Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Michael Snow]

  On 9/29/2010 7:00 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>>   On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
>>> Yes it is, and it's an important one.  Several of us had already been
>>> working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
>>> widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of 
>>> the recommendations on improving the software were incorporated, thus our
>>> recommendation that it not proceed so rapidly.
>> I respect what you are saying here, very much.  But I think the right
>> approach is always "release early, release often".  There is no need to
>> rush, but there is also no reason not to release fixes as they are
>> available, because there is no particular "ship date" with marketing, etc.
> Jimmy, here's where you're wrong.  The first version was marketed as the
> solution that would allow the [[George W. Bush]] article to be publicly
> edited - it was marketed that way on and off wiki - and instead we had 40
> hours of non-stop IP vandalism and browser crashes for almost every
> reviewer.
Whether or not it was reasonable to expect the feature to solve this 
problem on the first try, I don't think we should settle for that as our 
goal. This particular kind of case is mostly driven by media appeal and 
is not the best objective to focus on for accomplishing our mission. 
What the English Wikipedia really needs is to be able to reverse the 
situation that has prevailed since the Seigenthaler incident, so that 
people can write new articles and material without having to create an 
account or endure a waiting period, and the project can stay closer to 
the notion of being an encyclopedia anyone can edit. For me, any 
attraction that developing a "flagged revisions" or "pending changes" 
feature has ever had is connected to the potential that it would lead to 
an environment in which we can restore that ability for unregistered 
contributors.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Differences between projects with common versus highly diverse cultural backgrounds (was Re: Pending Changes)

[Risker]

On 29 September 2010 23:32, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> > Andreas Kolbe 
> > wrote:
> > > German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented
> > *globally*, in all articles, for several years now. Unlike
> > en:WP, where numbers of active editors have dropped
> > significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in de:WP
> > have remained stable:
> > >
> > > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
> > > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
> >
> > The stats on that page are pretty confusing, Andreas. Could
> > you say
> > here what the relative figures are?
>
> According to the tables, the number of en:WP editors with >100 edits/month
> stood at 5,151 in April 2007, and was down to 3,868 in August 2010.
>
> de:WP had 1,027 in April 2007, and 1,075 in August 2010.
>
>

You raise an interesting point, Andreas.  I am not persuaded that pending
changes/flagged revisions have anything to do with the editor retention rate
at the de:WP. However, I think you may be right that the considerably more
homogeneous editor population, as well as the commonality in cultural
background, was instrumental in the ability of the project to jointly make
such a cultural shift. Indeed, the number of de:WP editors with >100
edits/month has remained very stable since January 2006. (The number of
en:WP editors was essentially the same in January 2006 as at present, but
hit its peak in April 2007. Let's not cherry pick the data too much, okay?)

As an aside for those interested in the historical perspective, the massive
increase in the number of editors on en:WP coincides with a massive influx
of vandalism, and over a thousand editors did almost nothing *but* revert or
otherwise address vandalism. As better and more effective tools have been
developed to address that problem - Huggle, Twinkle, Friendly, the edit
filters, reverting bots, semi-protection, etc - the number of editors needed
to manage vandalism has diminished dramatically. In other words, that
1300-editor difference may largely be accounted for because those whose only
skill was vandal-fighting have moved on. That's not to say there is no
vandalism on en:WP today; there's still plenty of it.

Observing from afar, it has often struck me that when almost all members of
an editorial community come from a common cultural background and geographic
area, there is a synergy that isn't found on projects where the community is
much more diverse.  This is best illustrated in the large scale on German
Wikipedia, and some other European projects, where the community is visibly
more cohesive. In the smaller scale, certain projects with shared
cultural/geographic background on English Wikipedia, such as Wikiproject
Australia, are more accomplished at developing and meeting shared
objectives.  These groups, whether large projects or small pockets within a
larger project, seem to operate in accordance with their local cultural
norms; in other words, they don't have to find common cultural ground before
they can move on to a discussion of a proposal.

It's my belief that the common cultural background of the de:WP editorial
community has been one of the keystones of its success in being able to
implement large-scale and project-wide changes, flagged revisions being the
most obvious.  That common cultural background or focal geographic area
simply does not exist for the English Wikipedia; we're probably one of the
few projects where the same expression can be viewed as friendly, somewhat
rude and downright offensive at the same time, depending on whether the
reader is Australian, British or American (not to mention those who have
learned English as a second language, which also makes up a significant part
of our editorship).

Each project also has its own culture, but I confess that most of my
knowledge of the culture of other projects is anecdotal rather than
observational, so I won't venture to try to compare them.

When faced with dramatic increases in vandalism, en:WP created tools that
are largely developed by individuals and utilized by other individuals (with
the exception of semi-protection); de:WP developed a single unified
community response.  The remarkably high quality of the tools used on en:WP
means that any new systemic tool has to meet a very high threshold for it to
be considered acceptable for wide-scale use.  Perhaps that is the key
difference between these two community types: one places more emphasis on
making cohesive group decisions, while the other more strongly encourages a
range of solutions. I don't have any answers, just observations.

Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Agenda set by Sue? (was Re: Pending Changes development update: September 27)

[Michael Snow]

  On 9/29/2010 8:47 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>> the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue
>> together with the chair of the Board and other Board members.
> It is?  Isn't that really really odd?
Maybe it's not the most artful way of characterizing things (certainly 
it would be wrong to assume that the order in which individuals are 
mentioned corresponds to their priority or influence over the agenda), 
but I didn't find it so bizarre that I would need to call it out for 
correction. Anyway, Erik did mention that he's not on the board nor 
involved in its meetings, and accurately directed people to the board 
(not Sue) as the proper channel for seeking the board's attention. Given 
his distance from the process (and how different the organization was 
when he previously served on the board), I'm not sure why you would 
expect him to provide authoritative pronouncements on such details. 
Moreover, as a member of the staff he reports to Sue, and experiences 
the work of the board through Sue, so it's natural for his perspective 
on the work of the board to be oriented that way.

The board chair ultimately sets the agenda for board meetings. In doing 
so, the chair follows the course the board has set for itself previously 
and relies on discussion with the vice chair and the executive director, 
along with input from the remaining board members. (This is how it 
worked when I was chair, and I expect current practice will not have 
changed too dramatically.) To the extent that issues the board needs to 
consider come to its attention through the staff or via day-to-day 
operations, obviously Sue would be the primary channel for that to 
happen, and such matters naturally are a significant piece of board 
business. That doesn't mean that Sue dictates the board's agenda, 
however. The board ultimately decides for itself what it needs to focus 
on, whether that's the recently completed strategic planning process or 
the current effort to sort out existing roles in the Wikimedia movement. 
It can also decline to pursue matters Sue has asked it to consider, 
though I must say that in my experience Sue was very good at maintaining 
an appropriate role relative to the board, and the idea of her diverting 
the board's agenda from where the board wanted to go is purely an 
imaginary problem.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Agenda set by Sue? (was Re: Pending Changes development update: September 27)

[Anthony]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue
> together with the chair of the Board and other Board members.

It is?  Isn't that really really odd?

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes

[Andreas Kolbe]

> Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
> > German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented
> *globally*, in all articles, for several years now. Unlike
> en:WP, where numbers of active editors have dropped
> significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in de:WP
> have remained stable:
> >
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
> 
> The stats on that page are pretty confusing, Andreas. Could
> you say
> here what the relative figures are?

According to the tables, the number of en:WP editors with >100 edits/month 
stood at 5,151 in April 2007, and was down to 3,868 in August 2010.

de:WP had 1,027 in April 2007, and 1,075 in August 2010.

Andreas


  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Aude]

On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Risker  wrote:

> On 29 September 2010 22:37, Aude  wrote:
>
>> 
>>
>> Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly
>> been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now
>> given Risker's concerns about the software being buggy and other  
>> issues.
>>
>> And seeing people that I have lots of respect for in hot debate (both
>> sides) concerns me... seems tricky to find the right balance and
>> solution for moving forward.
>>
>> [maybe setting rights to bureaucrats or some higher level for now?
>> Allowing only more narrow testing maybe in non-article space or
>> something? Until we can decide what/how/when to move forward with  
>> next
>> trial...just throwing ideas out]
>>
>> Anyway, I would like to be more informed and try testing in some test
>> space (is there a test wiki for this?) and some summary of the key
>> issues that I can see?
>>
>>
> The test wiki is here:  http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
> (MZMcBride seems to be the most responsive local bureaucrat, if you  
> want to
> have admin permissions there.)
>
> The current list of bugzillas being worked on is here (cribbed from  
> RobLa's
> post)
>
> We're currently tracking the list of items we intend to complete in
> Bugzilla. You can see the latest list here:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=25293
>
> Many of the items in the list are things we're looking for feedback  
> on:
> Bug 25295 - "Improve reviewer experience when multiple simultaneous
> users review Pending Changes"
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25295
>
> Bug 25296 - "History style cleanup - investigate possible fixes and
> detail the fixes"
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25296
>
> Bug 25298 - "Figure out what (if any) new Pending Changes links there
> should be in the side bar"
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25298
>
> Bug 25299 - "Make pending revision status clearer when viewing page"
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25299
>
> Bug 25300 - "Better names for special pages in Pending Changes
> configuration"
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25300
>
> Bug 25301 - "Firm up the list of minor UI improvements for the
> November 2010 Pending Changes release"
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25301
>
> Also cribbed from RobLa's message:
> Ongoing use of Pending Changes is contingent upon consensus after the
> deployment of an interim release of Pending Changes in November 2010,
> which is currently under development. The roadmap for this deployment
> is described here:
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap
>
>
> On looking at the bugzillas, I note that many of the more serious  
> issues
> identified in the Roadmap are not addressed. I will leave it to  
> RobLa to
> explain that rationale.

Thanks. Will look tomorrow.

Don't know if I can be much help (I tend to stay far away from hot  
potatoes like this) but maybe someone w/ fresh eyes (me and others?)  
can look at the situation and help suggest ways to alleviate concerns  
that are agreeable to people on both sides of the debate and help move  
things forward.

Just don't like seeing good folks split like this.

@aude

>
> Risker/Anne
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Risker]

On 29 September 2010 22:37, Aude  wrote:

> 
>
> Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly
> been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now
> given Risker's concerns about the software being buggy and other issues.
>
> And seeing people that I have lots of respect for in hot debate (both
> sides) concerns me... seems tricky to find the right balance and
> solution for moving forward.
>
> [maybe setting rights to bureaucrats or some higher level for now?
> Allowing only more narrow testing maybe in non-article space or
> something? Until we can decide what/how/when to move forward with next
> trial...just throwing ideas out]
>
> Anyway, I would like to be more informed and try testing in some test
> space (is there a test wiki for this?) and some summary of the key
> issues that I can see?
>
>
The test wiki is here:  http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
(MZMcBride seems to be the most responsive local bureaucrat, if you want to
have admin permissions there.)

The current list of bugzillas being worked on is here (cribbed from RobLa's
post)

We're currently tracking the list of items we intend to complete in
Bugzilla. You can see the latest list here:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=25293

Many of the items in the list are things we're looking for feedback on:
Bug 25295 - "Improve reviewer experience when multiple simultaneous
users review Pending Changes"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25295

Bug 25296 - "History style cleanup - investigate possible fixes and
detail the fixes"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25296

Bug 25298 - "Figure out what (if any) new Pending Changes links there
should be in the side bar"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25298

Bug 25299 - "Make pending revision status clearer when viewing page"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25299

Bug 25300 - "Better names for special pages in Pending Changes
configuration"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25300

Bug 25301 - "Firm up the list of minor UI improvements for the
November 2010 Pending Changes release"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25301

Also cribbed from RobLa's message:
Ongoing use of Pending Changes is contingent upon consensus after the
deployment of an interim release of Pending Changes in November 2010,
which is currently under development. The roadmap for this deployment
is described here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap


On looking at the bugzillas, I note that many of the more serious issues
identified in the Roadmap are not addressed. I will leave it to RobLa to
explain that rationale.

Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Aude]

On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Risker  wrote:

> On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales  wrote:
>
>> On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
>>> Yes it is, and it's an important one.  Several of us had already  
>>> been
>>> working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing  
>>> had
>>> widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful  
>>> if more
>> of
>>> the recommendations on improving the software were incorporated,  
>>> thus our
>>> recommendation that it not proceed so rapidly.
>>
>> I respect what you are saying here, very much.  But I think the right
>> approach is always "release early, release often".  There is no  
>> need to
>> rush, but there is also no reason not to release fixes as they are
>> available, because there is no particular "ship date" with  
>> marketing, etc.
>>
>
> Jimmy, here's where you're wrong.  The first version was marketed as  
> the
> solution that would allow the [[George W. Bush]] article to be  
> publicly
> edited - it was marketed that way on and off wiki - and instead we  
> had 40
> hours of non-stop IP vandalism and browser crashes for almost every
> reviewer. (The first problem was easily anticipated by just about  
> every
> administrator on the site, and the second one by anyone who'd  
> already seen
> what had happened with other very large articles.)
>
> This "product" has to be sold to admins to get them to use it; they  
> saw the
> first version and all of its significant problems and aren't very
> interested.  And until there is a product that passes their smell  
> test, they
> still won't be interested. So installing an "upgrade" that hasn't  
> resolved
> ALL of the significant issues is not going to interest the  
> "consumers".
>
> The advantage of a coordinated effort of a new trial with an upgraded
> release that has addressed all of the significant issues *and* has  
> been
> well-tested on the test wiki is that it can be used to market the  
> tool.  It
> doesn't matter whether or not it works well if the people in the  
> position to
> use the tool cannot be persuaded it is worthy of their attention.  
> Take a
> look at the stats, Jimmy: Six administrators were responsible for  
> entering
> 80% of the articles into the first trial, and another 12 responsible  
> for the
> next 17%.  Most administrators were not interested the first time  
> around.
>
>
>
>>> It's pretty hard to maintain motivation, though, when it's clear  
>>> that the
>>> software's going to be a permanent feature regardless of what the  
>>> project
>>> does or thinks, and that any further "trial" is not going to  
>>> change that
>>> fact.
>> I think that's very very far from true.  I think that everything the
>> Foundation has said, and everything that I have said, and everything
>> that (nearly) everyone on all sides has said, indicates nearly 100%
>> universal agreement that in order for the feature to be enabled
>> permanently, it has to achieve consensus.
>>
>
>> Consensus is not a "hold one vote and give up if you don't make it"
>> process, but rather an iterative give-and-take.
>>
>> If I believed that the current version was the best that the  
>> Foundation
>> could deliver, I would be adamant about just shutting down PC as  
>> soon as
>> is practical, and believe that the right way forward would be to push
>> for major expansion of the use of semi-protection.   I would hate  
>> to do
>> that, because I think that a well-implemented PC is a better solution
>> than semi-protection, striking a better balance.
>>
>> My point is this: I think it very far from a foregone conclusion  
>> that we
>> will have PC in use in the longterm.  It has to improve a lot before
>> that can happen.  The early signs, though, are that it was popular.
>>
>
> I'm really curious to know what metric you're using to determine  
> that it was
> "popular".  The *idea* is popular with a significant segment of the
> community, which is where much of the support in the two polls came  
> from;
> but the *tool* itself wasn't very popular with many editors. And the  
> concept
> of administrator-granted "reviewer" permissions went over like a lead
> balloon with a pretty big segment of the community.
>
> Put the upgrades on the test wiki. Recruit a pile of editors (not just
> administrators) to really put it through its paces and drive it  
> hard, both
> those who are technically savvy and those whose strength is  
> content.  These
> editors are your potential change agents; if they're convinced it's  
> working
> satisfactorily and that major issues have been resolved, they will  
> spread
> the word on-wiki.  Sticking poorly tested software upgrades onto the  
> #7
> website, and expecting people to be enthusiastic, is remarkably  
> optimistic.
>
> Risker/Anne

Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly  
been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now  
given Risker's concerns about the software being buggy and 

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

[Milos Rancic]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 16:38, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
 wrote:
> well I think that the kosovars should just co submit the application for
> albania and leave out the kosovo issue for now.
> would that work?

There are no obstacles for Wikimedia Albania. It will become a chapter
after the regular procedure and it could be said that it purely
depends on your work.

However, we should solve the problem with Wikimedians from Kosovo and
I think that we have temporary solution.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Risker]

On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales  wrote:

>  On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
> > Yes it is, and it's an important one.  Several of us had already been
> > working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
> > widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more
> of
> > the recommendations on improving the software were incorporated, thus our
> > recommendation that it not proceed so rapidly.
>
> I respect what you are saying here, very much.  But I think the right
> approach is always "release early, release often".  There is no need to
> rush, but there is also no reason not to release fixes as they are
> available, because there is no particular "ship date" with marketing, etc.
>

Jimmy, here's where you're wrong.  The first version was marketed as the
solution that would allow the [[George W. Bush]] article to be publicly
edited - it was marketed that way on and off wiki - and instead we had 40
hours of non-stop IP vandalism and browser crashes for almost every
reviewer. (The first problem was easily anticipated by just about every
administrator on the site, and the second one by anyone who'd already seen
what had happened with other very large articles.)

This "product" has to be sold to admins to get them to use it; they saw the
first version and all of its significant problems and aren't very
interested.  And until there is a product that passes their smell test, they
still won't be interested. So installing an "upgrade" that hasn't resolved
ALL of the significant issues is not going to interest the "consumers".

The advantage of a coordinated effort of a new trial with an upgraded
release that has addressed all of the significant issues *and* has been
well-tested on the test wiki is that it can be used to market the tool.  It
doesn't matter whether or not it works well if the people in the position to
use the tool cannot be persuaded it is worthy of their attention. Take a
look at the stats, Jimmy: Six administrators were responsible for entering
80% of the articles into the first trial, and another 12 responsible for the
next 17%.  Most administrators were not interested the first time around.



> > It's pretty hard to maintain motivation, though, when it's clear that the
> > software's going to be a permanent feature regardless of what the project
> > does or thinks, and that any further "trial" is not going to change that
> > fact.
> I think that's very very far from true.  I think that everything the
> Foundation has said, and everything that I have said, and everything
> that (nearly) everyone on all sides has said, indicates nearly 100%
> universal agreement that in order for the feature to be enabled
> permanently, it has to achieve consensus.
>

> Consensus is not a "hold one vote and give up if you don't make it"
> process, but rather an iterative give-and-take.
>
> If I believed that the current version was the best that the Foundation
> could deliver, I would be adamant about just shutting down PC as soon as
> is practical, and believe that the right way forward would be to push
> for major expansion of the use of semi-protection.   I would hate to do
> that, because I think that a well-implemented PC is a better solution
> than semi-protection, striking a better balance.
>
> My point is this: I think it very far from a foregone conclusion that we
> will have PC in use in the longterm.  It has to improve a lot before
> that can happen.  The early signs, though, are that it was popular.
>

I'm really curious to know what metric you're using to determine that it was
"popular".  The *idea* is popular with a significant segment of the
community, which is where much of the support in the two polls came from;
but the *tool* itself wasn't very popular with many editors. And the concept
of administrator-granted "reviewer" permissions went over like a lead
balloon with a pretty big segment of the community.

Put the upgrades on the test wiki. Recruit a pile of editors (not just
administrators) to really put it through its paces and drive it hard, both
those who are technically savvy and those whose strength is content.  These
editors are your potential change agents; if they're convinced it's working
satisfactorily and that major issues have been resolved, they will spread
the word on-wiki.  Sticking poorly tested software upgrades onto the #7
website, and expecting people to be enthusiastic, is remarkably optimistic.

Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Jimmy Wales]

  On 9/29/10 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2010/9/28 John Vandenberg:
>> This doesn't answer my question, which was:
>>
>> _When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]?
> I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm
> neither on the Board, nor am I part of Board meetings, nor do I serve
> as a conduit for them; the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue
> together with the chair of the Board and other Board members. My
> understanding via Sue is that they'e focused so far on the high-level
> priorities articulated in the strategic plan, and my sense is that if
> individual task forces have items that they'd like to get the Board's
> review or input on, they should bring this to the attention of the
> Chair of the Board (tchen at wikimedia dot org) or an individual Board
> member they know. But others can chime in and correct me on this if
> needed.
I'll just add to what Erik said, and say that I would love to hear from 
people on the task-forces about next steps you'd like me to carry to the 
board.  I'm probably one of the most passionate people about working to 
improve the BLP situation using both policy and technology.  I'm your 
advocate, please use me. :)

--Jimbo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Jimmy Wales]

  On 9/29/10 12:51 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> IMO the English Wikipedia community should be allowed to continue to
> review the results of their trial, and/or discuss how the next trial
> will occur.
I agree with you completely, but also want to point out that this is 
exactly where we are right now.

A discussion of the details of how the next trial will occur is already 
starting on-wiki, and I think that wide participation in it is really 
important.  Tests can be run right now.  Criteria can be discussed and 
implemented in anticipation of the next trial.

What is really important, in my view, is that the next poll have 
absolutely clear and unambiguous conditions for various states, 
including shutting it off permanently, shutting it off temporarily, 
leaving it on temporarily while asking for specific developer resources 
for a V3, or accepting it permanently.

I will personally guarantee with all the resources at my disposal that 
when we have a clear and unambiguous set of conditions, I will do 
everything possible to make sure what the outcome of the poll is, 
absolutely determines what happens next.

(I say it in such a cautious way because of course I am just one board 
member and can't really control what the Foundation does.)

--Jimbo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Jimmy Wales]

  On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
> Yes it is, and it's an important one.  Several of us had already been
> working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
> widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of
> the recommendations on improving the software were incorporated, thus our
> recommendation that it not proceed so rapidly.

I respect what you are saying here, very much.  But I think the right 
approach is always "release early, release often".  There is no need to 
rush, but there is also no reason not to release fixes as they are 
available, because there is no particular "ship date" with marketing, etc.
> It's pretty hard to maintain motivation, though, when it's clear that the
> software's going to be a permanent feature regardless of what the project
> does or thinks, and that any further "trial" is not going to change that
> fact.
I think that's very very far from true.  I think that everything the 
Foundation has said, and everything that I have said, and everything 
that (nearly) everyone on all sides has said, indicates nearly 100% 
universal agreement that in order for the feature to be enabled 
permanently, it has to achieve consensus.

Consensus is not a "hold one vote and give up if you don't make it" 
process, but rather an iterative give-and-take.

If I believed that the current version was the best that the Foundation 
could deliver, I would be adamant about just shutting down PC as soon as 
is practical, and believe that the right way forward would be to push 
for major expansion of the use of semi-protection.   I would hate to do 
that, because I think that a well-implemented PC is a better solution 
than semi-protection, striking a better balance.

My point is this: I think it very far from a foregone conclusion that we 
will have PC in use in the longterm.  It has to improve a lot before 
that can happen.  The early signs, though, are that it was popular.

--Jimbo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Keegan Peterzell]

Amazingly convoluted reply, good sir.  And amazingly contradictory in tone.


> Keegan Peterzell (also) wrote:
> >
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Rec
> > ommendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft
> >
> > <
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Re
> > commendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft>Point
> > 4.
>
> Instead of link-spamming, could you share with the list the status update
> of
> these recommendations? The draft you linked was last edited in May.


Ask the Board, that's when it was handed to them on a silver platter.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[MZMcBride]

I'm going to reply to a few different replies all at once, to make this a
bit easier to ignore.

Risker wrote:
> Nobody was asking Erik or Danese to determine consensus. They were asked to
> give their word that our consensus would be respected after the polling of
> the community following a second trial. Consensus doesn't mean majority
> rule, as has always been very clear on this project.
> 
> It's now on record that any further trials are moot, and that the tool is
> going to be left in place with absolutely no intention of disabling it
> regardless of the wishes of the project.

Yes. I view the FlaggedRevs deployment a bit like childbirth. Imagine
FlaggedRevs is an elephant baby. It takes years and years to finally get
out, and now that's out and has been walking around for a few months,
there's no chance in hell it's going back in.

FlaggedRevs won't be disabled on the English Wikipedia because it would
signal a failure on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation, and everyone is
already sick of this mongrel of a project, even though its underlying goal
(protecting living people) is so vital. Wikimedia has finally pushed out a
"solution"; anyone who thought that they were going to pull back on this
afterward (and then be forced to re-evaluate how to prevent any crackpot
from libeling anyone with a biography) was delusional.

David Gerard wrote:
> There'll be new hearts and minds along in eighteen months.

This came off as _really_ shitty. I imagine it was just an off-the-cuff
remark, so I won't dwell on it. I will echo Michael Snow's sentiments that
this view is absolutely unacceptable, though. Wikimedia _is_ its community.

Erik Moeller wrote:
> You've seen the BLP resolution?
> 
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
> 
> This has inspired lots of cross-language work on BLP policies, and is
> referenced in many of them. It specifically asks for "investigating
> new technical mechanisms to assess edits, particularly when they
> affect living people, and to better enable readers to report
> problems".

You've seen the proposed global BLP policy?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_people

It's completely stalled, as far as I'm aware. If you have examples of
cross-language work on BLP policies, I think most of this list would be
interested in them. Please share. :-)

Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> 
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Liv
> ing_People_Policy

An obscure page on a dead project. Useful.

Keegan Peterzell (also) wrote:
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Rec
> ommendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft
> 
>  commendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft>Point
> 4.

Instead of link-spamming, could you share with the list the status update of
these recommendations? The draft you linked was last edited in May.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes

[SlimVirgin]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:23, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented *globally*, in all 
> articles, for several years now. Unlike en:WP, where numbers of active 
> editors have dropped significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in 
> de:WP have remained stable:
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm

The stats on that page are pretty confusing, Andreas. Could you say
here what the relative figures are?

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes

[Andreas Kolbe]

German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented *globally*, in all 
articles, for several years now. Unlike en:WP, where numbers of active editors 
have dropped significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in de:WP have 
remained stable:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm 

There may well be cultural differences, reflected in the greater support the 
pending changes concept has gained in the de:WP community in general, but it is 
still a striking result.

A. 

--- On Wed, 29/9/10, SlimVirgin  wrote:

> From: SlimVirgin 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Date: Wednesday, 29 September, 2010, 20:55
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 16:37, James
> Heilman 
> wrote:
> > I support PC for a number of reasons including.
> >
> > 1) Concerns are voiced both by academia and our
> readership regarding
> > Wikipedia's reliability. Pending changes addresses
> some of these
> > concerns.
> 
> James, we don't want to cater to the academic community,
> but to
> everyone, and seeing our edits go live immediately was the
> thing that
> made Wikipedia very attractive, its strength and its
> weakness. We
> should need a very clear consensus to change that, and the
> polls so
> far have not shown a strong consensus.
> 
> This isn't Nupedia or Citizendium, and any attempt to nudge
> us in that
> direction, which is what PC is, has the potential to damage
> us.
> 
> Sarah
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 


  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

[KIZU Naoko]

Hi,
slightly off-topic, but for those who wonder what is "Kansai group",
I'd love to give some clues as its members, as follows:

meta page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WiKansai (mostly written in
Japanese but some English description)
own wiki: http://kansai.wikimedia.jp

For information of [[Kansai]] region may be found on your favorite
Wikipedia. Having over 3.5 millions' population, Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe
are situated - rich of both historical and modern elements including
active FLOSS vibes.

We at Wikimedians in Kansai are no legal body and currently consist in
only five people, so don't fall into the category of aspirant chapters
- a legal body with over 25 supporter. It might be no big deal to
gather such other 20 people, but we decided to take actions before
satisfying formal requirements. At least at this moment it goes quite
smoothly.

I agree with Milos on that would be a way for Kosovan people. Again,
I'd repeat at least it works well for us very much and we would not be
the last people in such a situation.

Cheers,

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 13:35, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
>> So your proposal is basically to make the Kosovan group a recognised
>> non-chapter group (like we're talking about doing with the Kansai
>> group) and then "upgrade" them to chapter status at a later date
>> if/when it is less contentious to do so? That could work.
>
> If that means full integration [without just official chapter status],
> then yes. I would give to the both groups right to vote for chapters
> elected Board seats, too. This is especially true for the Kansai
> group, which would have more members than some chapters; while
> FLOSSK's free knowledge group has members as any smaller chapter has.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
member of Wikimedians in Kansai  / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes

[SlimVirgin]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 16:37, James Heilman  wrote:
> I support PC for a number of reasons including.
>
> 1) Concerns are voiced both by academia and our readership regarding
> Wikipedia's reliability. Pending changes addresses some of these
> concerns.

James, we don't want to cater to the academic community, but to
everyone, and seeing our edits go live immediately was the thing that
made Wikipedia very attractive, its strength and its weakness. We
should need a very clear consensus to change that, and the polls so
far have not shown a strong consensus.

This isn't Nupedia or Citizendium, and any attempt to nudge us in that
direction, which is what PC is, has the potential to damage us.

Sarah

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Keegan Peterzell]

Oh yeah, also

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Recommendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft

Point
4.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Keegan Peterzell]

First off, this is getting a little hot under the collar.  Cucumbers,
people.  Cucumbers.

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> 2010/9/28 John Vandenberg :
> > IMO, the foundation could look to strengthen its global policies
> > regarding content where living people are a subject. i.e. worded more
> > like the non-free content resolution.  Then the projects _need_ to
> > find appropriate solutions to conform to the WMF requirements, and
> > tools like pending changes will be used if they help achieve
> > compliance with the WMF policy.
>
> You've seen the BLP resolution?
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
>
> This has inspired lots of cross-language work on BLP policies, and is
> referenced in many of them. It specifically asks for "investigating
> new technical mechanisms to assess edits, particularly when they
> affect living people, and to better enable readers to report
> problems".
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Second,


http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Living_People_Policy

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

[Nathan]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
>
> Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by
> assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work
> out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website
> appearing to take sides in a major international dispute.
>

What might these terrible consequences actually be? "Wikipedia sides
with Kosovo independence, gives local organization chapter status:
U.N. Security Council resolution condemns interference"? Pragmatism
would have you first identify the actual consequences, then determine
if they are significant, then decide if they present an insurmountable
hurdle to action. I don't think the issue of chapters is particularly
politically radioactive, so... If the groups of people in Kosovo and
in Serbia are non-overlapping, then I don't see why we would allow
political issues, that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
Foundation, to unnecessarily limit Wikimedia reach and resources in
that region.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

[Thomas Dalton]

On 29 September 2010 13:09, Lodewijk  wrote:
> That would only be the case if we would have sufficient information to
> actually make a decision and this would be the actual body making such
> decision in the first place. Some very important indicators are still
> missing. We dont know who the group is, what they want to do, what they
> need, how many they are, whether wikimedians are involved in the first
> place, what their goals would be, not even to speak about their proposed
> bylaws.

None of that information has any bearing on whether a disputed
territory of this type can have a chapter. The answer will be the same
for this group with its plans for a Kosovan as it would be for some
other group with some other plans for a Kosovan chapter.

> You suggest that only being a chapter is a potential success outcome. Of
> course that is not the case. Thinking about who you are, where you are,
> where you want to go, what you want to do and what you need to get there is
> never wasted, especially since there are many ways that lead to Rome. Even
> if the conclusion would be that they want to form a chapter, and that would
> be rejected (highly hypothetical) that effort would be well spent because
> you could use it to persue your goals in another way. Being a chapter is a
> tool, not a goal.

I think our goal should be for every region in the world to be covered
by a chapter (obviously, that's a case of aiming high with the
expectation of falling short). That means Kosovo should be covered by
a chapter, either a Kosovan chapter or the Serbian chapter. The latter
seems unlikely to actually work in reality, so we are left with the
former. Some alternative arrangement in the short- to medium-term
might be the best approach, but our long-term goal should be a
chapter.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

[Thomas Dalton]

On 29 September 2010 12:24, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> Hoi,
> You love theory, I love to be more realistic. Given that chapters are about
> providing support in one area with one legal and financial system to the
> WMF, it is clear and obvious that Kosovo is not part of greater Serbia.

Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by
assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work
out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website
appearing to take sides in a major international dispute.

Also, you may want to brush up on what chapters do. We don't really
provide support to the WMF. We provide support to the Wikimedia
movement generally, but we rarely do anything to specifically support
the WMF (the WMF supports us quite a lot, eg. through the grants
process).

> When you assume that the contract with chapters can be interpreted in a way
> that allows for the "final solution" of geo political issues, issues that
> have led to war, I would call it silly. If the contract is to be understood
> to bind the WMF in this way, I would urgently ask the WMF to reconsider this
> contract.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What does
"allows for the final solution of geo political issues" mean?

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Michael Snow]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2010/9/28 John Vandenberg :
>   
>> This doesn't answer my question, which was:
>>
>> _When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]?
>> 
> I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm
> neither on the Board, nor am I part of Board meetings, nor do I serve
> as a conduit for them; the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue
> together with the chair of the Board and other Board members. My
> understanding via Sue is that they'e focused so far on the high-level
> priorities articulated in the strategic plan, and my sense is that if
> individual task forces have items that they'd like to get the Board's
> review or input on, they should bring this to the attention of the
> Chair of the Board (tchen at wikimedia dot org) or an individual Board
> member they know. But others can chime in and correct me on this if
> needed.
>   
To elaborate, this particular task force recommendation was called to my 
attention shortly before I completed my term as chair, but we did not 
have an opportunity to put it on the agenda in that brief window. I 
relayed it to Ting as part of our transition of responsibilities, so it 
has been passed along, and no doubt people are welcome to inquire as to 
its current status. But since I'm no longer privy to board 
deliberations, I can't provide much insight on its perceived priority 
relative to the larger strategic issues facing the board.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Mariano Cecowski <
marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

> Gerard; if New York got to be a Chapter (or a SubChapter for what it
> matters) then Kosovo can definitely be one as well.
>
> The question of whether it would end up being an independent chapter, or a
> SubChapter of Serbia, or potentially Albania if it ever exists,
>

well I think that the kosovars should just co submit the application for
albania and leave out the kosovo issue for now.
would that work?
mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

[Mariano Cecowski]

Gerard; if New York got to be a Chapter (or a SubChapter for what it matters) 
then Kosovo can definitely be one as well.

The question of whether it would end up being an independent chapter, or a 
SubChapter of Serbia, or potentially Albania if it ever exists, is secondary to 
the WMF approval for the use of the Wikimedia brand.

As I see it, the question is not whether they should apply or not because they 
might not be approved;the question is, if the consent is to approve it, what is 
the scope under which they would exist. And they can present their application 
without knowing that outcome.

Cheers,
MarianoC.-

--- El mié 29-sep-10, Gerard Meijssen  escribió:

> De: Gerard Meijssen 
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Fecha: miércoles, 29 de septiembre de 2010, 9:19
> Hoi,
> Lodewijk you are missing the point. The question is, should
> they bother, do
> they have a chance. When they provide all this information
> and then are
> denied for political reasons, it is best to say so up
> front.
> 
> The notion that there is only success as an outcome is not
> relevant. The
> question raised is will there be room for a Kosovar
> chapter. The answer is
> binary and from that it starts to make sense to answer any
> and all other
> questions that are less binary.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
> 
> On 29 September 2010 19:09, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> 
> > That would only be the case if we would have
> sufficient information to
> > actually make a decision and this would be the actual
> body making such
> > decision in the first place. Some very important
> indicators are still
> > missing. We dont know who the group is, what they want
> to do, what they
> > need, how many they are, whether wikimedians are
> involved in the first
> > place, what their goals would be, not even to speak
> about their proposed
> > bylaws.
> >
> > You suggest that only being a chapter is a potential
> success outcome. Of
> > course that is not the case. Thinking about who you
> are, where you are,
> > where you want to go, what you want to do and what you
> need to get there is
> > never wasted, especially since there are many ways
> that lead to Rome. Even
> > if the conclusion would be that they want to form a
> chapter, and that would
> > be rejected (highly hypothetical) that effort would be
> well spent because
> > you could use it to persue your goals in another way.
> Being a chapter is a
> > tool, not a goal.
> >
> > Please note that the only indication that they want to
> form a chapter is
> > not
> > a notice from themselves, is not a request, but only a
> hypothetical
> > question
> > from someone who visited a conference. Really, if you
> want to make a real
> > consideration whether it would be a good idea, you
> need much more
> > information than you have right now, and the regular
> process through
> > chapcom
> > is probably much more effective to evaluate such
> information than through
> > this mailing list.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2010/9/29 Thomas Dalton 
> >
> > > On 28 September 2010 23:55, Lodewijk 
> > wrote:
> > > > guys, please! Lets not try to solve
> hypothetical problems here until we
> > > know
> > > > what the problem will be! Let the folks see
> if they can get people
> > > together
> > > > in the first place, what they want to do,
> and what in their opinion
> > would
> > > be
> > > > the best way to organize that. THEN we can
> see if a chapter has to be
> > > > approved or not.
> > >
> > > I disagree. The work involved in getting together
> a group interested
> > > in forming and chapter and starting to make plans
> for how to go about
> > > creating one is significantly greater than the
> work invovled in
> > > hashing out the potential issues on foundation-l,
> so the latter should
> > > be done first. There is no point them wasting
> their time getting
> > > together a group of interested people if we're
> not going to accept
> > > them as a chapter.
> > >
> > > ___
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 


  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Lodewijk you are missing the point. The question is, should they bother, do
they have a chance. When they provide all this information and then are
denied for political reasons, it is best to say so up front.

The notion that there is only success as an outcome is not relevant. The
question raised is will there be room for a Kosovar chapter. The answer is
binary and from that it starts to make sense to answer any and all other
questions that are less binary.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 29 September 2010 19:09, Lodewijk  wrote:

> That would only be the case if we would have sufficient information to
> actually make a decision and this would be the actual body making such
> decision in the first place. Some very important indicators are still
> missing. We dont know who the group is, what they want to do, what they
> need, how many they are, whether wikimedians are involved in the first
> place, what their goals would be, not even to speak about their proposed
> bylaws.
>
> You suggest that only being a chapter is a potential success outcome. Of
> course that is not the case. Thinking about who you are, where you are,
> where you want to go, what you want to do and what you need to get there is
> never wasted, especially since there are many ways that lead to Rome. Even
> if the conclusion would be that they want to form a chapter, and that would
> be rejected (highly hypothetical) that effort would be well spent because
> you could use it to persue your goals in another way. Being a chapter is a
> tool, not a goal.
>
> Please note that the only indication that they want to form a chapter is
> not
> a notice from themselves, is not a request, but only a hypothetical
> question
> from someone who visited a conference. Really, if you want to make a real
> consideration whether it would be a good idea, you need much more
> information than you have right now, and the regular process through
> chapcom
> is probably much more effective to evaluate such information than through
> this mailing list.
>
> Best,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2010/9/29 Thomas Dalton 
>
> > On 28 September 2010 23:55, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> > > guys, please! Lets not try to solve hypothetical problems here until we
> > know
> > > what the problem will be! Let the folks see if they can get people
> > together
> > > in the first place, what they want to do, and what in their opinion
> would
> > be
> > > the best way to organize that. THEN we can see if a chapter has to be
> > > approved or not.
> >
> > I disagree. The work involved in getting together a group interested
> > in forming and chapter and starting to make plans for how to go about
> > creating one is significantly greater than the work invovled in
> > hashing out the potential issues on foundation-l, so the latter should
> > be done first. There is no point them wasting their time getting
> > together a group of interested people if we're not going to accept
> > them as a chapter.
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

[Lodewijk]

That would only be the case if we would have sufficient information to
actually make a decision and this would be the actual body making such
decision in the first place. Some very important indicators are still
missing. We dont know who the group is, what they want to do, what they
need, how many they are, whether wikimedians are involved in the first
place, what their goals would be, not even to speak about their proposed
bylaws.

You suggest that only being a chapter is a potential success outcome. Of
course that is not the case. Thinking about who you are, where you are,
where you want to go, what you want to do and what you need to get there is
never wasted, especially since there are many ways that lead to Rome. Even
if the conclusion would be that they want to form a chapter, and that would
be rejected (highly hypothetical) that effort would be well spent because
you could use it to persue your goals in another way. Being a chapter is a
tool, not a goal.

Please note that the only indication that they want to form a chapter is not
a notice from themselves, is not a request, but only a hypothetical question
from someone who visited a conference. Really, if you want to make a real
consideration whether it would be a good idea, you need much more
information than you have right now, and the regular process through chapcom
is probably much more effective to evaluate such information than through
this mailing list.

Best,

Lodewijk

2010/9/29 Thomas Dalton 

> On 28 September 2010 23:55, Lodewijk  wrote:
> > guys, please! Lets not try to solve hypothetical problems here until we
> know
> > what the problem will be! Let the folks see if they can get people
> together
> > in the first place, what they want to do, and what in their opinion would
> be
> > the best way to organize that. THEN we can see if a chapter has to be
> > approved or not.
>
> I disagree. The work involved in getting together a group interested
> in forming and chapter and starting to make plans for how to go about
> creating one is significantly greater than the work invovled in
> hashing out the potential issues on foundation-l, so the latter should
> be done first. There is no point them wasting their time getting
> together a group of interested people if we're not going to accept
> them as a chapter.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes

[Peter Coombe]

On 28 September 2010 23:37, James Heilman  wrote:
> Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote.  The majority support
> Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by
> those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller
> for the difficult discussion he has made. It is impossible to make
> everyone happy sometimes.
>

"Difficult discussion" seems like an appropriate Freudian slip, though
it's probably fairer to thank Jimbo for that.

Yes, it's well established that decisions aren't based on votes, which
is why there's been such a hostile reaction to the forcing of a
majority poll. And remember this isn't about "quashing" pending
changes, it's about whether it should be left enabled in its current
state. Many very experienced users, including those who were heavily
involved in the trial and support pending changes, have raised serious
concerns about the usability and effectiveness. There must be some
validity to those, or why is the Foundation ploughing more time and
resources into further development?

Of course one problem with a strictly numerical poll like this, is
that those concerns carry as much weight as a plain "keep" vote with
no rationale.

Pete / the wub

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You love theory, I love to be more realistic. Given that chapters are about
providing support in one area with one legal and financial system to the
WMF, it is clear and obvious that Kosovo is not part of greater Serbia.

When you assume that the contract with chapters can be interpreted in a way
that allows for the "final solution" of geo political issues, issues that
have led to war, I would call it silly. If the contract is to be understood
to bind the WMF in this way, I would urgently ask the WMF to reconsider this
contract.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 29 September 2010 18:07, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On 28 September 2010 18:51, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Neither New York nor Hong Kong are independent. So this is not an
> argument.
> > It is completely beside the point what is the point is that Kosovo is
> > administratively a separate area. it has its own issues..
>
> The Serbian chapter agreement says it covers all of Serbia. We need to
> know what "all of Serbia" means in order to interpret that agreement.
> There are three ways we could have two chapters:
>
> 1) Two national chapters, considering Serbia and Kosovo to be independant.
> 2) Two sub-national chapters, considering Serbia and Kosovo to be two
> (non-overlapping) parts of the same country.
> 3) A national chapter covering all of Serbia, which we consider to
> include Kosovo, and a sub-national chapter covering just Kosovo
> overlapping with the national chapter.
>
> There are some important technical differences between those
> arrangements (eg. the third option has all the same issues as have
> been brought up regarding a Catalan chapter overlapping with a Spanish
> chapter). It would be great if we could just ignore technicalities,
> but it is inadvisable. If you just ignore issues that you don't want
> to resolve, sooner or later you come to regret that decision.
>
> We also can't ignore the harm that could be caused by being seen to
> take sides in the dispute.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

[Thomas Dalton]

On 28 September 2010 23:55, Lodewijk  wrote:
> guys, please! Lets not try to solve hypothetical problems here until we know
> what the problem will be! Let the folks see if they can get people together
> in the first place, what they want to do, and what in their opinion would be
> the best way to organize that. THEN we can see if a chapter has to be
> approved or not.

I disagree. The work involved in getting together a group interested
in forming and chapter and starting to make plans for how to go about
creating one is significantly greater than the work invovled in
hashing out the potential issues on foundation-l, so the latter should
be done first. There is no point them wasting their time getting
together a group of interested people if we're not going to accept
them as a chapter.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

[Thomas Dalton]

On 28 September 2010 18:51, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> Hoi,
> Neither New York nor Hong Kong are independent. So this is not an argument.
> It is completely beside the point what is the point is that Kosovo is
> administratively a separate area. it has its own issues..

The Serbian chapter agreement says it covers all of Serbia. We need to
know what "all of Serbia" means in order to interpret that agreement.
There are three ways we could have two chapters:

1) Two national chapters, considering Serbia and Kosovo to be independant.
2) Two sub-national chapters, considering Serbia and Kosovo to be two
(non-overlapping) parts of the same country.
3) A national chapter covering all of Serbia, which we consider to
include Kosovo, and a sub-national chapter covering just Kosovo
overlapping with the national chapter.

There are some important technical differences between those
arrangements (eg. the third option has all the same issues as have
been brought up regarding a Catalan chapter overlapping with a Spanish
chapter). It would be great if we could just ignore technicalities,
but it is inadvisable. If you just ignore issues that you don't want
to resolve, sooner or later you come to regret that decision.

We also can't ignore the harm that could be caused by being seen to
take sides in the dispute.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[John Vandenberg]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 2010/9/28 John Vandenberg :
>> This doesn't answer my question, which was:
>>
>> _When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]?
>
> I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm
> neither on the Board, ...

I didn't direct my initial post to you, and I didn't mean to imply
that this question was directed at you.
However, if you consider it an important question, you could ensure
that it is answered.

--
John Vandenberg

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Peter Damian]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Gerard" 
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?


> You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in
> whatever topic you're editing. Why are there any experts on Wikipedia?

This is very telling.  Someone is trying to select Philosophy articles for 
the Wikipedia 0.8 release.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Philosophy_articles_have_been_selected_for_the_Wikipedia_0.8_release

They have left a message on the Philosophy project page which seems to have 
elicited no response.  Now look at the list of articles selected.

http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&namespace=0&pagename=&quality=&importance=&score=&limit=100&offset=1&sorta=Importance&sortb=Quality&filterRelease=on&reviewFilter=0&releaseFilter=1&projecta=Philosophy

Of the 22 'top importance' articles, 9 are start class, with tags like 
'multiple issues', 'clean up', 'attention from expert required' and so on. 
9 are C class, many also (e.g. metaphysics) have tags all over the place.  3 
are B class (including one I wrote).  Only one (philosophy of mind) is FA 
class, and that was written by a very good editor who has since given up.

Of the high importance, many of these have been wrongly categorised (in some 
cases, incredibly so). 


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Erik Moeller]

2010/9/28 John Vandenberg :
> This doesn't answer my question, which was:
>
> _When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]?

I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm
neither on the Board, nor am I part of Board meetings, nor do I serve
as a conduit for them; the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue
together with the chair of the Board and other Board members. My
understanding via Sue is that they'e focused so far on the high-level
priorities articulated in the strategic plan, and my sense is that if
individual task forces have items that they'd like to get the Board's
review or input on, they should bring this to the attention of the
Chair of the Board (tchen at wikimedia dot org) or an individual Board
member they know. But others can chime in and correct me on this if
needed.

> It sounds your take is that the existing WMF policy is sufficient for
> the present time?

My take is that plenty of stuff can happen without waiting for the
Board to pass new policy. I think that at least on the technology
front, there are still some low-hanging fruits that would be
relatively easy to pick (that is, to get consensus for), such as
better reader-facing tools for reporting BLP issues (we've already
thought a tiny bit about extending the new Article Feedback tool in
this direction), generally better content patrolling/labeling tools,
an evaluation and improvement of the effectiveness of the abuse
filter, OTRS process improvements and support etc. That is not to say
WMF can take all of these on, but all of them are actionable by anyone
with enough time and motivation. On the policy front, my impression is
that we're now dealing with genuinely difficult editorial borderline
questions, and that the basics of policy are pretty solid at least in
the mature projects.

The harder decisions are, as always, those where multiple perceived
goods are in conflict, especially the good of openness to
contribution/participation, and the good of minimizing harm to
individuals -- semi or PC protection for all BLPs, for example. My
view is that one shouldn't set unattainable standards; a clear
labeling system for unreviewed edits, where we strive to reduce review
time to as close to zero as possible, without going all the way to
deferring the view of the latest revision, seems entirely ethically
defensible for an encyclopedia developed in real-time. But, I can see
the argument in favor of a Pending Changes type approach on all BLPs,
and if that -- or stronger actions -- are what you believe is
necessary, then yes, I think you'll need to persuade the Board of that
for it to ever happen across all projects.

-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Peter Damian]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Gerard" 
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?


> On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan  wrote:
>
>> A few posts back Peter linked to several philosophy-trained editors
>> who had left Wikipedia, representing them as examples of the problems
>> he has identified.
>> I think it's worth reposting here what one of those editors gave as
>> his reasons for leaving:
>> So what can we learn from these clearly stated objections, and how do
>> they apply to the general problem of articles in the humanities?
>
>
> This appears to be the objections of someone who thinks an
> encyclopedia is a journal in the field, or should work like one. As
> WJohnson has pointed out, Wikipedia is not a venue for academic
> self-promotion either.
>
> You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in
> whatever topic you're editing. Why are there any experts on Wikipedia?
>
>
> - d.

I have already pointed out (and you agreed) that Wikipedia requires a 
different style and approach from the one of, say, the SEP.

> Wikipedia is not a venue for academic
> self-promotion either.

It is supposed to be a comprehensive and reliable reference source.

> You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in
> whatever topic you're editing.

There are only a handful of experts on philosophy in Wikipedia, and they are 
pretty demoralized.  When are you going to clean up this mess, David?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

You said you were going to, some time.  Or this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

If there are so many experts, why are these articles in such a complete 
mess?  We are not talking about a 'journal in the field'.  We are talking 
about a basic introductory article to a subject which in any comprehensive 
reference work would be treated with care and respect. Why is there no 
proper article on Theology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology . And why 
is this one - a basic subject - such a mess 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology ?

Without experts to tell you there is a problem, you aren't going to realise 
there is one, I suppose.

With every kind wish.

Peter 


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l