Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Scholarship for 2020 Wikimania now open

[effe iets anders]

For clarification, from the website:

* Deadline for applying for scholarships: *17 March 2020* 23:59 UTC-12:00

* Apply here: https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_81GOJ9AFVdPHZgp

and frequently asked questions:
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships/FAQ

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:24 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> Wikimania is fast approaching, this year it'll be held in Bangkok and as
> always the Wikimedia Foundation has a limited number of opportunities to
> assist people to attend. There are two types of scholarships the first
> being a full scholarship which covers, travel, accommodation, and
> registration, the second a  partial scholarship that covers accommodation
> and registration.
>
> This year for the first time East, South East Asia, and Pacific  (ESEAP)
> as collaboration between the region we'll be your host for Wikimania.  The
> region has placed a high importance on collaboration and knowledge sharing
> this years Wikimania program will reflect that. Our theme is;
> *Power of Diverse Collaboration*
> *Sharing knowledge brings people together*
>
> How does this impact on scholarship? ESEAP is looking for people who are
> prepared to share their knowledge to help develop potential future
> leaders.  We'll be looking for two broad areas of contributions, from those
> who have successfully developed programs, and those  newer contributors who
> want to develop their skills to do more but have never been to a Wikimania
> to broaden their support networks.
>
> As you apply please agree to share your details with the local affiliate
> should they also have scholarships available. When answering questions if
> you have urls to reports, dashboards, and events please provide them.
> Rather than writing lots of words again let your past recordings speak.
>
> On behalf of the ESEAP community, and the Scholarship committee we look
> forward to seeing you in Bangkok in August.
>
> --
> Gnangarra
> Wikimania Scholarship committee Co-chair
>
> *Power of Diverse Collaboration*
> *Sharing knowledge brings people together*
> Wikimania Bangkok 2020
> August 5 to 9
> hosted by ESEAP
>
> Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

[Samuel Klein]

It would be nice to have a tool for long standing editors to clean up a
newbies talk page for them, leave messages for the overeager templaters,
and help them out / welcome them in untemolsted language.

Then a little ML could go a long way in guessing which newbies are in this
situation and generating a queue for newbie-care. ~~~

🌍🌏🌎🌑

On Wed., Feb. 19, 2020, 4:35 p.m. Andy Mabbett, 
wrote:

> I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of
> an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w
> as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life.
>
> Her six sequential edits - her first and only contribution to
> Wikipedia - totalled 1254 characters, and were conducted over the
> space of 30 minutes. They were no the best quality, lacking sources,
> but were benign, and exactly what one might expect an untutored novice
> to do as a first change.
>
> As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk
> page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a
> discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094
> characters or 665 words.
>
> How do other projects deal with such cases?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Risker]

I do think that there are benefits in continuing to explore
WMF/movement-managed communication tools outside of the onwiki/IRC/mailing
list paradigm; we have long known that a lot of voices are excluded from
using these channels, and that is not helpful in growing a large,
international, multilingual movement.  We've also used YouTube for quite a
long time, and it has not been particularly problematic, but it's not
really a discussion platform, more an information-sharing one.  I noticed
that Wikimedia Space does have a higher than average concentration of posts
from outside the "English speaking" world that simply doesn't happen on
Meta.

On the other hand, I also agree that moving "official" communications to
platforms outside of the control of the WMF/movement,  like Facebook and
Twitter, are (for many of us in the movement) very problematic from a
privacy perspective, as well as unsatisfactory from an accessibility
perspective.

"Onwiki" is a nice concept.  The challenge here is that there are 700+
"onwiki" platforms, and only one hypothetically dedicated to inter-project
discussions, that being Meta.  I would venture to guess that probably
85-90% of Wikimedians either don't know Meta exists as a discussion
platform, or have tried to participate in a discussion there only to find
that it will often move very fast, is dominated by the English language
almost to the point of exclusion, and that their voice is drowned out
quickly or they are challenged in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable.
It's not helpful to take the "stay out of the kitchen if you can't stand
the heat" attitude, as it's neither welcoming nor accepting of other
ideas.  Meta is also very, very difficult to navigate; even I have
considerable difficulty finding material that I know for a fact exists on
that platform.  And we all know that Meta is not at all good at sharing
information and news about what's happening in other projects, or for
multiple projects (e.g., several projects in the same language, several
Wikisources, etc) to work together.

Wikimedia Space didn't feel like the right fit for us, either.  In
particular, I found it hard to figure out how to do things (like making
hyperlinks) that I've been doing comfortably on other existing platforms
for years.  But I think it is a worthwhile idea to keep looking for a
platform that isn't commercially/externally controlled (thus "selling" the
private information of our users) that works for more people. I think we
also need to figure out how to support multi-project discussions better
without pushing them all out to what is intended to be a global,
movement-wide platform (i.e., Meta).  Experiments are always worthwhile, as
they're opportunities to learn.  I will trust that Quim and the rest of the
Wikimedia Space team will be summarizing the positives and negatives about
this particular experiment.

Risker/Anne

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 17:49, Rebecca O'Neill 
wrote:

> I've been involved in the movement for ~7 years, took one look at IRC and
> walked very quickly the other way, having used it 15+ years ago. I'm all
> for retro, but that was taking it too far.
> Relying on a tool that has been been haemorrhaging users for years, and
> golden years are seen as around 20 years ago, seems less than ideal.
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 22:37, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > Then, they're welcome to pop on in any time. If they choose not to, well,
> > no one can make them. Anyone is able to use those tools.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Guillaume Paumier <
> gpaum...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:31, Todd Allen  a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > > I don't think anyone had bad intentions. It was just redundant.
> > > >
> > > > Real time communication is on IRC. Asynchronous communication is
> either
> > > on
> > > > the wiki, preferably, or on the mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work
> > just
> > > > fine.
> > >
> > >
> > > That perspective suffers from a lack of empathy. "The tools we already
> > > have" may work for the limited sample of the population who are
> currently
> > > using them. Assuming that that sample is representative is flawed and
> is
> > a
> > > classic example of survivorship bias. If we have learned anything from
> > the
> > > Space experiment and from years of strategy discussions, it is that the
> > > tools we currently have do not, in fact, work just fine for a large
> > number
> > > of people, whose voices are missing from our discussions and content.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Guillaume Paumier
> > > (he/him)
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Rebecca O'Neill]

I've been involved in the movement for ~7 years, took one look at IRC and
walked very quickly the other way, having used it 15+ years ago. I'm all
for retro, but that was taking it too far.
Relying on a tool that has been been haemorrhaging users for years, and
golden years are seen as around 20 years ago, seems less than ideal.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 22:37, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Then, they're welcome to pop on in any time. If they choose not to, well,
> no one can make them. Anyone is able to use those tools.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Guillaume Paumier 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:31, Todd Allen  a
> écrit :
> >
> > > I don't think anyone had bad intentions. It was just redundant.
> > >
> > > Real time communication is on IRC. Asynchronous communication is either
> > on
> > > the wiki, preferably, or on the mailing list.
> > >
> > > Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work
> just
> > > fine.
> >
> >
> > That perspective suffers from a lack of empathy. "The tools we already
> > have" may work for the limited sample of the population who are currently
> > using them. Assuming that that sample is representative is flawed and is
> a
> > classic example of survivorship bias. If we have learned anything from
> the
> > Space experiment and from years of strategy discussions, it is that the
> > tools we currently have do not, in fact, work just fine for a large
> number
> > of people, whose voices are missing from our discussions and content.
> >
> > --
> > Guillaume Paumier
> > (he/him)
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
PhD in Digital Media
Project Coordinator Wikimedia Community Ireland 
She/Her
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Todd Allen]

Then, they're welcome to pop on in any time. If they choose not to, well,
no one can make them. Anyone is able to use those tools.

Todd

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Guillaume Paumier 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:31, Todd Allen  a écrit :
>
> > I don't think anyone had bad intentions. It was just redundant.
> >
> > Real time communication is on IRC. Asynchronous communication is either
> on
> > the wiki, preferably, or on the mailing list.
> >
> > Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work just
> > fine.
>
>
> That perspective suffers from a lack of empathy. "The tools we already
> have" may work for the limited sample of the population who are currently
> using them. Assuming that that sample is representative is flawed and is a
> classic example of survivorship bias. If we have learned anything from the
> Space experiment and from years of strategy discussions, it is that the
> tools we currently have do not, in fact, work just fine for a large number
> of people, whose voices are missing from our discussions and content.
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> (he/him)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hi,

Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:31, Todd Allen  a écrit :

> I don't think anyone had bad intentions. It was just redundant.
>
> Real time communication is on IRC. Asynchronous communication is either on
> the wiki, preferably, or on the mailing list.
>
> Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work just
> fine.


That perspective suffers from a lack of empathy. "The tools we already
have" may work for the limited sample of the population who are currently
using them. Assuming that that sample is representative is flawed and is a
classic example of survivorship bias. If we have learned anything from the
Space experiment and from years of strategy discussions, it is that the
tools we currently have do not, in fact, work just fine for a large number
of people, whose voices are missing from our discussions and content.

-- 
Guillaume Paumier
(he/him)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Yaroslav Blanter]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:31 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

>
> Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work just
> fine.
>

Apparently not if people go there en masse instead of using on-wiki
channels.

Yaroslav


>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:41 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > I provided feedback previously on Space earlier and I could not find it
> now
> > but I assume it was taken into consideration when the decision was taken.
> > Without repeating it, let me remark that the two main questions, which
> > remained unsolved, were (i) what is the target audience and (ii) what is
> > the content to be discussed there. For (i), we have many different groups
> > with many different interests. We have project people (editors), active
> on
> > different projects, we have affiliate people, we have WMF people, there
> is
> > certain overlap between these categories, but I am afraid not much. They
> > have very different interests and vision. If I understand it correctly,
> the
> > idea was to bridge the gap between these categories (primarily, between
> WMF
> > and community), but it did not work - it is understandable that people
> who
> > never edited Wikipedia and have no interest editing it, do not find a
> topic
> > on the first Wikipedia contribution very appealing, and those for example
> > who deal with Wikipedia as their daily job are not so keen to discuss the
> > job on social media - I also have an exciting job but I do not have any
> > desire to discuss it anywhere in my free time. Concerning (ii), we have
> > people who were looking for something like social media, just to hang
> out,
> > we had people who wanted to discuss project and foundation issues which
> > they found important, we had people who were only posting announcements -
> > but I do not think we had general understanding why people should come to
> > Space to discuss, and what they should discuss. There are discussions
> going
> > on in the projects. Meta started as a cross-product (and cross-language)
> > discussion venue, but now it is essentially dead - I long ago stopped
> > following my watchlist there. The mailing lists are mainly dead or at
> least
> > half-dead. Understandably, people went to FB and Twitter - they will
> > discover at some point that there are serious privacy issues, and, in
> > addition, this is like Wild West where you are on your own (I had my FB
> > account disabled for alleged copyright violations last year, and there is
> > nothing I can do about it), but before they discover it I am not sure why
> > they should go to any other platform to discuss - what? There might be
> some
> > room for a social media platform run by WMF, but it should be very well
> > discussed what exactly we expect, what we can provide, and how this can
> be
> > done. I would recommend a community conversation - not a "community
> > consultation", when a decision has already been taken, and the
> > "consultation" is used to legitimize this decision, but a real
> > brainstorming, and see what the stakeholders are and what they want. I am
> > afraid though that it would be difficult to organize even this
> > brainstorming and collect a sufficient number of responses to make
> > meaningful conclusions.
> >
> > (There were opinions voiced that the Space would never take off because
> it
> > is run by WMF who would erase any criticism - well, I have not seen this
> > happening. This would not be my concern at this point.)
> >
> > Despite my skepticism, I believe that people who were running the Space
> and
> > people who invested into the Space clearly had good intentions, and
> whereas
> > things did not work at the end, I would like to thank them - mainly Elena
> > and Quim I guess.
> >
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:35 PM Quim Gil  wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for all the feedback. After scanning different channels, we
> > have
> > > a wide range of opinions which reflect how deep and complex the problem
> > of
> > > cross-wiki collaboration is, and also how differently the Space
> prototype
> > > and this decision is being perceived. We will process this feedback and
> > > integrate it in the lessons learned. If you have more feedback or
> > > questions, please share. This conversation is important.
> > >
> > > The channels we are watching:
> > >
> > > *
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/next-steps-on-wikimedia-space/3184
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Space#Next_steps_on_Wikimedia_Space
> > > *
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-February/094269.html
> > > and replies
> > > *
> > >
> >
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/2699004306814050/
> > >
> > > If you are aware of more conversations related to this announcement,
> > please
> > > share them here as well.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:30 AM Quim Gil  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation launched Wikimedia Spa

[Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

[Andy Mabbett]

I have just come across a case on en.Wikipedia where the daughter of
an article subject added details of his funeral (his death in 1984,w
as already recorded) and his view about an indent in his life.

Her six sequential edits - her first and only contribution to
Wikipedia - totalled 1254 characters, and were conducted over the
space of 30 minutes. They were no the best quality, lacking sources,
but were benign, and exactly what one might expect an untutored novice
to do as a first change.

As well as being reverted, she now has three templates on her talk
page; two warning her of a CoI, and sandwiching one notifying her of a
discussion about her on the COI noticeboard. These total 4094
characters or 665 words.

How do other projects deal with such cases?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant Proposal on *Disinformation*

[Jake Orlowitz]

Hi all,

I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to study
*disinformation* and provide actionable insights and recommendations.

Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:Project/Misinformation_And_Its_Discontents:_Narrative_Recommendations_on_Wikipedia%27s_Vulnerabilities_and_Resilience

Cheers,

Jake Orlowitz
*Founder of The Wikipedia Library*
*Seeker of well people and sane societies*
  kickstarter: bit.ly/CircleKickstarter
  me: jakeorlowitz.com
  mail: jorlow...@gmail.com
  media: @jakeorlowitz 
  book: welcometothecircle.net
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

[Todd Allen]

I don't like those either. I tend to ignore email unless there's a very
good reason for private communication. If not, well, post a message on my
talk page.

The recording is incomplete. A complete recording would be the raw video of
the session without cuts or edits, and with everyone there aware they're
being recorded and knowing anything they say is open to public scrutiny.

The video here failed in that. Every meeting regarding Wikimedia strategy
should be recorded, and the uncut video made available to the public. No
backchanneling, no secrecy, no "Oh they didn't know!". They didn't have to
know to be legally allowed to publish, nor is their permission required.

Todd

Todd

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 11:32 AM Aron Manning  wrote:

> Hi Todd,
>
> I'm not sure how your comment about "backchanneling" is applicable to a
> recording made in public. Please express your views in a good-faith and
> respectful manner.
>
> On Wikimedia projects, we do things in full public view.
>
>
> To prove your point, please link to the log of the irc channels and the
> admin back-channels to start with.
>
>
> Aron
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 19:21, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > Nicole,
> >
> > While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, this is exactly why we
> > distrust this kind of backchanneling. If you have something to say, you
> say
> > it publicly, open to criticism and dispute. You don't say it in a "salon"
> > or a "survey" or anything else insulated from that. On Wikimedia
> projects,
> > we do things in full public view.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 10:14 AM Nicole Ebber 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello again,
> > >
> > > I now realised that none of the participants in the audience was aware
> > > of us recording them, and that we aren't able to identify them to ask
> > > for their consent. We are not going to release the full video, but are
> > > of course happy to answer potential questions and create more clarity
> > > where needed.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Nicole
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:30, Nicole Ebber 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Todd,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your question. The video is indeed incomplete. We cut if
> > > > for the viewer's comfort, as the original version is ~60 mins long,
> > > > and has questions and interaction with the audience at All Hands. Our
> > > > main objective for this video was to focus on conveying the broad
> > > > context and content of each recommendation in a quick and accessible
> > > > way, without putting too much emphasis on specific recommendations or
> > > > details.
> > > >
> > > > We'll look into whether the dialogues offer additional clarity. We
> > > > might also have to identify those who have asked the questions and
> get
> > > > their consent to publish. That can take a couple of days, so please
> > > > stay tuned.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Nicole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 21:25, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Nicole,
> > > > >
> > > > > The second video seems to be incomplete. There are, for example,
> > > several
> > > > > jump cuts, e.g., at 05:07, 11:08, 17:08, 22:31, etc. At 11:14 the
> > > > > presenters invite questions or comments, and at 41:32 someone is
> > > clearly
> > > > > being called upon to offer one, but they are not shown in the
> video.
> > > Could
> > > > > you please provide a link to the entire video without cuts,
> including
> > > any
> > > > > questions or comments and the responses to them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Nicole Ebber <
> > > nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We’re in week 4 of community conversations about the movement
> > > strategy
> > > > > > recommendations. Thank you to everyone who has already taken
> part.
> > > The
> > > > > > community conversations will continue until Friday, February 21 -
> > you
> > > > > > can get involved on Meta[1] in Arabic, English, French, German,
> > > Hindi,
> > > > > > Spanish, and Portuguese, strategize with your community or
> > > > > > organization, or send the core team your feedback to
> > > > > > strategy2...@wikimedia.org.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This current round of community conversations is the last
> > opportunity
> > > > > > to suggest improvements to the recommendations. They will be
> > > finalized
> > > > > > before the end of March, and then published for the movement to
> > > > > > understand them, reflect on what they mean in their project,
> local,
> > > or
> > > > > > thematic context, and move into implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > == Movement feedback: what happens next ==
> > > > > > All feedback is being collected, reviewed and analyzed on an
> > ongoing
> > > > > > basis. Here are the  next steps after February 21:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Week commencing February 24: the core team will summarize all
> the
> > > > > > feedback received in a report.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

[Aron Manning]

Hi Todd,

I'm not sure how your comment about "backchanneling" is applicable to a
recording made in public. Please express your views in a good-faith and
respectful manner.

On Wikimedia projects, we do things in full public view.


To prove your point, please link to the log of the irc channels and the
admin back-channels to start with.


Aron


On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 19:21, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Nicole,
>
> While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, this is exactly why we
> distrust this kind of backchanneling. If you have something to say, you say
> it publicly, open to criticism and dispute. You don't say it in a "salon"
> or a "survey" or anything else insulated from that. On Wikimedia projects,
> we do things in full public view.
>
> Todd
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 10:14 AM Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello again,
> >
> > I now realised that none of the participants in the audience was aware
> > of us recording them, and that we aren't able to identify them to ask
> > for their consent. We are not going to release the full video, but are
> > of course happy to answer potential questions and create more clarity
> > where needed.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nicole
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:30, Nicole Ebber 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Todd,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your question. The video is indeed incomplete. We cut if
> > > for the viewer's comfort, as the original version is ~60 mins long,
> > > and has questions and interaction with the audience at All Hands. Our
> > > main objective for this video was to focus on conveying the broad
> > > context and content of each recommendation in a quick and accessible
> > > way, without putting too much emphasis on specific recommendations or
> > > details.
> > >
> > > We'll look into whether the dialogues offer additional clarity. We
> > > might also have to identify those who have asked the questions and get
> > > their consent to publish. That can take a couple of days, so please
> > > stay tuned.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Nicole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 21:25, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Nicole,
> > > >
> > > > The second video seems to be incomplete. There are, for example,
> > several
> > > > jump cuts, e.g., at 05:07, 11:08, 17:08, 22:31, etc. At 11:14 the
> > > > presenters invite questions or comments, and at 41:32 someone is
> > clearly
> > > > being called upon to offer one, but they are not shown in the video.
> > Could
> > > > you please provide a link to the entire video without cuts, including
> > any
> > > > questions or comments and the responses to them?
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Nicole Ebber <
> > nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > We’re in week 4 of community conversations about the movement
> > strategy
> > > > > recommendations. Thank you to everyone who has already taken part.
> > The
> > > > > community conversations will continue until Friday, February 21 -
> you
> > > > > can get involved on Meta[1] in Arabic, English, French, German,
> > Hindi,
> > > > > Spanish, and Portuguese, strategize with your community or
> > > > > organization, or send the core team your feedback to
> > > > > strategy2...@wikimedia.org.
> > > > >
> > > > > This current round of community conversations is the last
> opportunity
> > > > > to suggest improvements to the recommendations. They will be
> > finalized
> > > > > before the end of March, and then published for the movement to
> > > > > understand them, reflect on what they mean in their project, local,
> > or
> > > > > thematic context, and move into implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > == Movement feedback: what happens next ==
> > > > > All feedback is being collected, reviewed and analyzed on an
> ongoing
> > > > > basis. Here are the  next steps after February 21:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Week commencing February 24: the core team will summarize all the
> > > > > feedback received in a report. You are welcome to continue
> commenting
> > > > > and discussing during this time, but the discussions will not be as
> > > > > closely facilitated and documented.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Week commencing March 2: the core team will publish the above
> > report
> > > > > on Meta to give the movement an opportunity to review the content
> and
> > > > > give feedback as to whether it accurately reflects their input. The
> > > > > closing date for this is March 6. This summary report will then be
> > > > > finalized and published.
> > > > >
> > > > > In mid-March, the feedback from the Board of Trustees, movement
> > > > > conversations and reviewers' input will be considered in the
> creation
> > > > > of the final, improved set of recommendations. A rationale for
> things
> > > > > that have not been considered will be provided, too. Our aim is to
> > > > > have the recommendations finalized and published in late March.
> More
> > > > > about the actual integration wor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Todd Allen]

I don't think anyone had bad intentions. It was just redundant.

Real time communication is on IRC. Asynchronous communication is either on
the wiki, preferably, or on the mailing list.

Quit trying to make us TwitFaceTube. The tools we already have work just
fine.

Todd

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 10:41 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> I provided feedback previously on Space earlier and I could not find it now
> but I assume it was taken into consideration when the decision was taken.
> Without repeating it, let me remark that the two main questions, which
> remained unsolved, were (i) what is the target audience and (ii) what is
> the content to be discussed there. For (i), we have many different groups
> with many different interests. We have project people (editors), active on
> different projects, we have affiliate people, we have WMF people, there is
> certain overlap between these categories, but I am afraid not much. They
> have very different interests and vision. If I understand it correctly, the
> idea was to bridge the gap between these categories (primarily, between WMF
> and community), but it did not work - it is understandable that people who
> never edited Wikipedia and have no interest editing it, do not find a topic
> on the first Wikipedia contribution very appealing, and those for example
> who deal with Wikipedia as their daily job are not so keen to discuss the
> job on social media - I also have an exciting job but I do not have any
> desire to discuss it anywhere in my free time. Concerning (ii), we have
> people who were looking for something like social media, just to hang out,
> we had people who wanted to discuss project and foundation issues which
> they found important, we had people who were only posting announcements -
> but I do not think we had general understanding why people should come to
> Space to discuss, and what they should discuss. There are discussions going
> on in the projects. Meta started as a cross-product (and cross-language)
> discussion venue, but now it is essentially dead - I long ago stopped
> following my watchlist there. The mailing lists are mainly dead or at least
> half-dead. Understandably, people went to FB and Twitter - they will
> discover at some point that there are serious privacy issues, and, in
> addition, this is like Wild West where you are on your own (I had my FB
> account disabled for alleged copyright violations last year, and there is
> nothing I can do about it), but before they discover it I am not sure why
> they should go to any other platform to discuss - what? There might be some
> room for a social media platform run by WMF, but it should be very well
> discussed what exactly we expect, what we can provide, and how this can be
> done. I would recommend a community conversation - not a "community
> consultation", when a decision has already been taken, and the
> "consultation" is used to legitimize this decision, but a real
> brainstorming, and see what the stakeholders are and what they want. I am
> afraid though that it would be difficult to organize even this
> brainstorming and collect a sufficient number of responses to make
> meaningful conclusions.
>
> (There were opinions voiced that the Space would never take off because it
> is run by WMF who would erase any criticism - well, I have not seen this
> happening. This would not be my concern at this point.)
>
> Despite my skepticism, I believe that people who were running the Space and
> people who invested into the Space clearly had good intentions, and whereas
> things did not work at the end, I would like to thank them - mainly Elena
> and Quim I guess.
>
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:35 PM Quim Gil  wrote:
>
> > Thank you for all the feedback. After scanning different channels, we
> have
> > a wide range of opinions which reflect how deep and complex the problem
> of
> > cross-wiki collaboration is, and also how differently the Space prototype
> > and this decision is being perceived. We will process this feedback and
> > integrate it in the lessons learned. If you have more feedback or
> > questions, please share. This conversation is important.
> >
> > The channels we are watching:
> >
> > * https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/next-steps-on-wikimedia-space/3184
> > *
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Space#Next_steps_on_Wikimedia_Space
> > *
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-February/094269.html
> > and replies
> > *
> >
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/2699004306814050/
> >
> > If you are aware of more conversations related to this announcement,
> please
> > share them here as well.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:30 AM Quim Gil  wrote:
> >
> > > Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation launched Wikimedia Space to
> > experiment
> > > with new ways to connect volunteers, increase movement participation,
> and
> > > showcase community stories. While we remain committed to this importan

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

[Todd Allen]

Nicole,

While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, this is exactly why we
distrust this kind of backchanneling. If you have something to say, you say
it publicly, open to criticism and dispute. You don't say it in a "salon"
or a "survey" or anything else insulated from that. On Wikimedia projects,
we do things in full public view.

Todd

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 10:14 AM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> I now realised that none of the participants in the audience was aware
> of us recording them, and that we aren't able to identify them to ask
> for their consent. We are not going to release the full video, but are
> of course happy to answer potential questions and create more clarity
> where needed.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:30, Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Todd,
> >
> > Thanks for your question. The video is indeed incomplete. We cut if
> > for the viewer's comfort, as the original version is ~60 mins long,
> > and has questions and interaction with the audience at All Hands. Our
> > main objective for this video was to focus on conveying the broad
> > context and content of each recommendation in a quick and accessible
> > way, without putting too much emphasis on specific recommendations or
> > details.
> >
> > We'll look into whether the dialogues offer additional clarity. We
> > might also have to identify those who have asked the questions and get
> > their consent to publish. That can take a couple of days, so please
> > stay tuned.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nicole
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 21:25, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Nicole,
> > >
> > > The second video seems to be incomplete. There are, for example,
> several
> > > jump cuts, e.g., at 05:07, 11:08, 17:08, 22:31, etc. At 11:14 the
> > > presenters invite questions or comments, and at 41:32 someone is
> clearly
> > > being called upon to offer one, but they are not shown in the video.
> Could
> > > you please provide a link to the entire video without cuts, including
> any
> > > questions or comments and the responses to them?
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Nicole Ebber <
> nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > We’re in week 4 of community conversations about the movement
> strategy
> > > > recommendations. Thank you to everyone who has already taken part.
> The
> > > > community conversations will continue until Friday, February 21 - you
> > > > can get involved on Meta[1] in Arabic, English, French, German,
> Hindi,
> > > > Spanish, and Portuguese, strategize with your community or
> > > > organization, or send the core team your feedback to
> > > > strategy2...@wikimedia.org.
> > > >
> > > > This current round of community conversations is the last opportunity
> > > > to suggest improvements to the recommendations. They will be
> finalized
> > > > before the end of March, and then published for the movement to
> > > > understand them, reflect on what they mean in their project, local,
> or
> > > > thematic context, and move into implementation.
> > > >
> > > > == Movement feedback: what happens next ==
> > > > All feedback is being collected, reviewed and analyzed on an ongoing
> > > > basis. Here are the  next steps after February 21:
> > > >
> > > > * Week commencing February 24: the core team will summarize all the
> > > > feedback received in a report. You are welcome to continue commenting
> > > > and discussing during this time, but the discussions will not be as
> > > > closely facilitated and documented.
> > > >
> > > > * Week commencing March 2: the core team will publish the above
> report
> > > > on Meta to give the movement an opportunity to review the content and
> > > > give feedback as to whether it accurately reflects their input. The
> > > > closing date for this is March 6. This summary report will then be
> > > > finalized and published.
> > > >
> > > > In mid-March, the feedback from the Board of Trustees, movement
> > > > conversations and reviewers' input will be considered in the creation
> > > > of the final, improved set of recommendations. A rationale for things
> > > > that have not been considered will be provided, too. Our aim is to
> > > > have the recommendations finalized and published in late March. More
> > > > about the actual integration work coming soon.
> > > >
> > > > == Video and podcast about our work; one-pager ==
> > > > Members of the core team - Tanveer Hasan, Information and Knowledge
> > > > Liaison, and Mehrdad Pourzaki, Information and Knowledge Manager -
> > > > recently held a presentation about all the recommendations at the
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation All Hands. They provide a quick, concise
> overview
> > > > of every recommendation and also some insight into how each was
> > > > developed. Video of the presentation [2] and the presentation slides
> > > > [3] are now on Commons.
> > > >
> > > > Jan Ainali has interviewed me for his podcast W

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Yaroslav Blanter]

I provided feedback previously on Space earlier and I could not find it now
but I assume it was taken into consideration when the decision was taken.
Without repeating it, let me remark that the two main questions, which
remained unsolved, were (i) what is the target audience and (ii) what is
the content to be discussed there. For (i), we have many different groups
with many different interests. We have project people (editors), active on
different projects, we have affiliate people, we have WMF people, there is
certain overlap between these categories, but I am afraid not much. They
have very different interests and vision. If I understand it correctly, the
idea was to bridge the gap between these categories (primarily, between WMF
and community), but it did not work - it is understandable that people who
never edited Wikipedia and have no interest editing it, do not find a topic
on the first Wikipedia contribution very appealing, and those for example
who deal with Wikipedia as their daily job are not so keen to discuss the
job on social media - I also have an exciting job but I do not have any
desire to discuss it anywhere in my free time. Concerning (ii), we have
people who were looking for something like social media, just to hang out,
we had people who wanted to discuss project and foundation issues which
they found important, we had people who were only posting announcements -
but I do not think we had general understanding why people should come to
Space to discuss, and what they should discuss. There are discussions going
on in the projects. Meta started as a cross-product (and cross-language)
discussion venue, but now it is essentially dead - I long ago stopped
following my watchlist there. The mailing lists are mainly dead or at least
half-dead. Understandably, people went to FB and Twitter - they will
discover at some point that there are serious privacy issues, and, in
addition, this is like Wild West where you are on your own (I had my FB
account disabled for alleged copyright violations last year, and there is
nothing I can do about it), but before they discover it I am not sure why
they should go to any other platform to discuss - what? There might be some
room for a social media platform run by WMF, but it should be very well
discussed what exactly we expect, what we can provide, and how this can be
done. I would recommend a community conversation - not a "community
consultation", when a decision has already been taken, and the
"consultation" is used to legitimize this decision, but a real
brainstorming, and see what the stakeholders are and what they want. I am
afraid though that it would be difficult to organize even this
brainstorming and collect a sufficient number of responses to make
meaningful conclusions.

(There were opinions voiced that the Space would never take off because it
is run by WMF who would erase any criticism - well, I have not seen this
happening. This would not be my concern at this point.)

Despite my skepticism, I believe that people who were running the Space and
people who invested into the Space clearly had good intentions, and whereas
things did not work at the end, I would like to thank them - mainly Elena
and Quim I guess.

Yaroslav

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:35 PM Quim Gil  wrote:

> Thank you for all the feedback. After scanning different channels, we have
> a wide range of opinions which reflect how deep and complex the problem of
> cross-wiki collaboration is, and also how differently the Space prototype
> and this decision is being perceived. We will process this feedback and
> integrate it in the lessons learned. If you have more feedback or
> questions, please share. This conversation is important.
>
> The channels we are watching:
>
> * https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/next-steps-on-wikimedia-space/3184
> *
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Space#Next_steps_on_Wikimedia_Space
> *
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-February/094269.html
> and replies
> *
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/2699004306814050/
>
> If you are aware of more conversations related to this announcement, please
> share them here as well.
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:30 AM Quim Gil  wrote:
>
> > Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation launched Wikimedia Space to
> experiment
> > with new ways to connect volunteers, increase movement participation, and
> > showcase community stories. While we remain committed to this important
> > goal, based on lessons learned through the Space prototype, the
> Foundation
> > has decided to close Discuss Space. The Space blog, which continues to
> fill
> > a need to share news for the movement by the movement, will continue in a
> > new home. Please continue to submit community-focused stories [1], so
> that
> > we may share them with the movement.
> >
> > To learn more about the next steps, check the full announcement at
> > https://space.wmflabs.org/2020/02/18/next-steps-on-wikime

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Research Showcase] February 19, 2020: The Humans and Bots of Wikipedia and Wikidata

[Janna Layton]

The Research Showcase will be starting in about 30 minutes! Details below.

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:32 PM Janna Layton  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed on Wednesday, February
> 19, at 9:30 AM PST/17:30 UTC. We’ll have presentations from Jeffrey V.
> Nickerson on human/machine collaboration on Wikipedia, and Lucie-Aimée
> Kaffee on human/machine collaboration on Wikidata. A question-and-answer
> session will follow.
>
> YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj0z20PuGIk
>
> As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. You
> can also watch our past research showcases here:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase
>
> This month's presentations:
>
> Autonomous tools and the design of work
>
> By Jeffrey V. Nickerson, Stevens Institute of Technology
>
> Bots and other software tools that exhibit autonomy can appear in an
> organization to be more like employees than commodities. As a result,
> humans delegate to machines. Sometimes the machines turn and delegate part
> of the work back to humans. This talk will discuss how the design of human
> work is changing, drawing on a recent study of editors and bots in
> Wikipedia, as well as a study of game and chip designers. The Wikipedia bot
> ecosystem, and how bots evolve, will be discussed. Humans are working
> together with machines in complex configurations; this puts constraints on
> not only the machines but also the humans. Both software and human skills
> change as a result. Paper
> 
>
>
> When Humans and Machines Collaborate: Cross-lingual Label Editing in
> Wikidata
>
> By Lucie-Aimée Kaffee, University of Southampton
>
> The quality and maintainability of any knowledge graph are strongly
> influenced in the way it is created. In the case of Wikidata, the knowledge
> graph is created and maintained by a hybrid approach of human editing
> supported by automated tools. We analyse the editing of natural language
> data, i.e. labels. Labels are the entry point for humans to understand the
> information, and therefore need to be carefully maintained. Wikidata is a
> good example for a hybrid multilingual knowledge graph as it has a large
> and active community of humans and bots working together covering over 300
> languages. In this work, we analyse the different editor groups and how
> they interact with the different language data to understand the provenance
> of the current label data. This presentation is based on the paper “When
> Humans and Machines Collaborate: Cross-lingual Label Editing in Wikidata”,
> published in OpenSym 2019 in collaboration with Kemele M. Endris and Elena
> Simperl. Paper
> 
>
>
> --
> Janna Layton (she, her)
> Administrative Assistant - Product & Technology
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>


-- 
Janna Layton (she, her)
Administrative Assistant - Product & Technology
Wikimedia Foundation 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] soweego 2 proposal

[Marco Fossati]

[You can safely skip this message if you have already seen it in the 
Wikidata mailing list, and pardon for the spam]


Hi everyone,

---
TL;DR: soweego 2 is on its way.
   Here's the Project Grant proposal:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Hjfocs/soweego_2
---

Does the name *soweego* ring you a bell?
It's an artificial intelligence that links Wikidata to large catalogs [1].
It's a close friend of Mix'n'match [2], which mainly caters for small 
catalogs.


The next big step is to check Wikidata content against third-party 
trusted sources.
In a nutshell, we want to enable feedback loops between Wikidatans and 
catalog maintainers.
The ultimate goal is to foster mutual benefits in the open knowledge 
landscape.


I'd be really grateful if you could have a look at the proposal page [3].

Can't wait for your feedback.
Best,

Marco

[1] https://soweego.readthedocs.io/
[2] https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Hjfocs/soweego_2

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[Quim Gil]

Thank you for all the feedback. After scanning different channels, we have
a wide range of opinions which reflect how deep and complex the problem of
cross-wiki collaboration is, and also how differently the Space prototype
and this decision is being perceived. We will process this feedback and
integrate it in the lessons learned. If you have more feedback or
questions, please share. This conversation is important.

The channels we are watching:

* https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/next-steps-on-wikimedia-space/3184
*
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Space#Next_steps_on_Wikimedia_Space
*
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-February/094269.html
and replies
*
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/2699004306814050/

If you are aware of more conversations related to this announcement, please
share them here as well.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:30 AM Quim Gil  wrote:

> Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation launched Wikimedia Space to experiment
> with new ways to connect volunteers, increase movement participation, and
> showcase community stories. While we remain committed to this important
> goal, based on lessons learned through the Space prototype, the Foundation
> has decided to close Discuss Space. The Space blog, which continues to fill
> a need to share news for the movement by the movement, will continue in a
> new home. Please continue to submit community-focused stories [1], so that
> we may share them with the movement.
>
> To learn more about the next steps, check the full announcement at
> https://space.wmflabs.org/2020/02/18/next-steps-on-wikimedia-space/
>
> We have learned a lot from this initiative and want to thank all Space
> users [2] for their time and contributions. We also invite everyone
> interested in documenting lessons learned and discussing next steps to join
> us in taking this effort even further, either at the About Wikimedia Space
> category in Discuss [3] or the Space talk page in Meta [4].
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Space/Editorial_guidelines#How_to_get_started
> [2] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/u?period=all
> [3] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/about-wikimedia-space/2
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Space
>
> --
> Quim Gil (he/him)
> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
>


-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

[James Salsman]

> ... it has been a mistake to keep spinning off new discussion
> platforms, in the hope that the next one will be different and controllable
> and totally replace everything else. This has been an anti-pattern for a
> decade. Far better to make a real investment (including both a social and a
> technical investment) in the actual community platforms based on MediaWiki,

Apparently the plan is to try something completely new other than
Wikis from scratch:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Plan_Infrastructure_Scalability

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Les sans pagEs User Group

[Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l]

Thank you for this announcement! And to all the wonderful people, contributors 
and organisations (Wikimedia France, Wikimedia CH and the WMF) who have helped 
us achieve this goal. 

A special thanks to Anthere who did all the preliminary work to achieve this.

With wiki love

Nattes à chat

> Le 18 févr. 2020 à 12:09, GERBET Remy via Wikimedia-l 
>  a écrit :
> 
> Congratulations to this wonderfull group :) 
> 
> Gerbet Rémy
> 
> Délégué
> opérationnel 
> _07 84 37 91
> 04_
> 
> _---__-_
> 
> 
> WIKIMEDIA FRANCE
> Association pour le libre partage de la
> connaissance
> _WWW.WIKIMEDIA.FR [1] _ 
> 
> _40 rue de clery, __75002 Paris_ 
> [2] 
> _ _ _ [3]_ 
> 
> Le 2020-02-18 07:41, Camelia Boban a écrit :
> 
>> Happy
> for this.
>> Congratulations to the group members ❤.
>> 
>> Camelia
>> 
>> 
> --
>> *Camelia Boban*
>> 
>> *| Java EE Developer |*
>> 
>> *Affiliations
> Committee - **Wikimedia Foundation*
>> Diversity WG for Wikimedia
> Strategy 2030
>> *Interwiki Women
>> 
>  |
> **Wiki
>> Loves Sport 
> | Wiki Loves
>> Fashion
> *
>> WMIT
>  - WMSE
>> 
>  - WMAR
>> 
>  - WMCH
>> 
>  Member
>> 
>> M. +39
> 3383385545
>> camelia.bo...@gmail.com
>> *Aissa Technologies*
> * | *Twitter
>> 
>  *|* *LinkedIn
>> 
> *
>> *Wikipedia
>  **| **WikiDonne
>> 
> UG * | *WikiDonne Project
>> 
>  *
>> 
>> Il giorno mar
> 18 feb 2020 alle ore 02:33 Lucas Werkmeister <
>> 
> m...@lucaswerkmeister.de> ha scritto:
>> 
>>> That sounds great,
> congratulations to the group and all the best for
>>> your future
> work!
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lucas
>>> 
>>> On 17.02.20 20:05, Rosie
> Stephenson-Goodknight wrote:
 Hi everyone!
 
 
 
 I'm very
> happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
 [1]
> Les sans pagEs [2] as a Wikimedia User Group. The group aims to be a
 
> community effort and an association for users who work on issues
> related
>>> to
 women and gender issues and more generally to
> diversity (territorial,
 cultural, linguistic, generational, gender,
> attitudinal and ability,
>>> etc.)
 within the French speaking
> wikimedia movement.
 
 
 
 Please join me in congratulating the
> members of this new user group!
 
 
 
 Regards,
 
 Rosie
> Stephenson-Goodknight
 
 Chair, Affiliations
> Committee
 
 
 
 [1]
 
>>> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_of_Les_sans_pagEs_User_Group
 
 
> [2]  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Les_sans_pagEs
 
 
> 
 
 
> 
 
 
> 
 
> ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing
> list, guidelines at:
>>> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
 New messages to:
> 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 and
>>> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to:
> 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to:
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> --
> [1] http://www.wikimedia.fr/
> [2]
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/691082430#map=19/48.86814/2.34683
> [3]
> https://dons.wikimedia.fr/adhesion/b
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikime