Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

[Pedro Sanchez]

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:56 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 27 February 2011 03:55, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>> Expanding the identification policy without a thorough grounding risks
>> it turning into worse security theatre - a completely lost purpose.[1]
>
>
> [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/le/lost_purposes/ - a great blog recently
> recommended by Sue.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

You talking about the fast and loose approach to the gendergap survey
interpretation?  ;)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

[Pronoein]

Le 27/02/2011 00:56, David Gerard a écrit :

> [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/le/lost_purposes/ - a great blog recently
> recommended by Sue.

Indeed. I'm currently reading it, I'm agreeing so far to interesting
reflexions.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

[David Gerard]

On 27 February 2011 03:55, David Gerard  wrote:

> Expanding the identification policy without a thorough grounding risks
> it turning into worse security theatre - a completely lost purpose.[1]


[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/le/lost_purposes/ - a great blog recently
recommended by Sue.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

[David Gerard]

On 26 February 2011 22:58, Birgitte SB  wrote:

I think we really need the actual threat and threat model detailed.

Expanding the identification policy without a thorough grounding risks
it turning into worse security theatre - a completely lost purpose.[1]

I have no objection in principle to providing my identification to
WMF. But the rationale needs to be bulletproof. What's it for, what
verification is used, how to deal with documents from countries that
are not like the US ... this is all important and needs to be laid out
in full and explicit detail. It really hasn't been so far.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

[THURNER rupert]

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 23:58, Birgitte SB  wrote:
> 
> From: Lodewijk 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> Cc: Birgitte SB 
> Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 3:51:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?
>
> It should be clear and transparant why the WMF is collecting this
> information, and what they intend to do with it. If they want to be able to
> sue people - fine, but then just say that. Then people know what they are up
> against, and what the reasoning is. That way alone volunteers can make their
> rational decision. But also chapters, because it might have quite some legal
> complications if the WMF wants to force a chapter to submit private data
> about one of their members because they want to sue this person.
>
>
> The problem with is that none of us can imagine all the future possibilities
> that could occur.  The WMF can't know what they could be up against.   So how
> can they possibly tell you what they can't know?
>
> You seem to suggest the WMF suing someone is an extreme thing.  But what is
> really extreme is asking WMF to vow *not* to sue anyone. Lets say they do this
> and imagine if a checkuser User:Foobar publishes private information on their
> blog obtained as a checkuser. Someone whose privacy was violated identifies 
> who
> User:Foobar was through their blog; sues them and wins.  User:Foobar sues WMF
> claiming something frivolous about not protecting them from the situation and
> loses. Because of the vow WMF cannot counter-sue User:Foobar for lawyer fees 
> and
> court costs even though WMF does not even need to the recorded identification
> provided through the policy in this case because User:Foobar identified 
> themself
> in the lawsuit they filed against WMF.
>
> Also the privacy policy is a joke without the identification policy.  Say
> checkuser User:Foo breaches the privacy policy and rightly loses checkuser
> rights.  There is no record available to WMF identifying  RealName as 
> User:Foo.
> So RealName retires User:Foo and registers User:Bar who is then able to 
> become a
> checkuser. Is this truly a responsible privacy policy when there is no way of
> preventing those who have abused their access to private data from once again
> obtaining access to private data?
>
> As I said in my first email.  There are valid concerns about the 
> identification
> policy that must be resolved.  However, deciding to indefinitely give
> unidentifiable people access to private data can not be an option.  It just 
> too
> irresponsible.  This is *my* private data you are all playing with.  I won't 
> get
> to have *your* private data in return, but you can at least give it the WMF to
> act as a responsible party protecting *my* interests. I understand that you 
> need
> some safeguards about security at WMF Office or WMF Chapters. However if you
> won't be comfortable with any possible procedure where they could keep *your*
> private data, then stay away from *my* private data.
>

how many people do have access to private data?

rupert.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)

[Andrew Gray]

On 26 February 2011 13:52, Aaron Adrignola  wrote:

[via MZM]

> "Sure, but there is a more fundamental question about what the goal and
> mission actually is. I see it as about content creation. Wikimedia's focus
> should primarily be creating the best free content it can. Others seem far
> more interested in creating a "movement" (a large social network)."

I think, on the whole, I agree with the primacy of content. That said...

To my mind, we can argue for increasing and broadening participation
without automatically believing that "creating a movement" is
desirable, or even an expected result. Good quality content creation -
and perhaps more critically, a constant and reliable level of content
maintenance and preservation - is at risk if we don't have a healthy
and robust community; there's no need to press further than that, but
we do need to at least be confident we've got that far!

[Aaron]

> That proportion of active administrators to content pages is already the
> case at Wikibooks.  It pains me to say it as a heavy contributor, but the
> number of admins has fallen to a third of what it was in 2007.  [1]  While I
> could hope for content growth instead, that's also stagnated. [2]

The figure I quoted, incidentally, is "highly active users" (users
with >100 edits in a given month) rather than active administrators;
that said, the two figures generally vary in the same way.

I was surprised to see the pagecount figures on en.wikibooks! Is this
no new pages being created, or is it page creation being approximately
equal to the rate of deleting old pages?

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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

[Foundation-l] Splitting Wikipedia by Project

[WereSpielChequers]

There are several drawbacks to the idea of splitting EN wiki by
project, and I suspect the drawbacks will be equally true in other
languages.

1 Not everything fits neatly once into one project. So an article
about a Chilean Volcano might be of interest to projects as diverse as
Vulcanology, Chile, Rockclimbing and Botany. Together that makes for a
much better general article than if each project was only writing
about its aspect of the mountain.

2 Gnomes are useful, and will work across all sorts of articles across
one wiki, whether it is resolving death anomalies, adding intrawiki
links or resolving obscure typos. If you split EN wiki into seven
hundred or so different specialist pedia I might stay involved in some
of them - but I have no real interest in Bollywood or anime; Yet I
have huge numbers of edits there dealing with actors who were
"staring" in particular movies and heroes who "posses" particular
abilities.

3 We need 24/7 cover for admins to delete attack pages and block
vandals, and though our number of active admins on EN wiki is falling
by 1% a month, at present we can still provide that cover almost all
the time. Divide us into several hundred projects and we lose that - I
have admin rights on a small wiki outside Wikimedia where vandalism
can be up for hours.

4 As for splitting off BLPs - that would be as arbitrary and
unsuccessful as if we split off a pedia about places, buildings or
articles beginning in R. An article about a Taiwanese Baseball player
is a biography, but more significantly it is about a Baseball player
and a Taiwanese one at that.

Wikipedia is an incredible example of how the sum can be greater than
the parts, and in some aspects of economies of scale. But there is
more than that it - having a general encyclopaedia interlinked and
organised the way we have almost inevitably lures people away from
their initial interest and into editing stuff they might never
otherwise have dreamed of getting involved in. If anyone had told me a
few years ago that I would voluntarily be editing stuff about sport,
weather or MilHist I would  think they were mad. But I love being
involved in topics as diverse as King John, the Somerset levels and
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Johnstown Inclined
Plane/archive1 If wikipedia had been fragmented by project I would
probably still be doing a daily Sudoku and my garden would be somewhat
better tended.

WereSpielChequers



> --
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:35:39 -0500
> From: David Goodman 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        
> Message-ID:
>        
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> To the extent that the enWP is a project to build a practical
> encyclopedia, it seems to have been getting increased acceptance as it
> gets larger. There is no indication that this trend is ceasing or or
> even faltering.
>
> To the extent that WP is an experiment, the experiment has already
> succeeded beyond the limits of similar projects, and there is no
> reason to stop at this point. Predictions that there would be a size
> beyond which it no longer scales have so far all of them been wrong.
> Splitting the encyclopedia is irreversible--we can always decide to
> split, but it is very unlikely that after sections develop separately
> they will be able to recombine.  But there  is nothing to stop anyone
> from making a split if they desire while leaving the actual Wikipedia
> as it is. I think WP can only benefit from serious competition.
>
> I agree the role of the wikiprojects should be increased and perhaps
> formalized, but already over  the last few years at the enWP,   some
> of the various WikiProjects and less organized impromptu groups of
> people interested in various aspects have made decisions that the
> community has not supported.  There is an advantage in having an
> Encyclopedia with uniform policies that have general agreement--people
> read it as  a whole & have common expectations.
>
> And with respect to BLPs, the biographical information about living
> people permeates most areas of the Encyclopedia, not just the articles
> with a living person's name as the title.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>> Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)
>> Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Ryan Kaldari  
>> wrote:
>>> On 2/25/11 3:11 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
 On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM, ? wrote:
> ..
> I think it could also be considered to divide our huge language wikis
> into smaller parts. The existing WikiProjects could be made virtual wikis
> with their own admins, recent changes etc. That way, each project is in
> fact like a small wiki to which the newbie could sign up according to
> 'hers' area of interest and where the clarrity and friendlier atmosphere
> of 

Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

[Birgitte SB]

From: Lodewijk 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Cc: Birgitte SB 
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 3:51:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

It should be clear and transparant why the WMF is collecting this
information, and what they intend to do with it. If they want to be able to
sue people - fine, but then just say that. Then people know what they are up
against, and what the reasoning is. That way alone volunteers can make their
rational decision. But also chapters, because it might have quite some legal
complications if the WMF wants to force a chapter to submit private data
about one of their members because they want to sue this person.


The problem with is that none of us can imagine all the future possibilities 
that could occur.  The WMF can't know what they could be up against.   So how 
can they possibly tell you what they can't know?

You seem to suggest the WMF suing someone is an extreme thing.  But what is 
really extreme is asking WMF to vow *not* to sue anyone. Lets say they do this 
and imagine if a checkuser User:Foobar publishes private information on their 
blog obtained as a checkuser. Someone whose privacy was violated identifies who 
User:Foobar was through their blog; sues them and wins.  User:Foobar sues WMF 
claiming something frivolous about not protecting them from the situation and 
loses. Because of the vow WMF cannot counter-sue User:Foobar for lawyer fees 
and 
court costs even though WMF does not even need to the recorded identification 
provided through the policy in this case because User:Foobar identified 
themself 
in the lawsuit they filed against WMF.
 
Also the privacy policy is a joke without the identification policy.  Say 
checkuser User:Foo breaches the privacy policy and rightly loses checkuser 
rights.  There is no record available to WMF identifying  RealName as User:Foo. 
 
So RealName retires User:Foo and registers User:Bar who is then able to become 
a 
checkuser. Is this truly a responsible privacy policy when there is no way of 
preventing those who have abused their access to private data from once again 
obtaining access to private data?

As I said in my first email.  There are valid concerns about the identification 
policy that must be resolved.  However, deciding to indefinitely give 
unidentifiable people access to private data can not be an option.  It just too 
irresponsible.  This is *my* private data you are all playing with.  I won't 
get 
to have *your* private data in return, but you can at least give it the WMF to 
act as a responsible party protecting *my* interests. I understand that you 
need 
some safeguards about security at WMF Office or WMF Chapters. However if you 
won't be comfortable with any possible procedure where they could keep *your* 
private data, then stay away from *my* private data.  


Birgitte SB


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness: a radical proposal -- some proposed details and a diagram

[Marc Riddell]

on 2/26/11 3:52 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote:

> The actual work of helping new editors and monitoring quality does not
> require an admin, and most of the people doing it are not admins. The
> main thing I use admin tools for is to delete hopelessly unacceptable
> articles, but almost everything I delete has been spotted by a
> non-admin. However, most of what I do is not the use of admin tools,
> but explaining to the authors of these who have come in good faith
> what was wrong and how they can do better, & encouraging the
> potentially good ones to stay. Anyone who has sufficient learned or
> innate politeness & understanding can do that.

Yes!
> 
> And anyone with politeness and understanding can pass rfa, if they
> care to, if they are willing to tolerate some stupid remarks. The
> ability to patiently tolerate stupidity is and ought to remain  one of
> the requirements for being an admin.

As it is with clinicians :-). I've been called things I had to look up!:-)
Yes, David, this is what I meant when I have said that a culture cannot be
mandated or legislated. It must happen one person at a time, each time we
communicate with another person. And the ability to interact with another
person in a civil manner should be a requirement for everyone working on the
Project. It then becomes the hallmark, the distinguishing feature of a
Wikipedian.

Marc Riddell

> 
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Neil Harris  wrote:
>> Here are some more details to flesh out my proposal for new admin creation.
>> 
>> Proposed rate of automatic new admin creation: 5% a month, until back to
>> early-Wikipedia proportions of admin number relative to edit rate.
>> 
>> Although this sounds a lot, it's only about 3 new admins a day.
>> 
>> -
>> 
>> State transitions:
>> 
>> IP user
>> |
>> |  Creates an account, passes captcha test
>> V
>> User
>> |
>> |  Time passes
>> V
>> Autoconfirmed user
>> |
>> |   Time passes. User gets chosen at random from pool of all editors,
>> followed by machine checking for good participation. The daily rate of
>> random selection is tuned to generate the correct rate of new admins
>> over the long term.
>> V
>> Proposed new admin
>> |
>> |   Gets message. Sends a request message to a list. Any "old admin"
>> checks for human-like edits, then performs one-click action to issue
>> admin bit. If they don't respond within (say) two weeks, the invitation
>> is withdrawn, and they have to wait to be be drawn again at random.
>> V
>> New admin, with limited powers
>> |
>> |   One year passes without being de-adminned
>> V
>> Old admin, with full powers
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Some possible machine-detectable criteria for "good participation",
>> based on edits:
>> 
>> * Account age: Has been a Wikipedia contributor for at least two years.
>> * Recent activity: Has made at least one edit in at least X days in the
>> last three months.
>> * Recent blocks: has not been blocked at all in the last year
>> * Responsiveness: Has edited a user page of an editor who has edited
>> their user page, at least Y times in the last three months.
>> * Edit comments: Has added a non-trivial edit comment to at least Z% of
>> their edits
>> * Namespaces: Has edited some balanced mix of articles, talk pages, user
>> talk pages, and project talk pages, within the last three months
>> 
>> Note that this is a satisficing activity -- the aim is not to find the
>> best editors, or to be fair, but just to select active Wikipedia
>> participants who know their way around, and are not misbehaving, and
>> then select some of them by lot.
>> 
>> The final test, for humanness, necessarily needs to be performed by a
>> human being, to avoid the threat of bots gaming the system, but, if as
>> suggested above, there are only about three or four candidates proposed
>> each day.
>> 
>> Note also that almost this process can be implemented in a bot,
>> independently of the actual wikipedia software itself.
>> 
>> -- Neil
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> 
> 
> 


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

[Foundation-l] Steward Elections 2011 - Please vote soon if you havent

[Jyothis E]

All,

The Election is almost coming to an end. Kindly cast you vote if you havent
already.

Thanks.

Regards,
Jyothis.

http://www.Jyothis.net

My Malayalam Wikipedia page 
Metawiki page 
I am the first customer of http://www.netdotnet.com
My toolserver tools 

woods are lovely dark and deep,
but i have promises to keep and
miles to go before i sleep and
*lines to go before I press sleep*

completion date = (start date + ((estimated effort x 3.1415926) / resources)
+ ((total coffee breaks x 0.25) / 24)) + Effort in meetings
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness: a radical proposal -- some proposed details and a diagram

[David Goodman]

The actual work of helping new editors and monitoring quality does not
require an admin, and most of the people doing it are not admins. The
main thing I use admin tools for is to delete hopelessly unacceptable
articles, but almost everything I delete has been spotted by a
non-admin. However, most of what I do is not the use of admin tools,
but explaining to the authors of these who have come in good faith
what was wrong and how they can do better, & encouraging the
potentially good ones to stay. Anyone who has sufficient learned or
innate politeness & understanding can do that.

And anyone with politeness and understanding can pass rfa, if they
care to, if they are willing to tolerate some stupid remarks. The
ability to patiently tolerate stupidity is and ought to remain  one of
the requirements for being an admin.

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Neil Harris  wrote:
> Here are some more details to flesh out my proposal for new admin creation.
>
> Proposed rate of automatic new admin creation: 5% a month, until back to
> early-Wikipedia proportions of admin number relative to edit rate.
>
> Although this sounds a lot, it's only about 3 new admins a day.
>
> -
>
> State transitions:
>
> IP user
> |
> |  Creates an account, passes captcha test
> V
> User
> |
> |  Time passes
> V
> Autoconfirmed user
> |
> |   Time passes. User gets chosen at random from pool of all editors,
> followed by machine checking for good participation. The daily rate of
> random selection is tuned to generate the correct rate of new admins
> over the long term.
> V
> Proposed new admin
> |
> |   Gets message. Sends a request message to a list. Any "old admin"
> checks for human-like edits, then performs one-click action to issue
> admin bit. If they don't respond within (say) two weeks, the invitation
> is withdrawn, and they have to wait to be be drawn again at random.
> V
> New admin, with limited powers
> |
> |   One year passes without being de-adminned
> V
> Old admin, with full powers
>
> --
>
> Some possible machine-detectable criteria for "good participation",
> based on edits:
>
> * Account age: Has been a Wikipedia contributor for at least two years.
> * Recent activity: Has made at least one edit in at least X days in the
> last three months.
> * Recent blocks: has not been blocked at all in the last year
> * Responsiveness: Has edited a user page of an editor who has edited
> their user page, at least Y times in the last three months.
> * Edit comments: Has added a non-trivial edit comment to at least Z% of
> their edits
> * Namespaces: Has edited some balanced mix of articles, talk pages, user
> talk pages, and project talk pages, within the last three months
>
> Note that this is a satisficing activity -- the aim is not to find the
> best editors, or to be fair, but just to select active Wikipedia
> participants who know their way around, and are not misbehaving, and
> then select some of them by lot.
>
> The final test, for humanness, necessarily needs to be performed by a
> human being, to avoid the threat of bots gaming the system, but, if as
> suggested above, there are only about three or four candidates proposed
> each day.
>
> Note also that almost this process can be implemented in a bot,
> independently of the actual wikipedia software itself.
>
> -- Neil
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

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

Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart

[David Goodman]

To the extent that the enWP is a project to build a practical
encyclopedia, it seems to have been getting increased acceptance as it
gets larger. There is no indication that this trend is ceasing or or
even faltering.

To the extent that WP is an experiment, the experiment has already
succeeded beyond the limits of similar projects, and there is no
reason to stop at this point. Predictions that there would be a size
beyond which it no longer scales have so far all of them been wrong.
Splitting the encyclopedia is irreversible--we can always decide to
split, but it is very unlikely that after sections develop separately
they will be able to recombine.  But there  is nothing to stop anyone
from making a split if they desire while leaving the actual Wikipedia
as it is. I think WP can only benefit from serious competition.

I agree the role of the wikiprojects should be increased and perhaps
formalized, but already over  the last few years at the enWP,   some
of the various WikiProjects and less organized impromptu groups of
people interested in various aspects have made decisions that the
community has not supported.  There is an advantage in having an
Encyclopedia with uniform policies that have general agreement--people
read it as  a whole & have common expectations.

And with respect to BLPs, the biographical information about living
people permeates most areas of the Encyclopedia, not just the articles
with a living person's name as the title.


On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)
> Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness
>
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
>> On 2/25/11 3:11 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM,   wrote:
 ..
 I think it could also be considered to divide our huge language wikis
 into smaller parts. The existing WikiProjects could be made virtual wikis
 with their own admins, recent changes etc. That way, each project is in
 fact like a small wiki to which the newbie could sign up according to
 'hers' area of interest and where the clarrity and friendlier atmosphere
 of the smaller wikis could prevail.
>>>
>>> This is the best solution, in my opinion.
>>
>> Yes, the larger wikis need to become WikiProject-centric. First step in
>> doing this would be to create a WikiProject namespace. Second step would
>> be to make WikiProject article tagging/assessment part of the software
>> instead of template-based.
>
> I can see how those would be useful steps, however I think those steps
> are part of a 10 year plan.
>
> A 10 year plan will be overrun by events.
>
> We need a much more direct plan.
>
> I recommend breaking enWP apart by finding easy chunks and moving them
> to a separate instance, and having readonly copies on the main project
> like we do for File: pages from Commons.
>
> IMO, the simplest and most useful set of articles to break apart is BLPs.
> The criteria is really simple, and those articles already have lots of
> policy differences around them.
>
> By the time we have perfected this system with the BLPs, the community
> will have come to understand the costs/benefits of moving other
> clusters of articles to separate projects, and we'll see other
> clusters of articles migrated to sub-projects.
>
> btw, this idea is not new, but maybe its time has come.
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29729
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)

[David Gerard]

On 26 February 2011 16:43, Pronoein  wrote:

> What bothers me is that you talk about in terms of us and them as if
> they were aliens. It's good to ask about the ideals of a community, but
> it's even best when you share their ideals.


The ideal is tuna too in this context.

I don't mean to set up an "us" and "them". I am one of said volunteers.

However, I don't think anything I wrote was in any way incorrect. If
you lament a lack of volunteers, you need to attract them, and to do
that you need to actually think and work out what would attract them.
This requires understanding the process.

What in what I wrote was actually not how volunteer motivation works?
In the blog post I listed examples from my experience; discounting
these will require you to give more than "I'm reading what you wrote
as 'us' and 'them'."


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)

[Pronoein]

Le 26/02/2011 11:11, David Gerard a écrit :
> Volunteers are not employees, and can't be
> expected to just shut up and work. It really, really deeply doesn't
> work like that.

I don't follow you. Are you answering to something or somebody in
particular? Was there a disagreement about that? Did anyone suggest that
volunteers should shut up and work? If yes I would like to know what was
said.


> Motivating volunteers is like herding cats. “Herding cats is easy if
> you know the local value of tuna.” — me, some years ago. An
> observation I know of no-one else having made before me, so I’m taking
> this as my law of volunteer motivation. Lure them with something
> *compelling*.
I don't subscribe to this point of view. Instead of herding, luring and
compelling with a logic of market, isn't it best to listen to them,
share their genuine, altruistic interests and put yourself at their service?


> 
> Volunteers will work ten times as hard as any employee, but only
> because they want to be there and only on things they want to. But
> that motivation is so fragile, and volunteer effort is not fungible.
> 
> So, for WIkibooks: what's the tuna? What's the compelling attraction
> that will keep people lured in?
What bothers me is that you talk about in terms of us and them as if
they were aliens. It's good to ask about the ideals of a community, but
it's even best when you share their ideals. Thus, a better question
would be, imho, to how to be part of the community first. I don't imply
anything personal, I'm just stating my own priorities. The ideal
executive branch of wikimedia should share genuinously the spirit of the
community they serve.

Just my 2c. No offense meant.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)

[David Gerard]

On 26 February 2011 13:52, Aaron Adrignola  wrote:

> I was given permission to forward any portion of an email I received from
> MZMcbride, and this is a relevant portion:
> "Sure, but there is a more fundamental question about what the goal and
> mission actually is. I see it as about content creation. Wikimedia's focus
> should primarily be creating the best free content it can. Others seem far
> more interested in creating a "movement" (a large social network)."


Although Wikipedia is not a social network, and the community seems to
rotate every 18-24 months, volunteer motivation remains tricky. Humans
interact like humans. Volunteers are not employees, and can't be
expected to just shut up and work. It really, really deeply doesn't
work like that.


> That proportion of active administrators to content pages is already the
> case at Wikibooks.  It pains me to say it as a heavy contributor, but the
> number of admins has fallen to a third of what it was in 2007.  [1]  While I
> could hope for content growth instead, that's also stagnated. [2]
> If Wikipedia is the Titanic, the sister projects are the Britannic. [3]  I
> mourn the loss of many "missing Wikibookians" myself who were seriously
> involved in the community, helped mentor me and give me the enthusiasm I
> have for the project, but have since left.  Nowadays I feel alone and the
> discussion rooms are nearly empty.  I was disappointed that the usability
> initiative and outreach focused solely on Wikipedia.


Blog post I just made: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/?p=543 Key quotes:

Motivating volunteers is like herding cats. “Herding cats is easy if
you know the local value of tuna.” — me, some years ago. An
observation I know of no-one else having made before me, so I’m taking
this as my law of volunteer motivation. Lure them with something
*compelling*.

Volunteers will work ten times as hard as any employee, but only
because they want to be there and only on things they want to. But
that motivation is so fragile, and volunteer effort is not fungible.

So, for WIkibooks: what's the tuna? What's the compelling attraction
that will keep people lured in?

Repeat that question for each project.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)

[Aaron Adrignola]

From: Andrew Gray 

>
> The absolute number of "active" community members on enwp peaked in
> early 2007 and has been in a slow decline more or less steadily since
> then; it's currently about two thirds what it was.
>
>
I was given permission to forward any portion of an email I received from
MZMcbride, and this is a relevant portion:

"Sure, but there is a more fundamental question about what the goal and
mission actually is. I see it as about content creation. Wikimedia's focus
should primarily be creating the best free content it can. Others seem far
more interested in creating a "movement" (a large social network)."


From: Andrew Gray 

If we don't increase the rate at which we attract and retain new
> contributors while we can, there's a real danger we could end up by
> 2020 or 2025 with a virtually moribund community - a small handful of
> devoted vandal-fighters spending their days trying to keep millions of
> pages clean and stable, and no influx of new users worth mentioning
> because no-one has the time to cultivate it.
>
>
That proportion of active administrators to content pages is already the
case at Wikibooks.  It pains me to say it as a heavy contributor, but the
number of admins has fallen to a third of what it was in 2007.  [1]  While I
could hope for content growth instead, that's also stagnated. [2]


From: wjhon...@aol.com

>
> It's fine to say nothing's wrong as the Titanic sinks, but it's still
> sinking.
>
>
If Wikipedia is the Titanic, the sister projects are the Britannic. [3]  I
mourn the loss of many "missing Wikibookians" myself who were seriously
involved in the community, helped mentor me and give me the enthusiasm I
have for the project, but have since left.  Nowadays I feel alone and the
discussion rooms are nearly empty.  I was disappointed that the usability
initiative and outreach focused solely on Wikipedia.

-- Adrignola


[1] http://www.wikistatistics.net/wikibooks/en/admins/full
[2] http://www.wikistatistics.net/wikibooks/en/articles/full
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Britannic
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

[Lodewijk]

The reason for that policy is exactly what this discussion is all about. If
I understand correctly, Philippe is going to do some research into that and
will get back to us once he has a clear answer.

Of course when there are good reasons for it, there is nothing against
"discriminating" anonymous people - you can't run for the board without
giving that up either, for example. But to make that decision you would need
more information.

Lodewijk

2011/2/26 Pronoein 

> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering one thing about this new policy applied with some haste,
> but I could'nt find the answer - the discussion really lengthy -:
> how will discrimation between those who shared their identity and those
> who declined will be avoided?
> Or maybe I should ask if we should discriminate the anonymous volonteers?
> Why are we putting names and faces on persons, in synthesis? Can someone
> wrap a summary?
>
>
> Le 25/02/2011 18:51, Lodewijk a écrit :
> > Hi Birgitte,
> >
> > thank you for finding that link. I know it has been discussed, but was
> not
> > able to find the discussions.
> >
> > The main reason why I asked for the reasoning behind the policy was not
> so
> > much because I was shocked (I was surprised by their choosing of
> > communications etc, not so much by the choice itself) but rather to be
> able
> > to make some estimates. The WMF has been collecting this information for
> a
> > long time already of course of stewards and checkusers - and they already
> > have my ID-copy for example. However, there were talks about identifying
> to
> > a chapter, and it also is a very big group to suddenly force to do this
> > based on only a policy which no employee was able to explain to me the
> > reasoning behind. If we don't know those reasons, even if we can look it
> up,
> > we might want to reconsider the policy as well - because maybe times have
> > changed and there is no need for it, or a different need.
> >
> > It should be clear and transparant why the WMF is collecting this
> > information, and what they intend to do with it. If they want to be able
> to
> > sue people - fine, but then just say that. Then people know what they are
> up
> > against, and what the reasoning is. That way alone volunteers can make
> their
> > rational decision. But also chapters, because it might have quite some
> legal
> > complications if the WMF wants to force a chapter to submit private data
> > about one of their members because they want to sue this person.
> >
> > Therefore I am glad that the staff is taking this back to the board (I
> > presume) and that there will be a clarification on these points. I do
> think
> > that we still need a formal answer from the WMF about why they gather
> this
> > information - not because this new influx of to-be-identified people, but
> > also for the people currently identified for other functions.
> >
> > With kind regards,
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2011/2/25 Birgitte SB 
> >
> >> I was looking for something unrelated in the archives and came across an
> >> email
> >> [1] that I believe people might find informative wrt to the
> Identification
> >> Policy which I believe has had discussion tabled for the moment.  It
> seems
> >> to be
> >> the original suggestion that WMF needs some sort of identification
> policy
> >> by
> >> then volunteer/board-member Erik.  He was *not* a staff member at the
> time
> >> of
> >> this message, just to be clear, since people seem to be fond of
> re-framing
> >> debate along such lines lately. Summary of the context follows (Not
> >> perfectly
> >> accurate chronologically speaking):
> >>
> >>
> >> A female leader in the zh.WP community was harassed/threatened by the
> >> creation
> >> of an account User:Rape[HerRealName]. Advice was sought in handling the
> >> situation. There was talk about going to the authorities. There was talk
> >> about
> >> which information about the account creator could be given to the
> >> authorities
> >> under what circumstances. The existing privacy policy was quoted as "6
> >> Where it
> >> is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the
> >> Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." . There was talk about
> it
> >> essentially being a matter of mature judgment to differentiate between
> >> derogatory comments, which however reprehensible, do not merit violating
> a
> >> user's privacy and threats of violence which would compel the violation
> of
> >> privacy in order to attempt to prevent such threats from being carried
> out.
> >>  The
> >> idea was suggested that perhaps those with the technical ability to
> access
> >> private information need to be identified to WMF so that WMF will know
> who
> >> deal
> >> with in case of abuse.
> >>
> >> It seemed to me that many people were quite surprised that the WMF was
> >> planning
> >> on recording the identifications of those with access to private
> >> information,
> >> instead on the non-recording of this correspondense which I believe has
>

Re: [Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

[Pronoein]

Hello,

I'm wondering one thing about this new policy applied with some haste,
but I could'nt find the answer - the discussion really lengthy -:
how will discrimation between those who shared their identity and those
who declined will be avoided?
Or maybe I should ask if we should discriminate the anonymous volonteers?
Why are we putting names and faces on persons, in synthesis? Can someone
wrap a summary?


Le 25/02/2011 18:51, Lodewijk a écrit :
> Hi Birgitte,
> 
> thank you for finding that link. I know it has been discussed, but was not
> able to find the discussions.
> 
> The main reason why I asked for the reasoning behind the policy was not so
> much because I was shocked (I was surprised by their choosing of
> communications etc, not so much by the choice itself) but rather to be able
> to make some estimates. The WMF has been collecting this information for a
> long time already of course of stewards and checkusers - and they already
> have my ID-copy for example. However, there were talks about identifying to
> a chapter, and it also is a very big group to suddenly force to do this
> based on only a policy which no employee was able to explain to me the
> reasoning behind. If we don't know those reasons, even if we can look it up,
> we might want to reconsider the policy as well - because maybe times have
> changed and there is no need for it, or a different need.
> 
> It should be clear and transparant why the WMF is collecting this
> information, and what they intend to do with it. If they want to be able to
> sue people - fine, but then just say that. Then people know what they are up
> against, and what the reasoning is. That way alone volunteers can make their
> rational decision. But also chapters, because it might have quite some legal
> complications if the WMF wants to force a chapter to submit private data
> about one of their members because they want to sue this person.
> 
> Therefore I am glad that the staff is taking this back to the board (I
> presume) and that there will be a clarification on these points. I do think
> that we still need a formal answer from the WMF about why they gather this
> information - not because this new influx of to-be-identified people, but
> also for the people currently identified for other functions.
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> 2011/2/25 Birgitte SB 
> 
>> I was looking for something unrelated in the archives and came across an
>> email
>> [1] that I believe people might find informative wrt to the Identification
>> Policy which I believe has had discussion tabled for the moment.  It seems
>> to be
>> the original suggestion that WMF needs some sort of identification policy
>> by
>> then volunteer/board-member Erik.  He was *not* a staff member at the time
>> of
>> this message, just to be clear, since people seem to be fond of re-framing
>> debate along such lines lately. Summary of the context follows (Not
>> perfectly
>> accurate chronologically speaking):
>>
>>
>> A female leader in the zh.WP community was harassed/threatened by the
>> creation
>> of an account User:Rape[HerRealName]. Advice was sought in handling the
>> situation. There was talk about going to the authorities. There was talk
>> about
>> which information about the account creator could be given to the
>> authorities
>> under what circumstances. The existing privacy policy was quoted as "6
>> Where it
>> is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the
>> Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." . There was talk about it
>> essentially being a matter of mature judgment to differentiate between
>> derogatory comments, which however reprehensible, do not merit violating a
>> user's privacy and threats of violence which would compel the violation of
>> privacy in order to attempt to prevent such threats from being carried out.
>>  The
>> idea was suggested that perhaps those with the technical ability to access
>> private information need to be identified to WMF so that WMF will know who
>> deal
>> with in case of abuse.
>>
>> It seemed to me that many people were quite surprised that the WMF was
>> planning
>> on recording the identifications of those with access to private
>> information,
>> instead on the non-recording of this correspondense which I believe has
>> been the
>> previous practice. It even seemed to me as though some were shocked at the
>> implication that WMF may perhaps be looking for legal accountability for
>> the
>> judgments made by those with this access. So I found it very interesting
>> when I
>> stumbled across evidence of public discussion of the need to record the
>> identities of trusted users in order to be able to deal with any abuse of
>> private information by one of the Community-seat Board Members before the
>> adoption of the resolution that has become controversial so recently.  I
>> don't
>> mean to suggest that the surprise and shock were insincere, just that they
>> seem
>> to be rather uninformed a

Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 2/25/2011 9:56:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
smole...@eunet.rs writes:


> To my knowledge, no one has ever tried it, but why not? In reality, some 
> people don't do what they know to do, but choose to become teachers. Maybe 
> 
> there are people who know how to edit Wikipedia and would want to teach 
> new 
> users rather than actually edit.
> 
> 

Well if you mean Wikipedians, yes there was a Welcoming committee at one 
time which died due to lack of participation.  It was maybe five years ago or 
something.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 2/25/2011 3:12:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
jay...@gmail.com writes:


> At the moment, we need admins who press buttons more than we need to
> welcome new users.  It is unfortunate, but that is how it is.
> We need to find ways of reducing the amount of work needed, or
> radically increase the number of admins. >>
> 

I have to respectfully disagree with John.

IMHO we need a more welcoming environment to new editors.

The idea that the vast majority of new contributors contribute nonsense, or 
vandalize is in my opinion, not a well-founded claim.

I would agree with a statement like the vast majority of new contributors 
don't really understand the now-Byzantine rule system in place, which is a 
completely different situation.

I also agree that our templates make the I.R.S. appear friendly, and that 
our user outreach is close to non-existent.
Whatever happened to the "Please Come Back" campaign which was seemingly 
moribund before even getting launched ?

It's fine to say nothing's wrong as the Titanic sinks, but it's still 
sinking.

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