Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Wil Sinclair]

> Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your
> question "what's going on?" in a sentence (or a paragraph or an
> essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things
> by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not
> sure they're things that will stand you in good stead. Probably the
> best way to answer your actual question is to dive in, write stuff
> with references, add photos, etc. It's actually pretty good nerdy fun
> and I recommend it if you're the sort of person who read encyclopedias
> for fun as a kid.
>
> I'd definitely say there's no royal road to knowledge of Wikipedia.
> Dive in and do it and discover how lovely and infuriating your fellow
> humans are, really.

Thanks, David, and I agree 100% that there's a lot that I can only
learn by participating. That's one reason I'm here. :) I've also been
uploading sound loops to Commons, and I'm working on a few new
articles on various pet interests of mine. I think the one thing left
that Fae suggested I do is edit a BLP, IIRC. I know that there has
been some discussion about how to handle BLP's here and on WO. These
particular issues seem much harder to grok without some experience, so
I think Fae was on-point when he suggested I just dive right in.

I've also learned a lot from Wikipediocracy, but YMMV. :)

,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Wil Sinclair]

I don't know about any specific incidents Newyorkbrad has referred to
below, but I generally agree with his characterization of the site.
I've told them exactly what I think of the nature of some discourse
there when I started this thread:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4527.

I recommend that anyone who chooses to participate on Wikipediocracy
keep this in mind. It is a site that was set up solely to criticize
Wikipedia and (in my opinion, unfortunately) some members of its
community. It is not the world's foremost reference site and, not
surprisingly, has very different policies. I don't see why it should
be held to the same standards as Wikipedia, any more than a site like
Encyclopedia Dramatica should. Personally, I choose to ignore the
personal stuff and look for secondary sources on the issues I care
about. Fortunately, they provide many very ligit links (most of them
to WP, as I have mentioned) to back up their arguments.

This discussion begs the question: if there's a lot on Wikipediocracy
that they find unpleasant or offensive, why are so many contributors,
admins, and upstanding members of the WP community going there to
discuss issues instead of talking through them in places like this
forum?

,Wil

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Newyorkbrad  wrote:
> I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor
> Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I
> haven't been participating.  At times I've gained useful insights and
> information from things posted on those sites.  In particular, they have
> been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention
> to the well-being of BLP subjects.
>
> To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some
> things that take place on those sites.  A few contributors there have
> a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to
> exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their
> illogical extremes.  The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia
> norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or
> pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and
> important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it.  The tone
> of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be
> deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round
> Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.)  There is a
> troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities
> and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is
> particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued).  The wholesale
> publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing
> list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point.
>
> As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on
> policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on
> particular individuals.
>
> I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
> Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
> badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
> it reflects badly on Lila.  I do suggest to Wil that a critic site
> should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia,
> and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply
> accepted.  But I suspect that Wil understands that already.
>
> Newyorkbrad

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Russavia wrote:

> Andreas
>
> > And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito.
> That
> > in itself is food for thought.
>
> And therein lies the problem.
>
> In 28byte's case he actively attacked myself and another editor on WO
> forums on an issue in which I wasn't involved, and then proceded to
> close an AfD as if he was an uninvolved admin/bureaucrat.
>
> 28bytes is as a dishonest person who you will ever come across, and he
> "outed" himself only after seeing the "secret" subforum where he saw
> he was going to be outed by you guys.
>
> And you want to hold him as an example of a shining example of WO
> membership, seriously?
>


Personally, I'd much rather any admins, bureaucrats and checkusers who have
active accounts on WO would be open about their WP user names.

This doesn't change the fact, does it, that David's description of 28bytes
as a "troll", and presumably one of the "justifiably-banned users", was
ludicrously at variance with the facts. 28bytes is trusted with more
permissions on the English Wikipedia than David is.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Russavia]

Andreas

> And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito. That
> in itself is food for thought.

And therein lies the problem.

In 28byte's case he actively attacked myself and another editor on WO
forums on an issue in which I wasn't involved, and then proceded to
close an AfD as if he was an uninvolved admin/bureaucrat.

28bytes is as a dishonest person who you will ever come across, and he
"outed" himself only after seeing the "secret" subforum where he saw
he was going to be outed by you guys.

And you want to hold him as an example of a shining example of WO
membership, seriously?

Russavia

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced

[Tonmoy Khan]

Hello everyone,

I thank you all for your encouraging comments on behalf of the FDC. We will
be very happy to see our recommendations materialise for the benefit of the
Wikimedia movement as a whole. We are grateful to everyone who has been a
part of this process so far.

Regards

Ali Haidar Khan
On May 24, 2014 9:06 PM, "Lila Tretikov"  wrote:

> Thank you FDC for completing this work and providing valuable feedback. As
> we continue to improve our planning process and our funding programs we
> hope to make your work easier as well.
>
> Thanks everyone else who has participated with comments and
> recommendations.
>
> Lila
>
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > Dear Dariusz and FDC,
> >
> > Thank you for this fine recommendation.  I just read through it for
> > the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly
> > getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed
> > into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying
> > organizations, and to how we plan for the future.
> >
> >
> > I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France
> > proposal.   And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to
> > have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly.
> >
> > The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough.
> > (Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report
> > next time)
> > A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we
> > need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical
> > changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of
> > our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped
> > in with administration.  The last point is indicative of a larger
> > blind spot, I think.
> >
> > I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a
> > strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new
> > strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory
> > group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are
> > well considered.  Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the
> > future...
> >
> > Congratulations on this work.  And good luck to those FDC advisors
> > meeting over the coming days.
> >
> > Sam.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > wrote:
> > > Hello friends,
> > >
> > > The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make
> > > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
> the
> > > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1]
> > >
> > > On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2
> > 2013-2014
> > > recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now
> > been
> > > posted on Meta [2]:
> > >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2
> > >
> > > The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1
> July
> > > 2014.
> > >
> > > For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four
> > > proposals.  [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and
> one
> > > non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million
> USD.
> > >  Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th
> May,
> > > the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff
> > > assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and
> > > history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff
> presented
> > an
> > > overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC
> > and
> > > FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the
> proposal
> > > form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and
> > > prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the
> > discussions
> > > about the proposals.
> > >
> > > The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it
> > > required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond
> to
> > > the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff.  We
> > > sincerely appreciate them all for this work.
> > >
> > > For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a
> > > separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request
> of
> > > many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals
> > terminology
> > > so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and
> > > appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board
> representatives.
> > > These are further explained below:
> > >
> > > Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s
> Round 2
> > > recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC
> > by
> > > '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process
> > > outlined in the FD

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:33 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

>
>
> I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers,
> trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way.
> en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if
> they're their constituency is how we ended up with 2014's top-voted
> arbitrator getting busted as actually being a Wikipediocracy troll and
> having to resign on his first day.
>


This "they're all banned trolls" talk is getting really old, David.

That particular "troll" (User:28bytes) is an active administrator and
bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia today. WO was unaware of his on-wiki
identity, and that he was running for ArbCom. We found out after he won the
ArbCom election – and if we hadn't, you wouldn't have.

And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito. That
in itself is food for thought.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[David Gerard]

On 24 May 2014 22:21, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, "Newyorkbrad"  wrote:

>> I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
>> Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
>> badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
>> it reflects badly on Lila.

> But is there anybody who has actually expressed that view?


I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers,
trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way.
en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if
they're their constituency is how we ended up with 2014's top-voted
arbitrator getting busted as actually being a Wikipediocracy troll and
having to resign on his first day. (Great going, guys - that's
definitely how to maintain that all-important decorum) The site exists
to further bitterness and wikispamming (it's not clear which comes
first; possibly both equally) and every time I'm foolish enough to
look at it I feel stupider afterwards.

Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your
question "what's going on?" in a sentence (or a paragraph or an
essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things
by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not
sure they're things that will stand you in good stead. Probably the
best way to answer your actual question is to dive in, write stuff
with references, add photos, etc. It's actually pretty good nerdy fun
and I recommend it if you're the sort of person who read encyclopedias
for fun as a kid.

I'd definitely say there's no royal road to knowledge of Wikipedia.
Dive in and do it and discover how lovely and infuriating your fellow
humans are, really.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Pete Forsyth]

On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, "Newyorkbrad"  wrote:
>
> I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
> Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
> badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
> it reflects badly on Lila.

But is there anybody who has actually expressed that view?

Pete
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Newyorkbrad]

I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor
Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I
haven't been participating.  At times I've gained useful insights and
information from things posted on those sites.  In particular, they have
been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention
to the well-being of BLP subjects.

To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some
things that take place on those sites.  A few contributors there have
a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to
exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their
illogical extremes.  The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia
norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or
pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and
important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it.  The tone
of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be
deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round
Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.)  There is a
troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities
and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is
particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued).  The wholesale
publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing
list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point.

As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on
policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on
particular individuals.

I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
it reflects badly on Lila.  I do suggest to Wil that a critic site
should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia,
and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply
accepted.  But I suspect that Wil understands that already.

Newyorkbrad


On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> > So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
> > about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells.  You didn't look
> > like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one
> > of their calls for war.  Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been
> > dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.
>
> I'm also a father with a long history of stepping up to bat on issues
> that affect my own children.
>
> Moreover, speculating on each other's motives doesn't seem to bring
> insight to these important issues. Instead, we all start talking about
> what may or may not be going on in each other's heads.
>
> Maybe we can improve the signal-to-noise ratio here by focusing more
> on what's being said rather than who is saying it.
>
> Thanks.
> ,Wil
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced

[Lila Tretikov]

Thank you FDC for completing this work and providing valuable feedback. As
we continue to improve our planning process and our funding programs we
hope to make your work easier as well.

Thanks everyone else who has participated with comments and recommendations.

Lila


On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Dear Dariusz and FDC,
>
> Thank you for this fine recommendation.  I just read through it for
> the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly
> getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed
> into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying
> organizations, and to how we plan for the future.
>
>
> I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France
> proposal.   And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to
> have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly.
>
> The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough.
> (Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report
> next time)
> A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we
> need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical
> changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of
> our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped
> in with administration.  The last point is indicative of a larger
> blind spot, I think.
>
> I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a
> strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new
> strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory
> group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are
> well considered.  Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the
> future...
>
> Congratulations on this work.  And good luck to those FDC advisors
> meeting over the coming days.
>
> Sam.
>
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
> > Hello friends,
> >
> > The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make
> > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
> > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1]
> >
> > On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2
> 2013-2014
> > recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now
> been
> > posted on Meta [2]:
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2
> >
> > The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July
> > 2014.
> >
> > For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four
> > proposals.  [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one
> > non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD.
> >  Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May,
> > the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff
> > assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and
> > history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented
> an
> > overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC
> and
> > FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal
> > form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and
> > prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the
> discussions
> > about the proposals.
> >
> > The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it
> > required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to
> > the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff.  We
> > sincerely appreciate them all for this work.
> >
> > For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a
> > separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of
> > many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals
> terminology
> > so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and
> > appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives.
> > These are further explained below:
> >
> > Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2
> > recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC
> by
> > '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process
> > outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows:
> >
> > Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly
> called
> > complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion):
> >
> > * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
> > form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF
> > Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta).
> >
> > * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page
> > designated for this purpose. [4]
> >
> > * Formal appeals can be 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced

[Samuel Klein]

Dear Dariusz and FDC,

Thank you for this fine recommendation.  I just read through it for
the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly
getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed
into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying
organizations, and to how we plan for the future.


I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France
proposal.   And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to
have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly.

The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough.
(Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report
next time)
A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we
need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical
changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of
our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped
in with administration.  The last point is indicative of a larger
blind spot, I think.

I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a
strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new
strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory
group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are
well considered.  Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the
future...

Congratulations on this work.  And good luck to those FDC advisors
meeting over the coming days.

Sam.


On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> Hello friends,
>
> The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make
> decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
> Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1]
>
> On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014
> recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been
> posted on Meta [2]:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2
>
> The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July
> 2014.
>
> For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four
> proposals.  [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one
> non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD.
>  Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May,
> the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff
> assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and
> history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an
> overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and
> FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal
> form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and
> prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions
> about the proposals.
>
> The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it
> required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to
> the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff.  We
> sincerely appreciate them all for this work.
>
> For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a
> separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of
> many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology
> so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and
> appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives.
> These are further explained below:
>
> Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2
> recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by
> '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process
> outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows:
>
> Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called
> complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion):
>
> * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
> form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF
> Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta).
>
> * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page
> designated for this purpose. [4]
>
> * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
> funding-seeking organization.
>
> * Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for
> submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if
> the recommendations are published before the deadline for the
> recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals
> is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''.
>
> * These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at
> the same time as the Board considers

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Wil Sinclair]

> So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
> about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells.  You didn't look
> like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one
> of their calls for war.  Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been
> dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.

I'm also a father with a long history of stepping up to bat on issues
that affect my own children.

Moreover, speculating on each other's motives doesn't seem to bring
insight to these important issues. Instead, we all start talking about
what may or may not be going on in each other's heads.

Maybe we can improve the signal-to-noise ratio here by focusing more
on what's being said rather than who is saying it.

Thanks.
,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced

[Itzik Edri]

+1

I want to join Jat-Bart and thanks the FDC for the great work they did
again. I'm also happy to see improvement in the process and to see that
this round the FDC published more detailed feedback of their
recommendations.

I found their feedback of the WMF proposal as a very mature and profound,
and highlight some of us a very interesting issues to look for, and I know
that wasn't been so easy to do so.

I also want to congratulate WMFR for being the first chapter over the lasts
2 rounds to be recommended to be fully funded, although they requested 50%
higher allocation from the last year allocation. WMFR proposal is indeed
very professional and interesting one which posed a high bar for everyone
on the next rounds. Well done WMFR!



Itzik
WMIL



On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede  wrote:

> Hi Dariusz (& Everyone)
>
> On behalf of the Board of Trustees allow me to once again thank the FDC
> and involved WMF Staff members for all the work that has gone into this
> round. I am looking forward to discussing the future of the FDC with you
> and all the others in the coming days as we convene with the FDC Advisory
> Group.
>
> Also thanks to all those who have participated in the public discussions
> on the different proposals, it is what makes us truly unique as an
> organisation!
>
> Thank you,
>
> Jan-Bart de Vreede
> Chair
> Wikimedia Board of Trustees
>
>
> On 24 May 2014, at 15:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>
> > Hello friends,
> >
> > The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make
> > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
> > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1]
> >
> > On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2
> 2013-2014
> > recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now
> been
> > posted on Meta [2]:
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2
> >
> > The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July
> > 2014.
> >
> > For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four
> > proposals.  [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one
> > non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD.
> > Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May,
> > the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff
> > assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and
> > history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented
> an
> > overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC
> and
> > FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal
> > form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and
> > prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the
> discussions
> > about the proposals.
> >
> > The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it
> > required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to
> > the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff.  We
> > sincerely appreciate them all for this work.
> >
> > For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a
> > separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of
> > many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals
> terminology
> > so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and
> > appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives.
> > These are further explained below:
> >
> > Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2
> > recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC
> by
> > '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process
> > outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows:
> >
> > Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly
> called
> > complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion):
> >
> > * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
> > form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF
> > Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta).
> >
> > * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page
> > designated for this purpose. [4]
> >
> > * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
> > funding-seeking organization.
> >
> > * Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for
> > submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if
> > the recommendations are published before the deadline for the
> > recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for
> appeals
> > is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''.
> >
> > * These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at
> > the same time

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Pete Forsyth]

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> If that was not for public eyes,


All: My last message to the list was indeed intended for a specific
individual, not the list. But there's nothing in it I want to back away
from, it's an accurate reflection of my (still evolving) views.

Wil, on the propriety of talking behind your back: I don't think I did
anything wrong here. If we had a relationship, I'd probably have reached
out to you, to make sure I understood you right or to try to persuade you
to change your behavior, before talking to others. But we haven't spoken
before, and I have no reason to think that would have a worthwhile outcome.
I'm pretty confident that there are dozens -- no, hundreds -- of opinions
forming in the heads and conversations of the various people who read this
list, and I'm pretty sure that is entirely appropriate. Would you want a
personal message about every one of them? You'd have a lot of reading to do.

Also, you asked about the first line. I was referring to the American TV
show The West Wing (early 7th season). It wasn't in response to anything in
this email thread though, or anything that's happened on this list recently.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Andreas Kolbe]

Marc,

I am sure you are aware of the discussion here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection

Those concerns were raised not by banned trolls, but by members of the
English Wikipedia's arbitration committee, and other users with advanced
permissions. They were raised over a year ago, and as far as I am aware,
the situation is unchanged.

You said earlier,

"In practice, everything of value that bubbles up from WO will reach
'mainstream' venues soon enough if it was legitimate."

In a sense you're right: this was brought up by mainstream players, in a
mainstream locale: Sue's talk page. However, the fact of the matter is
that *nothing
has been done to address the concern*.

You say, "WO (nor WR before it) has nothing to do with this, isn't even
actually aware of the nature of the issues, nor has it uncovered anything
significant on the matter".

You may remember the case on Commons of Beta-M, a man who newspapers
reported was jailed in the US for distribution of child pornography and
deported, and who subsequently took on a key role as a curator of adult
content on Commons. He also left messages on dozens of Commons user talk
pages inviting them to send him nude pictures of themselves for use on his
private website. He was eventually removed from Wikimedia projects by WMF
office action – one of very few of this kind ever taken – against the will
of the Commons community.

The sole reason for the office action was that the matter of his prior
conviction was brought up by WR/WO critics. I have no doubt that he would
have carried on much as before otherwise.

Another self-described pedophile recently offered nude pictures of his wife
to Commons, as discussed on this mailing list a few days ago. At one point,
he was trying to re-write the child protection policy on Meta, a fact which
was brought up on Geoff Brigham's user talk page on Meta.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geoffbrigham#Leucosticte

He is still free to contribute to Wikimedia projects, despite a number of
people now having raised his contributions as problematic.

The recent terms-of-use change proposal to address paid editing came in the
wake of reporting on Wiki-PR's sockpuppet army by the Daily Dot.

The situation had been festering on-wiki for months. One longstanding
bureaucrat resigned over it.

Qworty contributed for over half a decade. What complaints there were about
him over the years never led to action, until a journalist wrote an exposé
of him.

I do not see self-regulation working effectively. Sometimes, outside
criticism is vital, as it is for *any organisation in society*. In that
sense, I see our effort as making a productive contribution.




On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> Hello again, Wil.
>
> It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place
> to do so.  But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to
> not answer:
>
> On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> > If they are exposing serious problems
> > that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their
> > motives are?
>
> Because their priorities are out of whack.  By their obsession over nits
> and trying to find things to hold against the projects and their
> participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing...
>
> Over and before the numerous much larger, much more complicated and much
> more *important* things that need fixing that are plain for everyone to
> see but just don't happen to be usable as weapons against others.
> (Systemic bias, participation by women, the changing editor landscape,
> increasing PR manipulation... I could go on all day).
>
> Also, they harp repeatedly on the same points over and over that have
> been "asked and answered" by the community, the discussion of which has
> repeatedly shown to be both unproductive and cause for strife.  Given
> that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable -- but
> that's not a worthwhile endeavor for someone who wants to be a
> productive participant in the movement.
>
> Case in point is their obsession with imagining that the project are
> replete with pedophiles and pedophile-enablers, focusing on what they
> hallucinate is a lack of diligence in handling the matter because we do
> so discretely.
>
> So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
> about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells.  You didn't look
> like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one
> of their calls for war.  Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been
> dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.
>
> Like it or not, you are the spouse of the most visible person of the
> movement and what you do will always be associated with what Lila does.
>  Imagine a little what your reaction would be if the spouse of your
> local chief of police was publicly socializing with known gang members?
>
> Yes, you ar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[edward]

Which bits did you feel were selective, i.e. which parts of your 
original meaning were changed by quoting sentence fragments? I mean you 
did actually say that the criticism on WO "has led to exposing serious 
problems that desperately needed fixing".  You then followed that up, 
and here I quote the whole sentence "By their obsession over nits and 
trying to find things to hold against the projects and their 
participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing".


It's not clear whether you agree that WO criticism has uncovered some 
serious problems, in which case that's a good thing, regardless of 
motivation, or whether the problems aren't serious, as is implied by 
your term 'nits' (small creatures that are trivial in the grand scheme 
of things).  In the same post you then refer to "the numerous much 
larger, much more complicated and much more *important* things that need 
fixing", which implies the 'serious problems that desperately needed 
fixing' are not so serious.


I also noted that one of the 'more important' things you refer to was 
also a strong focus for WO, namely the gaming by paid editors and 
suchlike, i.e. you suggested that WO isn't focused on such things, 
whereas in fact they are.   To my mind, conflict of interest (financial, 
agenda-driven, nationalistic and, yes, editing by pedophiles), is the 
most serious problem facing the project.


On 24/05/2014 16:30, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote:

You mean "selectively quoting"?  I was not aware of misquoting you. I
used your very words.

Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then.  I
could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments
is, necessarily, "misquoting" but this was a simple production error --
having both 'selectively quoting' and 'misquoting' in mind I ended up
writing halfway between both.

-- Mar


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote:
> You mean "selectively quoting"?  I was not aware of misquoting you. I
> used your very words.

Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then.  I
could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments
is, necessarily, "misquoting" but this was a simple production error --
having both 'selectively quoting' and 'misquoting' in mind I ended up
writing halfway between both.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[edward]

On 24/05/2014 16:19, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

not unlike how by
selectively misquoting my previous email


You mean "selectively quoting"?  I was not aware of misquoting you. I 
used your very words.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 05/24/2014 11:13 AM, edward wrote:
> Also this complaint
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection
> from a sitting arbitrator suggests the issue is a serious one.

There are issues indeed about who is supposed to handle what aspect of
the matter; with opinions diverging about respective roles of various
participants.  WO (nor WR before it) has nothing to do with this, isn't
even actually aware of the nature of the issues, nor has it uncovered
anything significant on the matter.

Of course, taking anything out of context can make any issue look
disproportionally important or significant; not unlike how by
selectively misquoting my previous email you made it seem like I was
holding a position I was not in order to attack it.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[edward]

Also this complaint 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection 
from a sitting arbitrator suggests the issue is a serious one.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[edward]

Marc A. Pelletier Sat May 24 02:31:32 UTC 2014
>>the criticism there has led to exposing **serious problems that 
desperately needed fixing**,


Marc A. Pelletier Sat May 24 15:00:31 UTC 2014
>>By their obsession over **nits**

Which?

>>increasing PR manipulation

This has been a consistent focus for WO and its predecessor for several 
years. There is a whole sub-forum devoted to this problem.


>>Given that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable

Again, this is a claim about psychological states that you need to justify.

>>you were simply aping one of their calls for war.  Coming from most 
anyone else, it'd have been dismissed as simple trolling


You mean concerns about child protection?


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Marc A. Pelletier]

Hello again, Wil.

It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place
to do so.  But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to
not answer:

On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> If they are exposing serious problems
> that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their
> motives are?

Because their priorities are out of whack.  By their obsession over nits
and trying to find things to hold against the projects and their
participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing...

Over and before the numerous much larger, much more complicated and much
more *important* things that need fixing that are plain for everyone to
see but just don't happen to be usable as weapons against others.
(Systemic bias, participation by women, the changing editor landscape,
increasing PR manipulation... I could go on all day).

Also, they harp repeatedly on the same points over and over that have
been "asked and answered" by the community, the discussion of which has
repeatedly shown to be both unproductive and cause for strife.  Given
that strife is their *objective* that is perfectly predictable -- but
that's not a worthwhile endeavor for someone who wants to be a
productive participant in the movement.

Case in point is their obsession with imagining that the project are
replete with pedophiles and pedophile-enablers, focusing on what they
hallucinate is a lack of diligence in handling the matter because we do
so discretely.

So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
about "child protection" rang all sort of alarm bells.  You didn't look
like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one
of their calls for war.  Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been
dismissed as simple trolling - but you are *not* anyone else.

Like it or not, you are the spouse of the most visible person of the
movement and what you do will always be associated with what Lila does.
 Imagine a little what your reaction would be if the spouse of your
local chief of police was publicly socializing with known gang members?

Yes, you are your own person -- but you do not live in isolation and the
motives of who you hang out with *does* matter.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Chris Keating]

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 8:51 AM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

> I will say, in Lila's defense, that I've been impressed with what I've
> seen of her in public. (:
>
> However, Wil, I agree with points others have made. I'm concerned that
> you're going to create drama with what you're doing here, and make Lila's
> and WMF's jobs more complicated. I am assuming good faith that you are
> well-intentioned, but I am worried, not so much for your sake but for the
> community's, Lila's, and WMF's.
>

I will just add a little to Pine's comments here.

The way the Wikimedia movement has developed, we've ended up with some
prominent fora that tend to be high-drama and low-effectiveness. Even this
list has a fairly low signal-to-noise ratio most of the time, as in many
threads the people with real insights into a situation tend not to post for
one reason or another, while people with axes to grind do so far more.

If you want to explore the Wikimedia movement then absolutely great, but
there are better ways to do it! Pine's suggestions are a good start - also,
there are various conferences and events, I think there's one in the USA
coming up, then Wikimania in London in a few months.

Also, just a word about free speech. If you or someone close to you is in a
leadership position, then you have responsibilities - either to them, or to
the organisation, or to both. I'm a bit concerned that if conversations
like this one keep going, then when Lila comes out of "watch and listen"
mode, the first thing she's going to hear from this list is a bunch of
questions about you.

I think one of the main learning points for the Foundation over the last
few years is that there is only a certain amount of "oxygen" in the
community for thought and discussion. If I were you I'd do Lila the favour
of making sure that she can use as much of that oxygen as she wants, and
limit the amount you're taking for yourself.

Kind regards, and look forward to meeting you sometime,

Chris



>
> I would like to show you some options for places where the style of
> conversation you are using would be a better fit, where you can ask
> questions and have discussions, and which are less politically sensitive
> than this list is. Of course you are welcome on this list if you have
> cross-wiki suggestions or can't get questions answered elsewhere, and I
> respect your right to free speech, but I would ask you to consider these
> suggestions.
>
> On English Wikipedia, you will find friendly and helpful people at our
> Teahouse. [1] For questions and realtime help you can also visit
> #wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC.
>
> If you want to get to know Wikipedians, I suggest that you join local
> volunteer meetups such Wiknic if there is one in your area. In those
> circumstances most people are happy to socialize. [2] If you are able to
> attend WikiConference USA in New York, I think you would enjoy it. [3]
>
> If you want to have electronic conversations that are more chatty and less
> formal than the discussions on this list, I suggest IRC. #wikipedia-en is a
> high profile channel and many of the questions that you asked here could be
> discussed in there. And as I said above, for realtime help you can visit
> #wikipedia-en-help. However, I ask as a personal favor that you don't have
> conversations in #wikimedia-office which is the main WMF channel. I can't
> stop you from talking there any more than I can take away your free speech
> rights, but I think any communications in there from you would create more
> complications.
>
> I feel it's ok for you or any Wikipedian in good standing to talk on WO if
> they want, but engaging in semi-official diplomacy is a very different
> matter, if that's what you're doing (I haven't checked your edits and I
> don't want to). There may come a time when you have the community's trust
> and can act in
>  high-profile ways with the support of the community, but at the moment
> the discussion on this email list tells me that your actions are creating
> complications to the start of Lila's tenure in ways that have me worried.
> To use an analogy, imagine Michelle Obama saying in public that her
> personal opinion is that Barack Obama should have diplomatic talks with
>  or revoke , or
> that she personally has been conducting outreach to  here> without going through the State Department. That would create
> complications for Barack Obama and lots of other people, even though
> Michelle has a right to communicate her views.
>
> I am available to answer questions if you have any for me. You can ask on
> my Meta talk page, on my English Wikipedia talk page, through email, or set
> up a time to meet me on IRC or Skype. I'm sure other participants in this
> discussion would also be willing to talk with you in places other than this
> list.
>
> If I have misunderstood your position please correct me. I appreciate your
> interest in Wikipedia and I hope you will be a net positive to the
> community. (:
>
> Pine
>
> [1] https://en.wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Hi Dariusz (& Everyone)

On behalf of the Board of Trustees allow me to once again thank the FDC and 
involved WMF Staff members for all the work that has gone into this round. I am 
looking forward to discussing the future of the FDC with you and all the others 
in the coming days as we convene with the FDC Advisory Group.

Also thanks to all those who have participated in the public discussions on the 
different proposals, it is what makes us truly unique as an organisation!

Thank you,

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Chair
Wikimedia Board of Trustees


On 24 May 2014, at 15:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> Hello friends,
> 
> The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make
> decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
> Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1]
> 
> On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014
> recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been
> posted on Meta [2]:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2
> 
> The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July
> 2014.
> 
> For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four
> proposals.  [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one
> non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD.
> Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May,
> the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff
> assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and
> history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an
> overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and
> FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal
> form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and
> prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions
> about the proposals.
> 
> The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it
> required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to
> the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff.  We
> sincerely appreciate them all for this work.
> 
> For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a
> separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of
> many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology
> so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and
> appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives.
> These are further explained below:
> 
> Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2
> recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by
> '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process
> outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows:
> 
> Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called
> complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion):
> 
> * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
> form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF
> Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta).
> 
> * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page
> designated for this purpose. [4]
> 
> * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
> funding-seeking organization.
> 
> * Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for
> submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if
> the recommendations are published before the deadline for the
> recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals
> is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''.
> 
> * These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at
> the same time as the Board considers the FDC recommendation. Responses to
> an appeal will be made alongside the overall decision on the FDC
> recommendations, i.e. by end-of-day UTC '''1 July 2014'''.
> 
> * Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing an
> appeal will be put on hold until the appeal is resolved.
> 
> * If the WMF Board's consideration of the appeal results in an amendment of
> the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary
> circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the
> WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial
> recommendation.
> 
> * The Ombudsperson, as well as members of the WMF Board other than the
> Board representatives, may participate in the investigation if approved by
> the Chair of the WMF Board.
> 
> Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process (formerly called
> appeals):
> 
> * A complaint about the FDC process can be filed by anyone with the
> Om

[Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

Hello friends,

The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1]

On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014
recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been
posted on Meta [2]:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2

The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July
2014.

For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four
proposals.  [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one
non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD.
 Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May,
the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff
assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and
history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an
overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and
FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal
form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and
prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions
about the proposals.

The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it
required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to
the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff.  We
sincerely appreciate them all for this work.

For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a
separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of
many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology
so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and
appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives.
These are further explained below:

Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2
recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by
'''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process
outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows:

Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called
complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion):

* A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF
Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta).

* The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page
designated for this purpose. [4]

* Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
funding-seeking organization.

* Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for
submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if
the recommendations are published before the deadline for the
recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals
is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''.

* These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at
the same time as the Board considers the FDC recommendation. Responses to
an appeal will be made alongside the overall decision on the FDC
recommendations, i.e. by end-of-day UTC '''1 July 2014'''.

* Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing an
appeal will be put on hold until the appeal is resolved.

* If the WMF Board's consideration of the appeal results in an amendment of
the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary
circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the
WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial
recommendation.

* The Ombudsperson, as well as members of the WMF Board other than the
Board representatives, may participate in the investigation if approved by
the Chair of the WMF Board.

Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process (formerly called
appeals):

* A complaint about the FDC process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson and can be made any time during a particular round of the FDC
process (e.g. in this instance, from start '''1 April 2014''').

* The complaint should be submitted on wiki, through the FDC portal page
designated for this purpose [5]

* The ombudsperson will receive and publicly document the complaint, and
investigate the complaint, as needed.

On behalf of the FDC,

"pundit" Dariusz Jemielniak (FDC Chair)

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC

[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2

[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals

[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recommendation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Advisory Group

[Pierre-Selim]

Thank you Peter, I've draft a few thoughts here <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:PierreSelim/FDC_thoughts>.

I wish all the Advisory group a fruitful meeting.


2014-05-24 9:00 GMT+02:00 Peter Ekman :

> Just joined this list and not sure my 1st message got through
>
> This is to let everybody know that the
> Fund Dissemination Committee Advisory Group
> aka the FDC AG
> will be meeting Sunday thru Monday
>
> The purpose is to review the set up and operations of the
> Funds Dissemination Committee and give a recommendation on this
> to the Executive Director (as mandated by the resolution creating the FDC)
>
> see our page on meta
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Meeting_3#Agenda
>  and feel free to send info, opinions etc. to that talk page.
>
> If all the similar abbreviations above confuse you, the idea is this:
> we'd like to know what you think about the FDC, the committee set up
> by the board 2 years ago to recommend sending funds to
> chapters and groups. And what should be the future of that
> committee.
>
> The second committee (the FDC AG) will discuss your
> ideas and make a recommendation to the ED.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Pierre-Selim
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Fæ]

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
...
> Others are uncomfortable because the incoming ED has a
> partner who is active in the community, and that is a new thing.

No, churning politics off-wiki and then bringing issues raised
off-wiki on-wiki, is not being active in the community, presuming you
mean the community who actually enjoy contributing to Wikimedia
projects.

> I suggest we set the words aside for the time being and start letting
> our actions speak for themselves.

Yes, good strategy, let's do it.

Apart from a few minutes responding on this email thread, yesterday I
sorted out some "missing" very large images of 19th C. cartoons[1]
which have been part of a pattern of problematic tiffs under
discussion on bugzilla, and today I have been checking up on some
tricky conflicting sources for the Warren Cup article in the hope to
eventually get it to Good Article status regardless of it including a
depiction of anal sex.[2] These are the sort of content based mildly
contentious, but positive, action that everyone likes to see. I'll get
on with them.

Links
1. 
http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/quick_intersection.php?lang=commons&project=wikimedia&cats=British+Cartoon+Prints+Collection%0D%0AGWToolset+Batch+Upload&ns=6&depth=12&max=3&start=0&format=html&redirects=&callback=
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Cup

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Wil Sinclair]

Craig, I was trying to be kind. If you consider that a threat, then I
apologize to you, Pete, and the whole list.

I think at this point words have served us about as well as they ever
will. Some of you don't like the fact that I've participated on
Wikipediocracy. Others are uncomfortable because the incoming ED has a
partner who is active in the community, and that is a new thing. Still
others would like to see less of me and more of Lila. All reasonable
concerns.

I suggest we set the words aside for the time being and start letting
our actions speak for themselves.

Best.
,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Wil Sinclair]

> Hey what happened to disclaiming any relevant link between the two of you?
> Not exactly consistent with you canvasing for an apology on her behalf. Of
> course it is somewhat alarming that you are suggesting that our new ED
> can't handle robust criticism but I personally prefer to trust the judgment
> of the board and other involved parties.

I would say this if it were about anyone in the community. Talking in
this way behind one's back is disrespectful, and whether we're ED of
the WMF or a passing casual WP surfer, everyone in our community
deserves respect.

I guess we'll all see how she handles criticism soon enough.

,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] message vs. messenger (was Re: Participating on Wikipediocracy)

[James Salsman]

Wil Sinclair wrote:
>
> I personally care more about the message than the messenger

If only more people thought that way! Sometimes I feel like I have to
explain things to people like they were five because I confused them
with technical topics several years ago. People tell me to shut up all
the time, and often for the flimsiest of reasons. Like on the
advocacy_advisors list it turns out I was "moderated" because I was
supposedly off topic, but the moderator who took that unilateral
action won't tell me which posts were off topic or how to appeal, and
supposedly all of my posts there are going to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis for topicality and those deemed topical will be
allowed. Even though both of those held for moderation since this
happened haven't been posted, and there have been no reasons offered
as to why they were not on topic.

Back before 2007, it seemed like there was going to be a never-ending
growth of editors, but when that turned into a slow decline, none of
the Foundation's strategic policy objectives changed. So now we are
still trying like mad to get the rights to copy marginally free works
that very few people have any interest in, but not lifting a finger to
help the typical potential editor, for whom life just keeps getting
worse in the current political climate. The Foundation has a lot of
resources and a lot of smart people, and I won't re-hash the list of
my suggestions now, but soon my associates and I will be able to use
the algorithms in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0500v1.pdf to perform an
independent and transparent community support survey of updated
strategic objectives in support of community health.

Maybe the German Chapter's apparent refocus on supporting editors will help.

How about a race: Foundation staff verses community volunteers, to be
the first to perform a comprehensive editor support strategy survey?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[geni]

On 24 May 2014 08:24, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems
> rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.
>
> If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology.
> Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's
> a person like the rest of us and she has feelings.
>
> Best.
> ,Wil
>

Hey what happened to disclaiming any relevant link between the two of you?
Not exactly consistent with you canvasing for an apology on her behalf. Of
course it is somewhat alarming that you are suggesting that our new ED
can't handle robust criticism but I personally prefer to trust the judgment
of the board and other involved parties.

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Fæ]

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> OK, excellent. I will do my best and get back to you. Is it cool with
> you if I do audio instead of photos or videos?

Certainly, Commons is massively under-represented with audio files.
Check out my audio projects at

as a comparison.

For Commons issues I suggest first sounding them out with regular
contributors on the Commons Village pump before jumping to "wider"
forums such as this email list.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Craig Franklin]

Look, we have quite enough non-constructive passive-aggressive stuff going
on here without it being added to with thinly veiled threats like this.
 Please stop.

I think the main issue that people have here is that Sue was very private
about her private life, at least in public.  Now we have the polar opposite
of the ED's significant other showing up and, in the eyes of some,
'consorting with the enemy'.  This is a pretty opinionated community and
this sort of thing will raise eyebrows.  Quite a lot of regulars on this
list have a troubled and lengthy history with some of the WO regulars, and
so you're probably going to get more criticism than plaudits for publicly
engaging with them, regardless of how good your intentions are.

To be honest, more than Wil's hanging out with Greg Kohs and the like, I'm
a little more disappointed that there hasn't been much interaction as far
as I can see between Lila and the rank and file volunteers.  The
relationship between volunteers and Sue was stretched at times, and it hurt
the movement, so I hope that Lila is just testing the waters before rolling
up her sleeves and jumping into the sharkpool to meet us :-)

Cheers,
Craig




On 24 May 2014 17:24, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems
> rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.
>
> If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology.
> Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's
> a person like the rest of us and she has feelings.
>
> Best.
> ,Wil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[ENWP Pine]

I will say, in Lila's defense, that I've been impressed with what I've seen of 
her in public. (:

However, Wil, I agree with points others have made. I'm concerned that you're 
going to create drama with what you're doing here, and make Lila's and WMF's 
jobs more complicated. I am assuming good faith that you are well-intentioned, 
but I am worried, not so much for your sake but for the community's, Lila's, 
and WMF's. 

I would like to show you some options for places where the style of 
conversation you are using would be a better fit, where you can ask questions 
and have discussions, and which are less politically sensitive than this list 
is. Of course you are welcome on this list if you have cross-wiki suggestions 
or can't get questions answered elsewhere, and I respect your right to free 
speech, but I would ask you to consider these suggestions.

On English Wikipedia, you will find friendly and helpful people at our 
Teahouse. [1] For questions and realtime help you can also visit 
#wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC.

If you want to get to know Wikipedians, I suggest that you join local volunteer 
meetups such Wiknic if there is one in your area. In those circumstances most 
people are happy to socialize. [2] If you are able to attend WikiConference USA 
in New York, I think you would enjoy it. [3]

If you want to have electronic conversations that are more chatty and less 
formal than the discussions on this list, I suggest IRC. #wikipedia-en is a 
high profile channel and many of the questions that you asked here could be 
discussed in there. And as I said above, for realtime help you can visit 
#wikipedia-en-help. However, I ask as a personal favor that you don't have 
conversations in #wikimedia-office which is the main WMF channel. I can't stop 
you from talking there any more than I can take away your free speech rights, 
but I think any communications in there from you would create more 
complications. 

I feel it's ok for you or any Wikipedian in good standing to talk on WO if they 
want, but engaging in semi-official diplomacy is a very different matter, if 
that's what you're doing (I haven't checked your edits and I don't want to). 
There may come a time when you have the community's trust and can act in
 high-profile ways with the support of the community, but at the moment the 
discussion on this email list tells me that your actions are creating 
complications to the start of Lila's tenure in ways that have me worried. To 
use an analogy, imagine Michelle Obama saying in public that her personal 
opinion is that Barack Obama should have diplomatic talks with  or revoke , or that she personally 
has been conducting outreach to  without going 
through the State Department. That would create complications for Barack Obama 
and lots of other people, even though Michelle has a right to communicate her 
views.

I am available to answer questions if you have any for me. You can ask on my 
Meta talk page, on my English Wikipedia talk page, through email, or set up a 
time to meet me on IRC or Skype. I'm sure other participants in this discussion 
would also be willing to talk with you in places other than this list. 

If I have misunderstood your position please correct me. I appreciate your 
interest in Wikipedia and I hope you will be a net positive to the community. 
(: 

Pine

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wicnik
[3] http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Main_Page

  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Wil Sinclair]

>> I just ask for a chance to
>> show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
>> my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
>> that chance?
> ...
>
> Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English Wikipedia you
> have created, at least one being a biography of a living person, and a
> collection of your educational photos or videos on Wikimedia Commons,
> and then we can talk against the backdrop of your positive or negative
> experiences with the community on our projects, when actually trying
> to help achieve the aims of our projects.

OK, excellent. I will do my best and get back to you. Is it cool with
you if I do audio instead of photos or videos?

> At least then we can talk from your personal experience as a volunteer
> rather than a professional politician. Being seen to hastily and
> publicly jump on the most contentious and divisive bandwagon/policy
> issues only days after your partner is announced as the new CEO of the
> Foundation, does give an impression, probably not the one you or Lila
> were hoping for.

FWIW, her title is Executive Director, not CEO. Honestly, I'm less
worried about the impression I'm giving you than your getting to know
the real me. I'm very much looking forward to that.

,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Fæ]

On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
...
> I just ask for a chance to
> show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
> my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
> that chance?
...

Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English Wikipedia you
have created, at least one being a biography of a living person, and a
collection of your educational photos or videos on Wikimedia Commons,
and then we can talk against the backdrop of your positive or negative
experiences with the community on our projects, when actually trying
to help achieve the aims of our projects.

At least then we can talk from your personal experience as a volunteer
rather than a professional politician. Being seen to hastily and
publicly jump on the most contentious and divisive bandwagon/policy
issues only days after your partner is announced as the new CEO of the
Foundation, does give an impression, probably not the one you or Lila
were hoping for.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Wil Sinclair]

Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems
rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.

If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology.
Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's
a person like the rest of us and she has feelings.

Best.
,Wil

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his
> one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten
> under his skin...
>
> What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a
> point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times, right? and he's
> not entirely wrong), but hers -- in just letting this go on. Is she unaware
> of what he's doing? If so, why hasn't anybody pointed it out to her yet? Or
> is she so confounded by the social dynamics that she really doesn't care if
> he stirs the pot before she (presumably) comes up with a plan for how to
> engage with the community, what issues to prioritize, etc.? What if she
> decides to hire somebody...with actual qualifications...to do a job along
> the lines of what he's already volunteered for? Do they then have to spar
> with him, and just accept him as a professional liability? Or can they
> "fire" him?? Some job they'd be walking into!
>
> Of course I don't have much to go on yet, but it's looking like we ended up
> with an amateur, and that's pretty frightening. We've had tin ears at WMF
> for a long time, but at least they've had the virtue of a few years'
> experience. If she's got no keel on the open sea, who knows where her take
> on the community will wash up? Will it just be more of the "grease the
> squeakiest wheel" approach? It doesn't give me a lot of hope that she can
> chart a better course through the crippling dynamics of the last couple
> years.
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
>> > I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has
>> > held one of the most public position of "authority" on the English
>> > Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on purpose, ask me about them some
>> > day).
>>
>> Thanks. I appreciate any advice.
>>
>> > Wikipedia Review and its successor WO are the roaming grounds of a
>> > diverse group of people, some of them with astute and sometimes
>> > insightful criticism about the failings of the Foundation's projects.
>> > On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there has led
>> > to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and some of
>> > the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing out the
>> > movement's gaffes.
>>
>> I think you're right about this. That's why I participate there. I'd
>> like to find out as much as I can about the movement.
>>
>> > This is the reason why, when I first got elected to the Arbitration
>> > Committee, I tought much as you do and felt it important to "keep an ear
>> > to the ground" as it were.
>> >
>> > The problem with WO - and it's a fatal one - is one of motivation.  The
>> > vast majority of participants there do not offer critique out of a
>> > desire to improve how we do things, or point at things that we are doing
>> > wrong with the aim of having them fixed; they do so out of spite,
>> > revenge or simple outright malice.  It is no coincidence that the more
>> > prolific participants there are people who were excluded from the
>> > on-wiki discourse before joining: it is the rallying point of the
>> > malcontent.  The *reason* why they are so often uncannily accurate in
>> > their "investigations" is because they are driven by an obsessive need
>> > to turn over every rock, pick apart every comment, and expose (with no
>> > regard for safety or privacy) those they deem to be their adversaries.
>> > Somtimes just to make a point and gloat but - too often - in order to
>> > harass, bully and threaten (and occasionally blackmail) participants in
>> > the projects.
>>
>> Here's where I get confused. If they are exposing serious problems
>> that desperately need fixing, then what does it matter what their
>> motives are? They may or may not choose to be part of the solution,
>> but if we want to build the healthiest community possible isn't it
>> important that we know what's not going right. I suppose what I'm
>> trying to say is that I personally care more about the message than
>> the messenger, so it seems to make sense for me to participate there,
>> too, for the reasons you've mentioned above.
>>
>> > (And you need to be aware that, historically, those fora had a number of
>> > "private" boards restricted to the bigger participants, where the level
>> > of bile is much higher and much less veiled of legitimate criticism - so
>> > what you've seen to date is certainly the *tamest* that can be found on
>> > those sites).
>>
>> Yes. You can see the private boards on the main forum page. They very
>> g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Wil Sinclair]

> Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his
> one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten
> under his skin...

Hi Pete. What are you referring to here?

Thanks.
,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

[Wil Sinclair]

> If this were true, then Wil could have taken part in discussion on
> Wikipediocracy with a throw-away anonymous account to educate himself
> on the culture there. I am sure that Wil and Lila know how to keep an
> internet account anonymous, or they can ask someone on their personal
> network who does know.
>
> To parody a little, but not much, "Hello, I'm the partner of the new
> CEO of the WMF and I would like to ask you about what you think of the
> WMF projects... Oh, please pretend that I have nothing to do with the
> CEO of the WMF." No, that just does not add up.

What would happen if I didn't say it? I'd probably be considered
deceitful for *not* telling people upfront. :) It's worked pretty well
to tell people what they believe they need to know about me from the
get-go and then convince them that I'm my own person with my words and
actions. I can also see some arguments for your approach, however.

> As someone partial, due to the actions of some participants of 'that
> website' to deride my life as a gay man, my view is that Lila is
> actively losing good faith, before she has managed to deliver anything
> for our movement, by not having a word with her partner to stop him
> playing silly and potentially destructive games using her name as if
> he were the charitable "First husband" playing ambassador.

Could you please tell me more about any potentially homophobic
comments that have been made on Wikipediocracy? Here or by email,
whichever you think is most appropriate. My email is w...@wllm.com. I
want no part of any site that practices bigotry.

I think we can settle the whole "'First husband' playing ambassador"
thing. I'm not an ambassador for anybody. I am a person who values his
individuality. I think that's pretty common in the WP community. In
fact, I'm not even legally Lila's husband, so technically I'm not
First anything. :) And that's a-ok with me. I just ask for a chance to
show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
that chance?

> Wil has a right to free speech (in the UK we have similar law, it
> amounts to "meh, you are free to make an arse out yourself"). This
> ensures his right to be free to irretrievably cock up Lila's
> reputation in the eyes of the Wikimedia community's most active and
> productive volunteers.

If the larger WP community believes that my actions and words should
be weighed heavily on Lila as an ED, then that's not about me or
anything I have done. That's about what the community believes makes
for a great leader. I personally think that such an attitude would be
a great injustice to one of the greatest leaders the WMF could hope to
find. But if this is really the way the WP community works, then I
think each and every one reading this should ask themselves: "Is this
the kind of community I want?"

> If Lila is going to be good at managing politics within our movement,
> now would be an excellent time to start demonstrating it, rather than
> pretending she does not know about the games Wil is playing within the
> Wikimedia movement that she is being handsomely paid to support.

I don't know about Lila, but I think a lot of Wikipedians are pretty
much done with the politics. They seem to be more interested in
spending their time working on Wikipedia itself.

Thanks much for the feedback, tho. I'd really appreciate it if you
could get back to me about any prejudice you've encountered here or on
WO. I think it goes without saying that this is definitely *not*
something we want anywhere in our community.
,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] FDC Advisory Group

[Peter Ekman]

Just joined this list and not sure my 1st message got through

This is to let everybody know that the
Fund Dissemination Committee Advisory Group
aka the FDC AG
will be meeting Sunday thru Monday

The purpose is to review the set up and operations of the
Funds Dissemination Committee and give a recommendation on this
to the Executive Director (as mandated by the resolution creating the FDC)

see our page on meta
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Meeting_3#Agenda
 and feel free to send info, opinions etc. to that talk page.

If all the similar abbreviations above confuse you, the idea is this:
we'd like to know what you think about the FDC, the committee set up
by the board 2 years ago to recommend sending funds to
chapters and groups. And what should be the future of that
committee.

The second committee (the FDC AG) will discuss your
ideas and make a recommendation to the ED.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,