan -- Forwarded message -- From: Date: Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:23 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fw: Subscription Payment Failed To: English Wikipedia Hey! What? You guys don't want my money? ~ Eli Friedman --Original Message-- From: serv...@paypal.com To: Gmail Subject: Subscription Payment Failed Sent: Feb 8, 2010 10:12 Hello Eli Friedman, Your subscription payment to Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. for Monthly donation failed on Feb 8, 2010 because of problems with Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.'s payment receiving preferences. We will try to make this subscription payment again on Feb 13, 2010. Please log in to your PayPal account or contact Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. for more information. --- Subscription Details --- Amount: $18.00 USD Subscription Name: Monthly donation Subscription Number: S-6EH574189U8730336 Item Number: DONATE --- Contact Information --- Business Name: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Contact Email: don...@wikimedia.org Contact Phone: Thanks, PayPal PROTECT YOUR PASSWORD NEVER give your password to anyone, including PayPal employees. Protect yourself against fraudulent websites by opening a new web browser (e.g. Internet Explorer or Firefox) and typing in the PayPal URL every time you log in to your account. Please do not reply to this email. This mailbox is not monitored and you will not receive a response. For assistance, log in to your PayPal account and click the Help link in the top right corner of any PayPal page. PayPal Email ID PP263 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sue Gardner, Erik Möller , Will iam Pietri: Where is FlaggedRevisions?
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:32 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > William Pietri wrote: >> If people have questions like this, I'd encourage them to drop me a note >> before they get to the swearing-in-frustration stage. I try to check my >> talk page at least daily, and I must check my email 20 times a day. >> There's no benefit to getting wound up; surplus angst does not help >> either the coding or the communicating about it. > > When it's your biography that reads you once were convicted of murder or > pedophilia or whatever else, then you can start talking about people being > wound too tight. When it's only been a delay of a few weeks, then you can > talk about which forum should be used and so forth. > >> As I mentioned in the blog post, you can follow the software development >> progress in detail here: >> >> http://www.pivotaltracker.com/projects/46157 > > The primary issue with that site is that any sense of deadline is a > ever-shifting goalpost. "Launch on English Wikipedia" has a target date of > when? It looks like it was added December 16, though that information wasn't > particularly easy to figure out. Which, of course, begs the question why an > entirely separate layer of software was added to this project in the first > place when Bugzilla was already available and familiar. > >> As you can see, we have a bunch of completed changes that need to be >> deployed to an environment where we can get real feedback on them. Once >> we get the feedback from the community, we'll have a better idea of how >> close we are to releasing to the English Wikipedia. > > What I see is literally zero activity on that site since December 17, 2009. > All of the tasks appear to have been created on December 16 or 17 and nearly > all of them are in the "Deliver" phase, which reads to me as though they > haven't been done. > > I did get the software to output "Found 32 stories (93 points total, 0 > points completed)" for the user JAS and the "Done" button at the top opened > an empty box. > > Point to me what I'm missing. > >> The thing we're working on right now is moving flaggedrevs.labs to >> different hardware. That site is currently running on the production >> cluster, and we can't release new test versions of the software there >> without risk of trouble for production wikis using FlaggedRevs. > > Production wikis like... the German Wikipedia? What the hell are you talking > about? Update flaggedrevs.php for the enwiki database, sync it to the > servers, and let's see what happens. How does that sound? > >> As soon as that's ready, I will be very excited to put up test versions >> of both the English Wikipedia and the German one, so that the community >> can test, give feedback, and opine on whether it's ready to go. > > When might that be? Is there a specific deadline? If not, why? And if there > is a deadline and it slips by yet again, what's the consequence to those > running the project? > > MZMcBride > z...@mzmcbride.com > > > Have to ask, what disruptively unilateral actions are you contemplating if you don't get exactly the action you seek? Start up another website to collaborate on how to circumvent those lazy jamokes who aren't running at your speed? Coordinate the deletion of the rest of the wiki? On behalf of whom do you speak, to make demands of someone who doesn't work for you? Other people share your frustration, but perhaps they were wise when they didn't take to the mailing lists to swear at the developers. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Swedish Wikipedians removes Wikimedia logos
Is the argument about reuse? That downstream reusers of Swedish Wikipedia content can't freely reuse the Wikimedia marks, so they shouldn't be included in content intended to be freely reusable? This is perhaps a silly question, but can the logos not be released under the same license as everything else to facilitate reuse that complies with trademark law? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] IPA issues
What's the point of using a phonetic alphabet that 95% of our readership can't interpret? If the idea is to help readers understand how a word is pronounced in English, it should actually be useful to the majority of readers and not largely useless but academically perfect. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
Can anyone remind me what the per day and per month post limits are, and confirm that someone is still keeping track? We've established in the past that a collegial atmosphere is desired by the people who post to and read this list. Some have never agreed, but that is why some have previously been moderated. Limits and moderation have been the only tools effective against those who can't find the energy to be nice; reason has never worked, though it has been deployed at each opportunity. Let's use the tools at hand, and avoid sidetracking useful discussion with meta problems. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > Since it does seem very close to going live, could I ask if plans have > been made for how to handle announcing the arrival of this feature and > any post-implementation problems? Hopefully there won't be any or > many, but are there plans ranging from "rollback completely if things > go awfully wrong" to "make adjustments as needed and be responsive to > concerns raised"? > > And how much input exactly will ordinary editors have > post-implementation? Is the interface flexible and can be changed by > editors or admins, and which bits can only be tweaked by developers > (either using common sense or following a community poll or Bugzilla > request or request somewhere else)? I ask this partly as someone who > (with others) may have to deal with any massive disputes or edit wars > that break out over this if some aspects of flagged revisions or its > interface are editable and changeable on-wiki (presumably in the > Mediawiki namespace, editable by admins only). > > I think the ability for the community of editors and admins to make > such changes to the interface is a *good* thing, but want to be clear > exactly what is changeable and by whom, and if off-wiki requests are > needed, where to make them, and making this location and the whole > roll-out clear to people via on-wiki notices. > > Presumably, an update will be made to the on-wiki pages about this > before it goes live? And there will some site notice giving some > warning? having things change mid-edit could be a bit disconcerting! > > Carcharoth > These are good points. I'm cc'ing this to foundation-l, as the Foundation is taking the primary role in rolling this out to the English Wikipedia (or at least, has been). Maybe William and Erik can comment on what the expectations are for the extension's documentation, and what sort of delay we can expect between the coming development end point and live access on en.wp? Does the WMF plan to follow the trial roll out described on community pages there, or something else? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to make unstoppable petty complaint a feature?
It's not just changes that draw petty, sarcastic and juvenile replies for Wikipedians. We have a pervasive problem of burnout, wherein our more experienced contributors became jaded and disillusioned and make a practice of appalling behavior. Two recent cases in point... I don't need to explain the Tanthalas situation more than just to mention it as an example, but the second case is, I think, more serious. An administrator replies to a plea for help from a new contributor, who has uploaded his own work several times and tried to release it under public domain. Rather than explain, the administrator uses what appears to be his boilerplate response - snide, condescending, and perfectly tailored to send this new contributor away with a bad taste of the entire project. [1][2] Unfortunately this type of interaction isn't even unusual. In some respects it appears to be the norm, in fact, and there doesn't seem to be any effective way of addressing this problem. I can no longer recommend people to become involved in editing, because frankly I refuse to subject friends and colleagues to the risk of this type of treatment. Perhaps the Foundation should put some effort into this issue before soliciting new participants who are likely to be shocked at the editing culture. Nathan [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastily#SYS_logo.png [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#Fair_use ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
I'm not sure I'm correctly understanding what you've written, but supporting open source games seems to be outside the normal scope of the WMF. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
I think the MMOEnvironment (not really a role-playing game in this context, is it?) is an interesting forum for experimentation, but non-game uses are still completely undeveloped. It's ripe for an entrepreneur, but I'm not sure what the WMF could do with such an environment. How would a vast knowledgebase be visually represented in a navigable world? What advantages would that offer? Given the comparatively high costs of maintaining this sort of effort, and the unknown potential, I can't see the WMF moving into MMOEs soon. I'd be interested to sign-up with any organization that makes the attempt, though. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:35 PM, robert_horn...@netzero.net wrote: > > -- > > There was a time when the Wikimedia Foundation, or rather those involved with > the various sister projects, were interested in some leading edge and > bleeding edge stuff. Considerable experimentation was encouraged and some > amazing things happened that pushed ideas and concepts to some pretty > interesting extremes. > > Much of what we know today as Wikipedia certainly wouldn't exist today. I > got started in this whole mess back in the days when Gnupedia was rolled into > Nupedia and those two communities merged together. I remember numerous > discussions on even trying to come up with how to edit content, what sort of > raw standards ought to be invoked, and how to get participants to show up and > contribute what they knew. Using a wiki in a democratic fashion was actually > a rather novel concept, and in fact brought in a whole new group of users. > Seriously, with this sort of attitude, Wikipedia would have never even been > tried in the first place. I am so glad this particular mindset was not in > place back in those days. > > I've also been involved in working on the various sister projects, and even > helped to get Wikiversity going in the first place. Indeed, one of the > founding missions of Wikiversity was explicitly to try out new technology, to > "conduct original research" on various levels. Yes, I know that was a > sticking point with the board of trustees when Wikiversity was started too, > so it wasn't entirely without controversy. Still, there are various sorts of > original research that has been happening that is tied to the Wikimedia > community... some of which are directly supported by the Foundation and > others that are instead in the periphery and more side projects of a sub-set > of the larger community. Some are rather well known, and others are much > more obscure. > > Fine, I'll admit this is more of a research project to see if anything could > be done here, and there is no guarantee that much may come from this. I'm > not even suggesting that the WMF ought to give even modest support in the > form of server space for experimentation on this concept or even permitting a > wiki page that would act as a central community message board and idea center > for something like this. That is something that can or can't happen, but it > sort of seems rough that the idea is dismissed completely out of hand before > it is even started in the first place. It is also unfortunate that even > discussion about what sorts of ideas might be useful under such a project is > shut down before the discussion starts at all. > > -- Robert Horning > I'm not sure discussion has been shut down... No one who has posted speaks for anyone but themselves. I think there are some key differences that contribute to the reaction aside from what you see as an attitude problem. The reality is that websites with limited traffic are cheap, and the potential costs are limited. Supporting a virtual MMO world is expensive, with intense resource requirements. More importantly, an MMO world related to the WMF's mission is a much greater inventive leap (in my opinion) than an openly editable web reference. At the same time, I think you're probably right that some or even most of the entrepreneurial spirit has leached out of the Wikimedia community. This isn't necessarily surprising or even negative - as the projects mature, needs change, and incremental improvements are appropriately favored over radical experimentation. The WMF itself is still in the process of maturing into a stable organization sturdy enough to last for the long term, and it's rightly skeptical about proposed initiatives that could divert focus away from its core mission. Having said that, I would be very happy to see Milos' prediction about MMORPG-style general Internet navigation come true. If anyone does make a go of an encyclopedia in a virtual world, they can expect my support. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Fox Article
You read that article, and what you got from it is that *Eric* is being unfair? Wow. ___ 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
I'm generally in favor of Jimmy's leadership, or the idea of project leadership in general. See my March 27 post opposing the poll to remove his Founder flag, on meta. I'm also strongly in favor of reform in the area of sexually explicit imagery on Commons and other projects, see the many threads I've started or participated in over the past three years on this subject. A week ago, I would have said I'd very much like to see Jimmy's leadership in this particular area. On the other hand, leadership is more than taking unilateral action. It's more than power, and more than authority. If Jimmy had explained himself fully, perhaps with a statement very similar to what Mike has written in this thread, the reaction would have been much more muted. He may have had active assistance from the Commons community instead of active opposition and an angry backlash. The "GodKing" status is the result of political capital; the goal should be to provide leadership while expending as little of that as necessary, because once it's gone it's gone for good - c.f. Jimmy's relinquishing of certain rights on the English Wikipedia. Lastly, I think his recent activity has been clumsy and amateurish, particularly prompted as it was by Fox News. For those not familiar with Fox News, its impact and its reputation... The rest of the mainstream media views its claims with suspicion and some degree of disdain, and with good reason. By reacting so aggressively to Fox's counter-factual claims, we make it harder for our allies and responsible journalists to argue and prove that we are not guilty of hosting "child pornography" and tolerating pedophilia. That's too bad - as they say, the coverup is usually worse than the crime. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless
The moral here is that a panicked, poorly thought out and haphazardly executed response to critical news coverage is exactly the wrong response. It's failed here in every possible respect, tarnishing the Foundation, its founder, its staff and the community. A few borderline images have been deleted, but for what? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless
Sure Mike, we were going to get bad press from Fox News no matter what we did. You're clearly right about that, and I don't think anyone would disagree with you. I'm not seeing how you go from that position to endorsing (or at least defending against criticism) the panicked response from Jimmy and the board. Reason would suggest that if we can't change the message from Fox News, urgent action that earns universal condemnation (as opposed to just condemnation from Fox) is the wrong way to go. Now, instead of just further bad press from Fox, we've got Jimmy giving up his founder status, a large group of angry contributors, *and* more bad press from Fox. How is that defensible, given that the outcome was predictable? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Motives?
What's shocking? There's no revelation in your post. Do we need yet one more thread discussing Jimmy's actions? It's probably time to let the soaring flames of outrage gutter out, since the Founder flag has been neutered and no other outcome is likely. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content > > with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant > discussion is here: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#The_Case_for_Using_USC_2257_on_Wikimedia_Projects > > Editors have stated that the record-keeping requirements of § 2257 do not > apply to Commons. Do we have a qualified legal opinion that backs this > assertion up? > > From reading § 2257, it seems it is written with commercial providers of > sexually explicit material in mind. Commons is not a commercial provider of > such works. On the other hand, Commons licences state that material hosted on > Commons is good for any use, including commercial use. This makes Commons a > potential link in a chain leading to commercial use of material uploaded to > Commons. > > Note that per § 2257 (h)(2)(iii), anyone > > "inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise > managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that > contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct" > > is liable to receive a prison sentence of up to 5 years, for a first-time > offence, if they fail to comply with the record-keeping requirements of § > 2257. > > Doesn't this raise the possibility that Commons administrators might become > personally liable if, for example, they decide to keep a sexually explicit > image that is subsequently found to have depicted a minor? > > There are other aspects involved in drafting Commons:Sexual_content that need > expert legal input, for example, which types of pornography are legal in the > US, and which ones are not. > > We are all laypersons there, so please help us out. > > Andreas > > > 1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_2257000-.html > I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of sexually explicit media are (a) of legal majority and (b) have provided releases for publishing the content. The regulations exist for a good reason - to protect the subjects of photos from abuse and invasion of privacy. Why should we avoid taking those same steps? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy > is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images. > Although sexual images are one of several "most important" cases, the > moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists > everywhere. > > As such, Commons has a specific policy on this: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place > Not much of a policy, in my opinion. A general statement of principle, with no mechanism of enforcement, doesn't have much impact on the state of things. We don't require evidence of release, but we should. And in the case of explicit content, we should require that release even if the photograph is taken in a public place. Topless sunbathing on a beach in Nice is not the same as a worldwide license for unlimited publicity. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: > Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the > OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of > view of copyright. > > In any case what means "injurious"? It can change in relation of the > cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where > the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot > be considered "injurious"). > > Ilario It can't be? I think you (and Jussi-Ville) have a pretty narrow concept of what might be injurious. If you release an image of yourself to your friends, does that mean you'd be happy to see it on the evening news? If you're tanning on the beach, is that permission to have your image republished in a major feature film? Your argument addresses what you believe the photographer should be allowed to do, but ignores the potential for negative impact on the subject of the photograph. That's pretty unfortunate. Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the privacy or abuse of content subjects? There is tension between cultural values, obviously, and some self-serving interpretation of that tension (everyone seems to think they are being pressured to abide by the values of the misguided), but there must be some middle ground that allows for some minimal effective protection for people who are not party to the armchair philosophical debate. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] full-text searching since the Vector switch in en.wikipedia
cc'd to lists that people read On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > I sincerely hate to sound repetitive and annoying, but since the switch to > Vector in en.wikipedia it's impossible to run a full-text search of > Wikipedia using the search box if there's an article by the same name. > > The "Search" button is gone, because it was supposed to be possible to run a > full-text search in the redesigned search box without that button, but > apparently this doesn't actually work. It's only possible to run a full-text > search by switching back to Monobook or by manually going to Special:Search > (there's no link to it anywhere). > > So basically, for five days already it's practically impossible to search > for information within Wikipedia. Read this again: it's impossible to search > Wikipedia. Am i crazy if i think that this is a very severe problem? > > This is reported as a bug: > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23558 > > The right thing to do is to restore the go and search buttons immediately > and consider reintroducing the new search box after it has been thoroughly > tested. Is there any reason not to do this? > > -- > אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי > Amir Elisha Aharoni > > http://aharoni.wordpress.com > > "We're living in pieces, > I want to live in peace." - T. Moore > ___ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] [Wikipedia-l] full-text searching since the Vector switch in en.wikipedia
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Carcharoth > wrote: >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Carcharoth >> wrote: >>> The link to Special:Search is the magnifying glass icon next to (or >>> in) the search box. >>> >>> To get "Search" instead of "Go", do what Magnus Manske suggested a few days >>> ago: >>> >>> "just type your search query, then hit the "cursor up" key to select >>> the last point in the dropdown box, which is the good ol' search >>> function. Hit enter, and there you go." >> >> It seems this is no longer possible? >> >> Strange, as it was possible before and even announced here: >> >> http://techblog.wikimedia.org/tag/usability-vector-search/ >> >> "The “Search” and “Go” buttons are gone, but their functionality live >> on. As you type, search suggestions are offered and accessible via the >> mouse or keyboard using the up and down arrow keys. “Go” is still the >> default action, executed by pressing the enter key on the keyboard. To >> perform a full-text search, users can click on the “containing” option >> within the search suggestions or press the up arrow key on the >> keyboard." >> >> But pressing the down button does nothing any more. *sigh* > > Yeah, they replaces A&B with C&D, then silently removed D. Be thankful > that you still have C, you ungrateful user, you! > > Magnus > The down arrow still works for me. If you click the magnifying glass (without terms in the search box), you get to the conventional text search page. I'm not sure changing the default from "Go!" to text search is the answer, though - and adding another button would be confusing. Maybe if the Go page had a "Not the result you wanted? Click here to search by text" prompt at the top? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Renaming "Flagged Protections"
Edit check, review gap, review delay, check delay, wait approval, content pause, review pause, second check, second approval, etc. There are lots of possible names for this feature. Sometimes I worry that the Foundation staff work for a company built upon the value of community generated content and community sourced ideas, but don't truly *believe* that this value exists or can be relied upon. The best example is the fund-raising drive, when much of the best and most useful content came from the community after the original (and expensive) content was widely panned. Why not involve the community at the beginning? A request for endorsement of your favored options is not the same thing, and fails to harness real community enthusiasm. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
It's a shame that exchanges like this end up as back-and-forth arguments, instead of normal discussions. I think the Foundation should be as open as possible with project communities about legal action, even if in some cases that poses an obstacle to negotiation. The spectre of legal jeopardy can put a serious damper on participation, and when the Foundation takes action pursuant to legal claims more is needed than a deletion note saying who made the demand. Yann suggests that he (and the Wikisource community) did not know about the takedown in a timely manner; anyone not watching the files or the deletion logs might have missed it if the only note was in the deletion log. The project was not aware that the Foundation resisted the scope of the demand, or that the steps ultimately taken were the result of negotiation. Mike says Yann was aware of all of this, Yann says he didn't receive notice about the takedown until a month after it occurred, but either way... The lesson seems to be that there is room for improvement in communication, at the very least. When files are deleted by staff, why not leave a message on the village pump page or ask someone on the OTRS team for that language to do so? If you can't communicate certain facts during negotiations, why not do so afterwards? I don't imagine the WMF has non-disclosure agreements about this sort of thing, at least I hope not. There is some tension built into this general issue, though; Cary advises that the fr.wikisource project needs to make its own decisions about what content to allow, based on a local interpretation of applicable law -- and then the Foundation deletes content without (a) providing advice on what is acceptable and what isn't and (b) without referring to the local decisions the project was advised to take. I'm not sure how this can be resolved, but surely its a legitimate source for grumbling and not grounds for a personally accusatory response from the WMF. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office action
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM, wrote: > >> >> >> What harm do you foresee in replacing deleted pages with a declaration like >> YouTube uses, "This Video has been deleted >> >> based on a copyright claim by The Disney Corporation" ? And then an >> extension of "If you believe this is public domain material >> >> then restore the page and include this disclaimer blah blah blah" >> >> > We aimed to do something like this. Can you say what you dislike about the > current notices, which include the contact information for Gallimard? > > > --Mike I had the same thought as Will, until I read the actual page Cary created (which Yann linked to in his original message): http://fr.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Demande_des_éditions_Gallimard_du_15_février_2010&diff=1547029&oldid=1547025 It says exactly why the pages were deleted, and lists them, and it was created around the same time the deletions occurred. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
Sorry for not saving the previous text, formatting was getting to be a bit of a mess. I do see that the page Yann linked to was created around the same time action was taken, by Cary, and lists the reason for the deletions and the content deleted. I'll assume this page was linked in several other places on fr.wikisource and didn't go unnoticed. It does seem to be that Yann is objecting to the enforcement of the demand, and perhaps the communication issue is less one between WMF and community and more (if anything) between WMF and the poster of content subject to a takedown. I'm curious why the Foundation doesn't take direct action when it is responding to a takedown notice - is it not relevant to these notices whether the recipient or someone else takes the action requested? While Yann did mention you and Cary by name, he did not accuse either of you of intentionally omitting or misleadingly characterizing facts. This isn't a court, perhaps it would be better to assume (or at least pretend to assume) good faith error on his part. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > It seems then that there is a question of jurisdiction involved. It has > been my long held understanding that the Wikimedia projects have > operated under the laws of the United States, and that WMF has been > consistent in its view that chapters are not responsible for the > contents of the projects. Why then do we now compromise this by relying > on what the French courts might say if the takedown notices are issued > under US law? > > Counter-notices would also be produced under US law. There is no > requirement that the person who files a counter-notice be the same > person who posted the original material. The original takedown notice > needs to be a public document in order to enable any person considering > a counter-notice > to form the required good faith belief that the material was taken down > because of a mistake or misidentification, or to challenge whether the > takedown notice was compliant with all the requirements of such a > notice. Thus I would suggest that the notices are not privileged in the > way that other correspondence or discussions would be. > > I also needs to be pointed out that several of the authors in question > died before 1923, and, unless we are dealing with posthumous works, only > France's unique adjustment for the time of the wars would keep them > protected there. > > In the absence of a reconsideration by the WMF of some of these > takedowns I agree that counter-notices.would be a useful approach. To > spread the work this could be spread among several people, each electing > jurisdiction in a different judicial district. O:-) > > Wikilivres is an option that has already been mentioned, and is probably > the quickest to implement. > > Wikisource.ca could also be used. Eventually it would be transferred to > Wikimedia Canada. For now, with that domain being in my possession, it > would take only choosing a suitable webhost and some technical > assistance before it is up and running. > > Ray > How does this involve Wikimedia chapters? I'm not seeing that. It seems plausible that the assertion of valid copyright in France, at least where the content was originally published in France, should be sufficient to have a takedown demand enforced. The uniqueness of French law doesn't seem to be terribly relevant - we can't ignore the copyrights on French content because the law in France is unusual. At any rate, with treaties and foreign laws and whatnot, this is legitimately an area where non-lawyers (like me) should hesitate to criticize actual experts (like Mike). Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communication
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Bod Notbod wrote: > > I think you're wrong. > > Try to get any sense out of the upper echelons of your phone company, > your gas providers, whoever gives you your electricity. > > The Wikimedia community is huge. The staff relatively small. It's > unthinkable you'd write to AT&T and get a response from the CEO. > Looked at in that light, the WMF is very transparent. The WMF office > would be incapable of turning over every query the wider public has. > We're a community and we should be supporting the office folk in their > roles. They do not have a call centre and nor should they. > > However, should you have a question that needs to be looked at by > someone high up, my best recommendation is to be a good community > member. If you have a rep for doing lots of good work on the projects > you will come to the attention of WMF staff and they will communicate > with you because they have to come to know and respect you. > > To illustrate; I worked on the Wikimedia Strategy website for two or > three months. During that time I had a few exchanges with Philippe who > is now full-time (he was a contractor, I believe, when I was > interacting with him)... and I just know that if I have any > deep-seated problem, something I think is important *that the > community can't answer for* I can go to him. And I can say to him > "Hey, here's this thing. Who would you recommend I contact on this > issue?" > > However, that's on the trust that I won't pester him on any old thing > that crosses my mind. It would have to be something big. And for the > most part I would go to the community first, and if I felt there were > a groundswell of opinion behind me I'd write to someone in the WMF and > say "hey, look, there's a couple hundred people here taking one side > on this issue and I think someone at WMF should take a look". > > We cannot expect such a tiny staff to be open to all of us. You have > to build out from your own opinion/idea, nurture and grow it and if it > gains ground then go to the WMF. > > User:Bodnotbod > It doesn't make sense to compare the WMF to AT&T. I agree that compared with large corporations nationwide, the WMF is enormously communicative and transparent. On the other hand, it is after all a corporation designed to promote and preserve a set of community developed projects; the community in this case is not a group of passive consumers, but the most essential element of the entire corporate mission. More importantly, criticism of communication is not generalized pissyness - it is prompted by specific actions of the WMF or its staff / board on the projects, and applies to imperfect or incomplete communication around those actions. When the WMF makes a decision to intervene in the projects, full and informative communication isn't just a nice-if-you-can-get-it side benefit of dealing with a small company - it's essential to maintaining the fabric of a massively participatory and cooperative endeavor. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communication
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > I think if you look at what we did with regard to the Gallimard takedowns -- > > 1) Consulting with French legal experts before taking any action > 2) Compelling Gallimard to narrow and specify their takedown demands > 3) Enlisting community members to implement the takedowns > 4) Including (though not required to do so) contact and identifying > information for Gallimard > 5) Providing a complete list of what Gallimard demanded to be taken down > > -- you see both a high degree of deliberation on our part (we didn't simply > jump to comply) and an effort to make clear to the community what we were > doing and why, and to involve the community, even at the same point in time > at which we followed through on the takedown demands. > > You may remember than Yann originally asserted some kind of double standard > (maybe that we're more afraid of French publishers than of British > museums?), and Andre suggested that we simply (and fearfully) comply with > facially invalid takedown requests. Neither notion is true. Somehow those > notions didn't exactly feel cooperative. > > I think it's essential to maintaining the fabric of a massively > participatory and cooperative endeavor that one first give some attention to > the full facts of how we responded, rather than jumping to (negative) > conclusions about our motivations and interests. My view is that, to the > extent possible, I want to minimize the exposure of community members to > legal risk even as I'm doing the same for the Foundation. Partly this means > adhering to the framework of the applicable laws, including copyright laws > -- so, yes, we will normally comply with a formally correct takedown notice, > just as we will comply with a formally correct "put up" demand. We'll also > help targeted community members find independent legal counsel when we can, > and we'll support chapters that seek to provide professional legal advice to > the community as well. We do generally have to obey the rules, however, and > we didn't create them. > > > --Mike At this point I'm familiar with what the Foundation did and did not do in this particular instance; while my note mentioned that the complaints about communication directed towards the WMF were usually prompted by specific instances, my point about the general responsibility of the WMF to communicate fully is just that - a general point, and not an implied restatement of Yann's complaint. On the other hand, while no one can say that the Foundation did not attempt to inform the French Wikisource community at all, the steps you did take are still open to some criticism and suggestions for improvement. Cary posted a very brief summary of the rationale for the takedown notice, Gallimard's name and contact information, and a list of content deleted. He did not describe the Foundation's effort to limit the scope of the demand, or its contact with French counsel (which was described later, on the talk page, in the form of a copy of an e-mail from you mentioning Hugot Avocats), nor was any effort made to inform project participants how they could contest or counter Gallimard's demands. You can argue, and have argued, that participants should know this already or can easily discover the relevant information with some digging. But why not spare them the effort? It's fully possible that the folks most interested in the specific content are no longer paying close attention, or will be discouraged enough to just give up. Is posting a link to a useful description of put-up procedures really a liability for the WMF? The idea here is that some communication is not necessarily ideal communication, and we can acknowledge that an effort was made while still asking for just a little bit more. -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texts deleted on French Wikisource
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Yann Forget wrote: > Hello, > > Could someone please explain the following from this page: > http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf > > 1. What does it mean that "I consent to accept service of process from > the party who submitted the take-down notice"? > > 2. In the phrase "Each of those works were removed in error and I > believe my posting them does not infringe anyone else's rights." Does > it mean "does not infringe anyone else's rights _in USA_"? or > everywhere in the world? > > Thanks, > > Yann Process service is when you are given notification of a suit or legal action. If you've ever heard the phrase "you've been served" - that's what this refers to. In some situations, you have to be notified of the existence of a legal action in order for it to proceed against you. As for the second part, I'd imagine it means "anyone else's rights" as written - not specific to those that originate in the U.S. ~Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are Wikimedia websites a proper venue for an artistic contest ?
Does educational value figure in the PotD or PotY contests? It should.
Other projects have contests to produce content; it drives
participation and quality. As long as the value being sought is
understood ("great content that furthers the project mission"), then I
don't see the problem.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are Wikimedia websites a proper venue for an artistic contest ?
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Does educational value figure in the PotD or PotY contests? It should.
> Other projects have contests to produce content; it drives
> participation and quality. As long as the value being sought is
> understood ("great content that furthers the project mission"), then I
> don't see the problem.
>
> Nathan
>
In answer to my own question, the picture contests revolve around
featured images - and the featured image requirements include an
assessment of value that is based upon several criteria related to the
core Commons mission.
Nathan
--
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
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 Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > "Dog" isn't strongly associated in the public psyche with a particular > brand. "Wiki" is. Like I say, these are complicated issues of legal > interpretation and really should be left to the lawyers. > What's relevant is that the WMF doesn't regard "wiki" as a protected mark. There are zillions of wikis out there, and whether they are actually massively editable (and in my experience, most of them actually are not) is irrelevant to the question of trademarks and the WMF. You don't need to be a lawyer to figure that out. Nathan ___ 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
Wow, this thread just needs to end. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters >> <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: >>> Austin, >>> >>> Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. > > Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean? > According to Ottava, he is in charge of Wikiversity - sort of its equivalent of Jimmy. He says the position was created through all of his hard work and dedication. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:57 PM, private musings wrote: I think you have the wrong Robert Harris, PM. Robert L instead of Robert M. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] three-letter language codes
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Mark Williamson wrote: > Amir, > > I think this is a good idea. For the sake of consistency, we should > choose a single standard to follow rather than a hodge-podge of newer > standards, older (although still valid) standards, and ad hoc codes we > made up on the spot (als, nrm) and custom codes (bat-smg, roa-tara, > roa-rup, fiu-vro, map-bms, be-x-old). It also seems potentially > confusing to me that we have codes that overlap, for example na.wp and > nap.wp, ro.wp and roa-rup.wp, etc. > > -m. > > Aside from simplifying the process of selecting new language codes, what value does consistency have in this situation? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Ongoing FUD campaign against Wikipedia in Serbian
In other words -- if people are getting that worked up about not having an article on the Serbian Wikipedia, it means you're successful and important enough for it to matter. Job well done! Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption
rom Wikimedia leadership > (not just WMF and staff, but more about some amorphous mass of > influential Wikimedians). There was an incident in Dormitory 6 because > of misunderstanding between organizers and dormitory management. I > would say that it shouldn't be a big deal, as such problems can happen > everywhere. What was not usual is the reaction of the part of > Wikimedians who were there. Some of them were cool and just somewhat > frustrated because of this. However, the reaction and feeling of the > other part was "We shouldn't call them [WMF and organizers]. They will > not help us. They don't care for us. They have fun in the city, > although we have problems here." > > This feeling is irrational in the particular case. Organizers took > care about them, of course. However, I didn't hear this from a couple > of well connected Wikimedians who were there. I didn't hear it from > Europeans and inhabitants of other OECD countries. I've heard this > from not so rich Wikimedians who were far away from home; from those > who felt insecure in a distant country and who feel a gap between > those with money (and/or connections) and them. > > This list is consisted of our first serious real-world problems. Yes, > I know that we used to be virtual, online, onwiki. I know that those > problems are new for us. But if we want to stay as a global movement, > we have to fix them. Otherwise, we'll be just another attempt for > creating a decadent society which main purpose is to make fun for rich > and wannabe rich. And, by the way, to explain to poor how rich world > looks like. With any group of people there is always the difficulty of bridging the "in group" and everyone else. It's worth pointing out that to many people, the ability to go to Wikimania is one of the characteristics that separates the "in group" from the rest of us. It's interesting that even among attendees, you noticed a divide. One thing that perpetuates such divisions is withholding of somehow privileged information (i.e. choosing that something widely known among a certain group of people should stay "private" from those not already in the know). As an example I'll mention two of the problems you listed: firstly, the concerns about the WMF and its connection to US business interests, and secondly the notion of confirmed corruption within Wikimedia chapters. Perhaps these are common knowledge among subscribers to internal-l, but I don't miss many threads on this list and I haven't seen either issue mentioned as a significant problem. For me what you've written are facts of first impression, and you didn't include much specific information that would allow me to grasp their real importance. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption
> Just look at it dispassionately. Wikimedia has how many chapters? And aims to > have how many more? All self-organized, boot-strapped operations operating > under different systems, in different cultures with varying tolerances for > mixing self-interest with duty. The odds dictate that some of these > organizations will fail. And there will be some level self-interest involved > in failure or the floundering of chapters. This should be expected. The > question is what sort of process we should have for dealing with chapters > that exceed our tolerance for this sort of thing. Ideally we should have > such a process in place with clear expectations before there is ever any need > to use it. > > But pretending corruption is something that won't happen or can be prevented > on a absolute level is silly. I haven't a clue what anyone is referring to > as current examples. I don't really care for politics and gossip, so I > personally don't even want to know. But it is worth talking about what sort > of process we should develop to deal with such things for its own sake. We > can't simply depend on people being better than human. Given a large enough > sample, people will do what they do; what they have always done. It shouldn't > be controversial to ask for a system to be put in place to mitigate the harm > from people behaving in such a reliably predictable fashion as becoming > corrupted by money or power. > > > Birgitte SB > I think it will be very difficult to meaningfully mitigate the risks of waste, fraud and abuse in national chapters. Ideally the WMF can place restraints on its funding by demanding careful vetting of officers and strong internal risk controls -- but this places a large burden on organizations still in their infancy, and may be a stifling factor during a crucial period of expansion. The process for requesting funds is not what I would call robust, and the annual fund-raising drive (where donors can donate directly to national chapters through the WMF front door) seems to be a vector that is particularly vulnerable to misuse of funds, but addressing these concerns should be balanced with the need for a strong relationship with chapters that supports continued growth. The best prophylaxis against corruption is transparency. The more we ask the WMF and the chapters to operate in the open, the less likely it is that problems will go long unnoticed. By accepting that chapter finances and operations are "private issues", and that corruption or accusations of corruption should be handled quietly and internally, we leave ourselves open to those who would (through malice or incompetence) take advantage of us. Gerard wrote: >The problem with behaviour that is not good / acceptable is that at some stage it will be recognised and it will kill off the people in a similar way as to Essjay. The best indication that such things can happen is the upset of our capable, competent and upright former chair. I was convinced that he would be re-elected and I would have welcomed his re-election. >When there is substance to "officials" with problematic credentials, it is certain that this will be noticed. When the system gets manipulated to keep them where they are, it will get noticed. When they are chapter officials and they damage the chapter it will be the members of the Foundation that have the possibility to force the issue. Gerard, can you elaborate on what you mean here? I'm not sure I understand what you meant to convey. You mention Essjay, problematic behavior, problematic credentials... and then refer to Michael Snow. Is there some connection here that I'm completely missing, or is the apparent implication unintended? Nathan ___ 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
>David wrote: Is there some way this isn't a blatant repudiation of NPOV? According to an administrator on his talkpage, the site bans anything that violates Islamic law. I suspect the Acehnese Wikipedia isn't the only project with this rule. It would be difficult to obey it without violating NPOV at some point. Nathan ___ 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 11:41 AM, Austin Hair wrote: > > I agree completely with Gerard, and also want to ask that we extend > the same standard to this discussion on the mailing list. > > We can look at this issue and say "stupid fundamentalists," but that's > hardly productive, and very quickly devolves into a thread with posts > that are, at best, pretty darn rude. I really don't want to have to > moderate five people this weekend when it finally gets to the point of > outright Muslim-bashing. > > Austin > Have a little faith. I don't think anything like outright Muslim-bashing has ever happened on this list by regular participants. Suggestions of closing the Aceh Wikipedia are obviously premature and not helpful; discussing whether the rule violates NPOV, and alerting others to facts about the situation, seems fine. It looks like the administrators involved on ace.wp speak English and other languages, anyone inclined to do so should feel welcome to approach them. It's worth noting the template does not currently appear on the Main Page, and there is something of a discussion about it here: http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_Ureu%C3%ABng_Nguy:Hercule#Wikipedia_and_Islam Nathan ___ 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 Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wrote: > When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the > specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him > trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell? > > Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that > *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a flag p[ole > and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested to see > just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of dignity. > > The first link goes to the "depictions of Muhammad" article, which includes all kinds of images and not just obviously offensive ones. The idea of banning images of Muhammad is not limited to just this template on Aceh Wikipedia - they didn't invent it, it's an article of Islamic faith that *all* images of Muhammad are prohibited. On the English Wikipedia there have been many, many debates (and protests, boycotts, online petitions, etc.) about whether and how the [[Muhammad]] article should be illustrated with images of its subject. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Is Google translation is good for Wikipedias?
Just to be sure I understand... What's happening here is that human beings, using a software tool, are translating articles from the English Wikipedia into a variety of other languages and posting them on the comparatively small Wikipedia projects in these languages. The articles, of unknown intrinsic quality, are usually mid to low quality translations. In the projects with an active community, some have rejected these articles because they are not high quality and because the community refuses to be responsible for fixing punctuation and other errors made by editors who are not members of the community. In the projects without an active community, Wikimedians (who may not speak any of the languages affected by the Google initiative) are objecting for a variety of other reasons - because the software used to assist translation isn't free, because the effort is managed by a commercial organization or because the endeavor wasn't cleared with the Wikimedia community first. Some are also concerned that these new articles will somehow deter new editors from becoming involved, despite clear evidence that a larger base of content attracts more readers, and more readers plus imperfect content leads to more editors. What I find interesting is that few seem to be interested in keeping or improving the translated articles; Google's attempt to provide content in under-served languages is actually offending Wikimedians, despite our ostensible commitment to the same goal. Concerns like bureaucratic pre-approval, using free software, etc. are somehow more important than reaching more people with more content. It all seems strange and un-Wikimedian like to me. Obviously there are things Google should have done differently. Maybe working with them to improve their process should be the focus here? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation
Cary, you'll be missed. The WMF absolutely should try to replace you, although I doubt they'll find someone who can do the job as well as you have done. Good luck going back to school, and maybe you can get into editing some of the articles about Levant religions on the English Wikipedia... I hear its a gentle, welcoming environment! Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike. ~Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia
> > The story has now been picked up by other news agencies from the geeky > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml to the > mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of which > pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for one discovered this > story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning Herald today which calls > it a "politely feisty response". > > -Liam Interesting - the NY Times used the same language. Someone got it from someone, wonder which article came first (or if there was a 3rd in the mix). Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Partecipation in Wikimania 2011
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Abbas Mahmoud wrote: > Not only the Middle East, but the Muslim population at large will not dare > step into Israeli soil. > That's a pretty broad generalization - hopefully the organizing team will still make every effort to include as many people as possible, just in case you aren't 100% correct. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
I'm interested in answers to the procedural questions, too. It's seems like a quixotic process, as laid out on the meta page. The board members are to be selected by completely unstructured discussion, with consensus judged by the moderators. The process even seems to allow for the discussion to reach its conclusion in person, with no permanent records, at the Chapters Meeting. If the discussion reaches no consensus, or the consensus determination of the moderators is challenged, a "vote" will be held - in public, on a wiki page. Other than confidentiality, no guidance is provided to the chapters on how to select their preferred candidate - nor on which chapter representatives can participate in the discussion on the chapters-wiki. If any chapter member can participate, doesn't that unduly advantage native English speakers and their chapters? If only some, how are they to be selected? Additionally, Beria Lima says that chapters-wiki is mirrored on meta - but the process page[1] refers to chapters-wiki as confidential, and says that discussion of candidates' real names should be restricted to that wiki so that only members can see it. This whole thing seems pretty ad hoc and amateurish for an organization that is trying to be more robust and modern about its practices. Is there a background check? Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board might refuse to certify the results? Are we really sure that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to merit two seats on the Board selected in such an opaque manner? [1]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vice President?
Not surprisingly, the executive and board positions of the WMF follow U.S. convention. It's not super typical to mix the "executive director" nomenclature with president / vice president, but its common to have vice presidents reporting to a chief executive (who will often take the title of "President & CEO."). As for conflicting names with Board titles... In the U.S., its far more common for boards to have a Chairman (or Chairwoman) and a Vice-Chair, than president or vice-president (which connote operating roles). Personally, it would be easier for me to understand the org chart of the WMF if they picked a particular nomenclature and stuck with it. For years they've been mixing systems - CTO and executive director, vice president and a proliferation of "Heads of" this and that (a highly uncommon executive title in the U.S., as far as I can tell), directors of some things and chiefs of other things... It's a bit strange. On a side-note, it's interesting to see that Erik has been moved out of the "executive" section of the staff list and into engineering.[1] [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Staff_and_contractors&diff=next&oldid=78885 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Béria Lima wrote: > > *Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board > > might refuse to certify the results? * > > I do really LOVE when you people ask questions that has already been > answered by a document, but let's quote again (again from > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure > ): > > > * Chapter-selected members must meet the requirements of applicable state > or federal law for Board membership. In the event that a candidate is > selected who does not meet the requirements of Subsection (A) or other > requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal law, the > Board will (i) not approve the selected candidate, (ii) declare a vacancy > on the Board, and (iii) request that the chapters select a new Trustee to > fill the resulting vacancy, subject to this section and to Section 6 > below.* > > > I appreciate your always helpful tone. In this case, I didn't ask what would happen if someone not legally qualified to be a Board member was selected by the chapters. I asked a different question, linked a prior one - if not all chapters participate, or if the "discussion" is dominated by a few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the selection forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters, is there any thought to refusing to certify under these circumstances? > > > *Are we really sure that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to > > merit two seats on the Board selected in such an opaque manner?* > > > > We are representing *Chapters* here, not the community (always good to > remember) and yes, there is enough people in chapters to make that a > representative election. > Board members, however they are selected, represent the Wikimedia Foundation and the whole "community" or movement. My question is - if the 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia, and their selections are being made in such a way (and concerns ridiculed, by the way, as the product of "process-lovers"), is it really appropriate for Chapters to continue to have a role in filling Board seats? This isn't really a process question, per se, so I understand if you (Beria) decline to weigh in directly. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote: > > Please read > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#ARTICLE_IV_-_THE_BOARD_OF_TRUSTEES > section 3D > > "Chapter-selected Trustees. Two Trustees will be selected by chapters > in even-numbered years according to a procedure approved by a majority > of the chapters and approved by the Board. Amendments to this > procedure also must be approved by a majority of the chapters and > approved by the Board. " > > This is the second time on a thread on this subject today that someone has responded with a link to the bylaws. "This is the way things are" is not an effective response to "here's how I think things should be." And now that we've had the link posted several times, it would be nice if no one else felt the urge to point out the obvious. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising Letter Feb 2012
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Emmanuel Engelhart wrote: > On 02/09/2012 09:11 AM, Ting Chen wrote: > > * The board is sharpening the criteria for payment processing. Payment >> processing is not a natural path to growth for a chapter; and payment >> processing will likely be an exception -- most chapters will not do so. >> > > Without any financial autonomy (that means the ability to raise and invest > funds), a chapter can only beg for money. I do not share your vision of the > chapter's future - neither for the "old" nor for the "young" ones. > > Regards > Emmanuel > Payment processing is piggybacking on the annual WMF fundraiser; nothing prevents any chapter from raising funds on its own. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
> > I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process > wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations. > "One Chapter - One Vote" is problematic as it is (eg. chapters > represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different > numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of > activity, some represent countries while others represent small > geographies [is it right that the US should get two votes just because > they can't get their acts together and form a national chapter?]). > Those problems would be even greater for Partner Organisations (would > an organisation set up to work on a very general topic like "History" > be entitled to equal representation with one set up to work on a very > specific topic like "Submarines"?). It might make sense to let them > participate in discussions, but trying to give them votes just isn't > going to work. > > The simplest solution is to remove the Chapters from their role in electing members of the Board. There will always be disparities between chapters - in funding, representation, organization, professionalism, activity, etc. The concept of Chapter elected Board seats will only become more fraught. Thomas' comment about the U.S. is a perfect harbinger of things to come - international balance of power concerns mixed with a smug insult predicated on ignorance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Béria Lima wrote: > Gomà called him Jan at least 3 times today and no one complained. > > Everyone in Brazil calls me "B" (yah, just the first letter) and here is > VERY common to shortening people's names. Is more a way to write it fast > than to offend anyone. I can call him Mister de Vreede if you all find this > ok, but that would be even more condescending (In my country we only threat > people we really dislike by their last name). > _ > *Béria Lima* > > Jan-Bart and others have asked that you call him Jan-Bart. What part of that is confusing? You can ascribe your first error to different custom; continuing to ignore his wishes is simply arrogant and offensive, which of course I'm sure is not your intent. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Béria Lima wrote: > No I will not apologize for act according with my culture. > > If Mister de Vreede has a problem with people from different cultures he > shouldn't be part of a international movement. > > (And besides if someone would complain about misspelling, the Russians, > Arabs, Japanese and Indians should be the ones since no one here can even > write their real names in the original languages) > > It's incredible that such a childish debate has to occur. I suggest that if you refuse to refrain from intentionally offending other list participants, your privilege to post should be revoked. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations
Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple question for me - do I want to participate in the political disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and no control over whether their government chooses to sign international treaties. It's wrong of Wikipedia to take advantage of the unfortunate situation of the citizens of these nations by regarding them as having no rights in their own work. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Nathan, 22/02/2012 18:38: > > Thanks for the heads up, Robert. This boils down to a fairly simple >> question for me - do I want to participate in the political >> disenfranchisement of Iranian (and other) authors and photographers? They >> have few rights of political participation in their own nations, and no >> control over whether their government chooses to sign international >> treaties. It's wrong of Wikipedia to take advantage of the unfortunate >> situation of the citizens of these nations by regarding them as having no >> rights in their own work. >> > > Could you please define "take advantage"? Or, how such taking advantage > could harm them (it's not clear to me). I thought it was more a way to > "keep Wikipedia legal" also in such countries, to facilitate participation > from there. > > Nemo I'm not sure how to explain that more clearly without describing concepts you are undoubtedly already familiar with, so bear with me for a moment. Copyright provides authors with a right of ownership and control over their work for a generally fixed period; the idea is to give them exclusivity for their own benefit for that period, after which the public has more or less unlimited rights to their work. We can agree that the domestic and international copyright regime is grounded in principles that are economic, legal and moral. There are a small number of nations that refuse to join this regime, and they share some traits - they are often failed states, or states with limited or no meaningful rights of citizen political participation. As a result, while Iranian artists may desire to benefit from their work internationally, they may not be able to - and they have no real recourse in their political system. In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a country where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor treatment - we are benefiting from their disadvantage. If Iranian authors were from any other of the vast majority of Berne signatory nations, they would have full rights to control and benefit from their work internationally. Should we benefit from their lack of freedom, over which they have little influence? Or should we make the ethical decision to afford them the same rights and interests that are afforded to virtually everyone else in the world? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Marcin Cieslak wrote: > > The proposed change would mean all works where the "country of origin" > > (as legally defined by US statutes) is a non-treaty state would be > > declared as public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia and allowed to > > be freely used. The current discussion features a 9-3 "consensus" in > > favor of this outcome [2], and some participants are now pushing for > > implementation on this basis [3]. > > If U.S. law (or rather lack thereof) is to prevail because the projects > are hosted in the U.S. I have two questions: > > 1) How would re-use of Wikipedia content look like to users > in the respective countries? Wouldn't they be limited in > re-using some content if it was obtained from sources under > some kind of protection in their countries, but considered > public domain in the U.S.? > > 2) What about projects like Farsi Wikipedia, where we can > assume significant amount of editors comes from Iran > - are they legally able to license that content to > the rest of the world? > > //Marcin > > You raise a more general issue that has always been a problem for some reusers. In various disclaimers, the projects make it clear that downstream reuse is at the risk of the reuser, and that compliance with legal requirements (U.S. or otherwise) isn't guaranteed. We mitigate this risk by having a more-strict-than-the-law-requires approach to the fair use doctrine (which is not universal outside the U.S.), and we also advise editors that actions they take which are legal in the U.S. may not be legal in their home jurisdiction. What sets this apart is that we are actively taking advantage of political disarray in some nations to withhold rights that creators would otherwise almost universally enjoy. While U.S. law allows us to do that, it doesn't require us to, and I believe we should choose not to. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Nathan, 22/02/2012 19:27: > > In a moral sense, if we treat authors poorly because they live in a >> country >> where they are treated poorly, not only are we reinforcing that poor >> treatment - we are benefiting from their disadvantage. If Iranian authors >> were from any other of the vast majority of Berne signatory nations, they >> would have full rights to control and benefit from their work >> internationally. Should we benefit from their lack of freedom, over which >> they have little influence? Or should we make the ethical decision to >> afford them the same rights and interests that are afforded to virtually >> everyone else in the world? >> > > I can understand this reasoning from a "moral" perspective, but from a > practical point of view (or is it just economical?) I doubt this makes much > sense. As they already don't have any way to claim their rights outside > their country, by redistributing their works without compensation we're not > making them lose anything, unless we "compete" also with distribution and > ruin their market in their home country. > Moreover, given the embargo in Iran, does someone know if a publisher > would even be /allowed/ to give them a compensation? > And speaking of embargo, let me express some more concerns (might be wild > speculations): I consider it a very controversial political action, I don't > know if it's considered obvious and uncontroversial in the USA. I think we > shouldn't do anything to reinforce (nor evade) the embargo, because it > would be a political choice (or an illegal one, but that's out of question) > – we shouldn't discuss it on this list either, I hope this is not going to > open an off-topic flame –. If neither agreed nor non-agreed publishing is > possible, wouldn't "respecting" the country's original copyright just be a > way to worsen the situation of those authors, from a practical point of > view? > Also, I think this situation might have some precedent in some early 20th > or 19th century copyright regulations clashes across European countries, > which made life very hard for some authors. (This is a very vague thought: > Emilio Salgari disappointed with English translations of his works?) > > > Nemo > > Don't forget - while I used Iran as an example, it isn't the only country affected. ~Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote: > Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from > one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be > deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather > than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty > regime? > > Newyorkbrad > > > Based on the discussion, I don't think we could assume anything that reasonable would happen in such a case. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] English Wikipedia considering declaring open-season on works from countries lacking US copyright relations
If folks commenting here would like a voice on the policy itself, feel free to comment on the RfC linked in the original post. It could still use more input. ~Nathan ___ 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, 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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WikiNews...no NOT Wikinews
It looks like it's just a promotion for Wikinews. It doesn't refer to or link anywhere else. It's not totally accurate, from what I understand of Wikinews, but I'm not sure how it's a threat? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A discussion list for Wikimedia (not "Foundation") matters
I think wikimedia-l would work fine and make sense. We probably don't need an additional list, a lot of the lists we have now are lightly used. I appreciate that Erik unsubscribed from internal-l. I think more people should do the same thing, on the principle that discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and projects should occur in public. Herding debate into an exclusive clique is antithetical to the ethic of the Wikimedia movement. If the lists have a different tenor such that some people prefer internal-l over foundation-l, then the solution is more active moderation of this list. Foundation-l moderation has been absentee for sometime - I don't even recall the last time a list moderator participated in a discussion, let alone took a moderator action. ___ 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 Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:06 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers wrote: > > > Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I > > personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored > > speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was > > right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to > > some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was > > especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the > > board acts as a corporate body. > > > If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns, > I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from > your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say > "actually, I disagreed with what I was doing." You can't claim your > views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the > representing. > > What stopped you from voicing your qualms? > I don't know about you, but I can imagine personally disliking the concept of an image filter while simultaneously believing a resolution in favor of it was the best position for the Board to take at the time. Compromise isn't a four letter word. I'd say its more odd to call phoebe out for taking all the criticism on board; surely that was the intent of many of the critics, including yourself? ___ 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 Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > > > Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from > the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first > proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late. > "We as a community" don't agree on very much, and the image filter and related issues certainly have a lot of people on all sides. So if you could just speak for yourself, I don't know what the rest of the community would think, but I'd appreciate it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Morton wrote: > > > > Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in > > hiding knowledge. > > > > The day that Wiki*edia changes its mission from providing access to free > knowledge to "enforcing our view of knowledge on you", would be a saddening > day. > > Tom > It does that already, in a lot of ways. As catholic as it attempts to be, the "knowledge paradigm" that Wikimedia represents is only a small sliver of the sum of knowledge in the world. That's just one way in which it enforces its view of knowledge; acceding to or refusing to filter content in any way is also enforcing a particular view of both knowledge and the world. It would do both sides well to approach this argument with a little less arrogance and self-righteousness. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
