Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review
On Thursday, September 8, 2011, Geoff Brigham wrote: What we would like to do is to invite you to read the draft, reflect on it, and leave your comments and feedback on the discussion page. We plan to leave this version up for at least 30 days; indeed, a 30-day comment period for changes is built into the new draft. Okay... Prohibited activities include: Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights; Copyright I can understand. Nobody wants copyvios. But there are plenty of examples where we might infringe on patents. Given that the doubly-linked list is the subject of a (possibly unenforceable) software patent in the United States, the very act of writing a Wikipedia article about or Wikibooks chapter on programming a linked list may count as infringing the software patent. The paragraph before doesn't make it clear to me whether these are forbidden by the terms of use, forbidden by the rules of the projects or forbidden by law. The tone of the paragraph is kind of strange: it's already illegal for me to DDoS Wikipedia because of the UK's Computer Misuse Act etc. Skim-reading the list may lead the reader to think this adds no new rules to bide by beyond those imposed by the law of their country and the United States. It'd be helpful if that could be clarified. I'm sure when I'm not tired and on the last train home, I'll find some other things to nitpick. ;-) -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
On Thursday, September 8, 2011, Kim Bruning wrote: That said, even a self controlled filter can be problematic qua bias (especially if you're not sure entirely how to control it) [1] [1] http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ted-talk I'm not sure what I think about the image filter, but that's a pretty ropey comparison: With the proposed image filter, the knowledge that a filter is in place would be quite obvious: there'd be a big gray box with Image Removed or something. And if you want to see them, you are only a click away from loading them. And how is bias being introduced into my views by being able to go to [[Cock ring]] and not seeing a picture of a penis? I fail to see how being able to opt-out of saucy sex pics actually moves us in any significant way closer to a world where we live in filter bubbles. The main problem stated by Eli Pariser is that the filter bubbles are created without consent or knowledge of the user - his example is of political conservatives whose posts disappeared from his Facebook stream and the same Google searches leading to different results for different people. The proposed image filter wouldn't have those problems: it's just when you go to a page which has, say, sexual content, you'd know exactly what had been left out. Again, I'm not sure whether I support the image filter, but it's a rubbish argument to say that it creates filter bubble-type scenarios. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 03:17, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 8 September 2011 17:28, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with harassment, since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job. That's really good news for stewards! The purpose of the new TOS is to support the community, not to take over its work. Geoff and members of the Community department have been speaking recently with community members who are concerned about harassment on the wikis, about what kinds of actions we might collectively take to help prevent it. Making it clear that harassment is against the rules seems like an obvious step, and indeed I've seen research that suggests an inverse relationship between sites that have a TOS that prohibits harassment, and incidents of harassment on those sites. [1] Explicitly and publicly forbidding harassment on the wikis is a pretty basic and straightforward thing to do. Sue, someone has to investigate and decide about harassment. Stewards are able to block, but don't judge; especially in the cases where it would be probably needed to analyze personal emails. With or without that ToS, any sane ArbCom would block persons who harass others. But, we don't have a body which is able to do that globally. The first step is to get that body, then to make some things explicit. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Dedicate something to the public domain in the honor of Michael S. Hart!
His en.wiki article is pretty lackluster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Hart and the other language versions don't look any better. Roy Tennant wrote: The best way to honor Hart’s life, I think, is to dedicate one or more works to the public domain. http://blog.libraryjournal.com/tennantdigitallibraries/2011/09/08/to-honor-project-gutenbergs-founder-dedicate-something-to-the-public-domain/ He has done so and I have choosen 40+ photos from Eutin Castle e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eutin_2011_04.jpg Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia
On 8 September 2011 21:43, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: A more plausible option is to make WMF more conspicuous. Right now it's almost unknown that WP is part of a wider project. Wikipedia | Wikiquote | Wikispecies | ... An educational website of the Wikimedia Foundation That is almost exactly what Fajro suggested in December 2010, with pretty mockups, and mentioned again in this thread. http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249381685 Fajro, I like it. Yeah, moving the Wikimedia badge up under the logo strikes me as a simple and obvious good idea too. What would we need for this to happen? Who decides changes to Vector? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] editor survey report
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Mani, A question: when you say that ***Wikimedia chapters got the least favorable ratings (6.15) ... In addition, knowledge and involvement with chapters is low. 46% of respondents said that they didn’t know if there was a chapter in their country* Are you counting everyone? People from places with Chapters and without chapters? Because that would be a bit strange if someone answer that they know there is a chapter in a country that does not have one. There are any results filtered by places with chapter only? Rate, knowlegle and involvement in chapter from places where there are actually a chapter? Hi Mani Its been more than a week. Do you mind answering any of these questions above? I know people who are wondering about the same things in regard to the chapters and the survey. Thanks Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 13:44, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: On 9/7/11 9:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: I think that damage produced by thiswhatever should be localized. The target is English Wikipedia, Board is not especially interested in other Wikipedia editions and other projects in English; which means that it should be localized on English Wikipedia. Milos, you are way out of line here. The board is not especially interested in English Wikipedia, and indeed, very little of our discussion of this feature has any particular relevance to English Wikipedia. Your ongoing campaign about this would be much more powerful if it acknowledged the actual facts rather than making up slurs against good people. - This has nothing in particular to do with English Wikipedia, any more than it has to do with all languages - This has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States - This has nothing whatsoever to do with Jimmy's rich friends If you don't like the feature, then don't use it. So, you want to implement on German Wikipedia despite the fact that 84% of editors rejected it? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
2011/9/9 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com: If you don't like the feature, then don't use it. Every single proposal I've seen on this feature from the staff assumed that the filter will be enabled by default and could (perhaps) be disabled. Did I miss something? Strainu ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
2011/9/9 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com: If you don't like the feature, then don't use it. Every single proposal I've seen on this feature from the staff assumed that the filter will be enabled by default and could (perhaps) be disabled. Did I miss something? Could just be misreading; I see that as saying so the feature will be there to use, but if you don't like it don't use it. Nothing implying enabled by default... Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:54:46PM +1000, Andrew Garrett wrote: This is the point of the image filter. There are images that, notwithstanding their being educational and high quality, I don't necessarily want to see without warning. Even if I'm looking up 'vagina' for whatever reason. Are there any issues with the current article, then? sincerely, Kim Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
On 9 September 2011 13:31, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/9/9 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com: If you don't like the feature, then don't use it. Every single proposal I've seen on this feature from the staff assumed that the filter will be enabled by default and could (perhaps) be disabled. Did I miss something? My understanding is that the filter *software* will be enabled for all wikis. The default *setting* for that software will be to display all images, and then any individual user can choose their own settings apart from that default. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/FAQ/en All Wikimedia content loads on all user browsers by default. The feature is activated only after all content has been loaded, and then only when specifically requested by a user. (A comparison: user email is enabled on all wikis. But users have to individually turn it on for it to work.) -- - 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
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 09:24:36AM +0100, Tom Morris wrote: On Thursday, September 8, 2011, Kim Bruning wrote: That said, even a self controlled filter can be problematic qua bias (especially if you're not sure entirely how to control it) [1] [1] http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ted-talk I'm not sure what I think about the image filter, but that's a pretty ropey comparison: With the proposed image filter, the knowledge that a filter is in place would be quite obvious: there'd be a big gray box with Image Removed or something. And if you want to see them, you are only a click away from loading them. This is true With the proposed image filter and only with the proposed image filter -provided that the entire connection between you and the wiki is transparent- (Which it need not be.) If there are filters in between, it need not be true today. If your browser is not under your control, it need not be true today. That's today. A little while after the filter is introduced, we will have 2 sets of effects, political and technical. * Politically, people will see wikipedia as endorsing filters (it seems quite unlikely that they will take note of the subtle properties of our filter that make it tolerable to us) so more filters will come into circulation, increasing the chance that there is a filter not-under-your-control between you and the wiki. This will change the way the filter works. * Technically, a new set of categories is created, or categories will be pressed into the new role. These categories are invaluable to filter makers. This means again there will be more filters (as above), but also that the little grey box will not be there to remind you that something is missing. After that, we get back to the side effects of regular (non-wikipedia kind) filters. This information is well documented all over the net. You'll discover that not just images, but also the pages those images are on will not be reachable. We've been told on this list that this already happens to some people today. It seems pretty obvious that the effect will be much multiplied once the categories are available to third parties. And how is bias being introduced into my views by being able to go to [[Cock ring]] and not seeing a picture of a penis? I fail to see how being able to opt-out of saucy sex pics actually moves us in any significant way closer to a world where we live in filter bubbles. I just provided you with 2 steps in that direction, pretty much the first moves on the blue-team and red-team sides. On or around move 2 (6-12 months) we can start seeing people either deliberately or accidentally start filtering things that are nothing to do with sex or drugs at all, up to and including censoring of civic information. This has happened with filters in the past. I don't yet see why our filters wouldn't follow the same playbook. So far, there is nothing to differentiate our history from existing history. But ours will be different is not an argument. ;-) Again, I'm not sure whether I support the image filter, but it's a rubbish argument to say that it creates filter bubble-type scenarios. Seriously? That's pretty definitive. [citation needed] Show me a filter scenario where it *hasn't* happened! sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
On 9 September 2011 12:54, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: After that, we get back to the side effects of regular (non-wikipedia kind) filters. This information is well documented all over the net. You'll discover that not just images, but also the pages those images are on will not be reachable. We've been told on this list that this already happens to some people today. It seems pretty obvious that the effect will be much multiplied once the categories are available to third parties. Note that this is what the Internet Watch Foundation does to block images. (Thus, they blocked Wikipedia article text, but not the image itself, which was on a different server.) Censors tend not to worry about collateral damage. Is the WMF claiming the filter will be free of side-effects? [ ] yes [ ] no If yes, then how so? If no, then just don't use the feature is a nonsense. And how is bias being introduced into my views by being able to go to [[Cock ring]] and not seeing a picture of a penis? I fail to see how being able to opt-out of saucy sex pics actually moves us in any significant way closer to a world where we live in filter bubbles. I just provided you with 2 steps in that direction, pretty much the first moves on the blue-team and red-team sides. On or around move 2 (6-12 months) we can start seeing people either deliberately or accidentally start filtering things that are nothing to do with sex or drugs at all, up to and including censoring of civic information. This has happened with filters in the past. I don't yet see why our filters wouldn't follow the same playbook. So far, there is nothing to differentiate our history from existing history. But ours will be different is not an argument. ;-) Indeed. Substantive answers to these points would be welcomed. From the board, since they've determined the filter is happening. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
2011/9/9 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com: If you don't like the feature, then don't use it. You talk like the filter existence is fait accompli, a matter already decided, and there is nothing people can do about it. The referendum also gave this impression, by asking things about its details and overall importance, but not asking if it should be implemented (like normal referenda). Do I understand it right? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia
On 9/8/2011 9:27 AM, Nathan wrote: Echoing Orionist; I agree that the analysis is interesting and often spot-on (if brief), particularly with respect to how little marketing of the notion of Wikipedia/Wikimedia we do outside of the fundraiser. They lost me with the logos, though. The differences between the project logos don't indicate anything to the viewer; they are almost random variations of the shape W, and no one who hasn't read the logo pitch will understand what is meant to be conveyed. The puzzle globe logo is widely recognizable, and there's no clear benefit in abandoning it for something else. In the world of branding and advertising, when tackling a rebranding project the need for a new logo is basically assumed at the outset. Wikimedia's branding issues are an instance where that conventional wisdom ought to be challenged. Logo redesign is also a tempting target because the transition is a simple swap, and the agency can easily point to and explain their work product. The storytelling side of the project requires deeper engagement because it has to be thoroughly integrated in the organization to have value. That makes it more work for the branding agency, while simultaneously being less able to claim what their contribution was. It may make more sense to develop that capacity internally, which is one thing the foundation has been trying to do as it expands its staff. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review
I'd rather have harassment dealt with first by each community's AN/I boards and ArbCom if necessary, and then the Global Requests Committee or whatever it ends up being called. I don't think neither stewards nor the WMF are in the proper position to make arbitrary calls over user conduct. Stewards are meant to be for black and white cases. Personally, I support the introduction of a global ban policy allowing both for Committee and community bans. ~K On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: With or without that ToS, any sane ArbCom would block persons who harass others. But, we don't have a body which is able to do that globally. The first step is to get that body, then to make some things explicit. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
On 9 September 2011 12:44, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: If you don't like the feature, then don't use it. In the unhappy event that this filter is enabled, will it be possible/allowed for a community to make its use mandatory and to punish readers who turn it off? Sir48/Thyge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
No. Same as you can't tell most preferences a user has set, or which articles they watch. In simple terms, the filter code only filters content when user prefs say so, and other users can't tell what filter prefs a user has or what code is executed client-side (ie in their browser not at the server) without actual access to their computer. FT2 On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:09 PM, dex2...@pc.dk wrote: In the unhappy event that this filter is enabled, will it be possible/allowed for a community to make its use mandatory and to punish readers who turn it off? Sir48/Thyge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
Wouldn't the filter use the preferences system for registered users? In that case, the preferences are stored in the database. ~K On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: No. Same as you can't tell most preferences a user has set, or which articles they watch. In simple terms, the filter code only filters content when user prefs say so, and other users can't tell what filter prefs a user has or what code is executed client-side (ie in their browser not at the server) without actual access to their computer. FT2 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
2011/9/9 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: No. Same as you can't tell most preferences a user has set, or which articles they watch. In simple terms, the filter code only filters content when user prefs say so, and other users can't tell what filter prefs a user has or what code is executed client-side (ie in their browser not at the server) without actual access to their computer. FT2 That is not entirely true. It is theoretically feasible to get the categories from the api and then call the code that hides the images for the images that match a category. How practical it is remains to be seen. Strainu ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] EU Consultation on Open Access (deadline coming soon)
The Wikimedia response has been submitted, based on http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy/EU_Consultation_on_scientific_information_in_the_digital_ageoldid=2888771 . Thanks to all who helped on the way. Daniel On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com wrote: While the EC may weigh non-EU responses differently, being in the EU or having EU citizenship is technically not required - any individual, organization or institution can submit a response. Daniel On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:50:13PM -0500, Keegan Peterzell wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: You can fill it in as a citizen, (which I did) Who, me? Haha, yes, you too, provided you're in an EU country. :-) Sincerely, Kim Bruning -- I question the question of questioning all questions. ___ 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] EU Consultation on Open Access (deadline coming soon)
Hi, just to be clear: was this submitted /on behalf/ of the wmf? or as a community effort? lodewijk Am 9. September 2011 22:44 schrieb Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com: The Wikimedia response has been submitted, based on http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy/EU_Consultation_on_scientific_information_in_the_digital_ageoldid=2888771 . Thanks to all who helped on the way. Daniel On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com wrote: While the EC may weigh non-EU responses differently, being in the EU or having EU citizenship is technically not required - any individual, organization or institution can submit a response. Daniel On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:50:13PM -0500, Keegan Peterzell wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: You can fill it in as a citizen, (which I did) Who, me? Haha, yes, you too, provided you're in an EU country. :-) Sincerely, Kim Bruning -- I question the question of questioning all questions. ___ 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] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
Jimmy Wales wrote: On 9/7/11 9:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: I think that damage produced by thiswhatever should be localized. The target is English Wikipedia, Board is not especially interested in other Wikipedia editions and other projects in English; which means that it should be localized on English Wikipedia. Milos, you are way out of line here. The board is not especially interested in English Wikipedia, and indeed, very little of our discussion of this feature has any particular relevance to English Wikipedia. It's not out of line to suggest that Wikimedia is especially interested in the English Wikipedia. It's _indisputable_ at the Wikimedia Foundation level. Whether it's as true at the Wikimedia Board level is a bit more arguable, though there's a good deal of evidence to suggest that it's equally true there. A cursory look at the Wikimedia Board resolutions is pretty damning. When the Wikimedia Foundation places the English Wikipedia on a pedestal and treats all other wiki projects/families as peripheral, it's not at all unexpected that occasionally people will vent frustration at this. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Personal image filter: leave it to third parties
If someone wants to make Conservative Wikipedia or Kid-Friendly Wikipedia or Tiananmen Square-Free Wikipedia, they're free to. They can even sell it. Contributors made that deal long ago with the open license of the sites. Wikimedia's goal is to provide free educational content to the world. The world is then free to make its own filters (personal bubbles) or even impose them on others (in the workplace, at school, at public libraries), but not with Wikimedia's help or harm. Wikimedia should remain neutral in the matter. The content is available and it is possible to fork and/or filter with technology today. (And, in fact, some places undoubtedly already filter particular Wikipedia titles, ineffective as some of these approaches surely are.) Leave the issue to third parties / a free market. If there's really demand for School-Friendly Wikipedia, someone will make it. But it's not Wikimedia's place to say who should and shouldn't have access to the sum of all human knowledge and what particular pieces of it constitute (graphic violence, pornography, etc.). MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Informing chapters about closing/opening wikis (+ useful list)
An idea that I raised during a discussion between the language committee and Wikimedia South Africa was to inform chapters when a request for closing a wiki is made for a language that is spoken in a country which has a Wikimedia chapter. For this I made a list on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_per_Wikimedia_language -- it took me some time but I think it is well worth it. So when proposing a wiki for closure, you should inform the main chapter listed there so they have a chance to find interested people who can contribute to the respective project. The list can also be useful when opening projects. If wanted, I or formally the language committee could also directly inform chapters when a wiki is opened in a language spoken in one or more countries covered by chapters. Regards, SPQRobin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
On 9/9/2011 3:37 PM, MZMcBride wrote: It's not out of line to suggest that Wikimedia is especially interested in the English Wikipedia. It's _indisputable_ at the Wikimedia Foundation level. Whether it's as true at the Wikimedia Board level is a bit more arguable, though there's a good deal of evidence to suggest that it's equally true there. A cursory look at the Wikimedia Board resolutions is pretty damning. The resolutions are more a reflection of what issues the board is able to reach a consensus on, as opposed to what it is interested in. From my experience, there was a fair bit of discussion about various concerns involving, say, Wikinews or Wikiversity, but we had difficulty agreeing on what the solutions were, and sometimes whether interventions were necessary or even what the problems were. I don't mean to suggest that the board lacks the ability to deal with other issues and focuses on Wikipedia as a result - I think it reflects the uncertain position of the community generally, which hasn't coalesced much around any particular answer to those questions. I do hope the board continues working on some of those issues. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 00:59, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: The resolutions are more a reflection of what issues the board is able to reach a consensus on, as opposed to what it is interested in. From my experience, there was a fair bit of discussion about various concerns involving, say, Wikinews or Wikiversity, but we had difficulty agreeing on what the solutions were, and sometimes whether interventions were necessary or even what the problems were. I don't mean to suggest that the board lacks the ability to deal with other issues and focuses on Wikipedia as a result - I think it reflects the uncertain position of the community generally, which hasn't coalesced much around any particular answer to those questions. I do hope the board continues working on some of those issues. Board is filled with a bunch of amateurs (not derogatory meaning!) -- including yourself in the past and hypothetically including myself if I passed last election -- which position is the product of political will (community, chapters, Board will itself). Any sane body -- which is aware that it is there because of political will and not because of their expertise (no, Stu and Jan-Bart are not in the Board as experts when they act as apologists of Jimmy's deletion of artworks on Commons [1][2]) -- knows that it should delegate responsibilities to those who know the matter better. However, Wikimedia Foundation Board acts dilettantish whenever one of the Board member (or a friend of that Board member) has strong position toward some issue. For example, Wikipedia in Tunisian Arabic has been rejected by the Board, although relevant international institutions (and reality, as well) recognize it as a separate language [3]. Just after long discussion (in short period of time) between two Board members and Language committee, it was threw under the carpet as waiting [4] with the excuse to wait for non-existent initiative to create North African Arabic Wikipedia (it was my initiative at the end, just to end with grotesque Board's dilettantism, by claiming that their members are better introduced in linguistic diversity than relevant international bodies and Language committee as well; which I see as humiliating for the Board, but Board members don't think so). I didn't want to open this issue; but the flow of discussion -- claiming that Board *really* knows what it is doing -- forced me to give it as an example. While I am sure that at least Arne cares about German Wikipedia and Bishakha cares about Hindi Wikipedia -- collectively, Board reacts just if someone points to their POV related to English Wikipedia. Everything else, including Serbian Wikipedia in 2005 and including Kazakh Wikipedia in 2011, are just safari-like care about interesting and strange species. Yes, Board cares when some project dares to question Jimmy's authority, like when Wikinews did it well and Wikiversity badly. If the Board members would be more honest in their intentions, not to hide behind demagogy of multiculturalism when it means pushing POV by right-wing US and similar phrases with similar opposite meanings, we could start to have real discussion. Not to mention that it is obvious that some of the motivations of some of the Board members are not even politically motivated, but very personally (and very has the meaning inside of the phrase). [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058026.html [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057795.html [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWikipedia_Tunisianaction=historysubmitdiff=2744156oldid=2741178 [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWikipedia_Tunisianaction=historysubmitdiff=2748151oldid=2744156 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
MZMcBride wrote: Jimmy Wales wrote: On 9/7/11 9:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: I think that damage produced by thiswhatever should be localized. The target is English Wikipedia, Board is not especially interested in other Wikipedia editions and other projects in English; which means that it should be localized on English Wikipedia. Milos, you are way out of line here. The board is not especially interested in English Wikipedia, and indeed, very little of our discussion of this feature has any particular relevance to English Wikipedia. It's not out of line to suggest that Wikimedia is especially interested in the English Wikipedia. It's _indisputable_ at the Wikimedia Foundation level. Whether it's as true at the Wikimedia Board level is a bit more arguable, though there's a good deal of evidence to suggest that it's equally true there. A cursory look at the Wikimedia Board resolutions is pretty damning. When the Wikimedia Foundation places the English Wikipedia on a pedestal and treats all other wiki projects/families as peripheral, it's not at all unexpected that occasionally people will vent frustration at this. MZMcBride I think it's more the case that Wikipedia is the most prominent project within the WM umbrella, and therefore, it attracts commensurate attention. Whereas I have only slight experience of other language WPs than en:wp, my take is that when local problems arise, the natural focus for complaint seems to be Jimbo's en:wp Talk page rather than a Meta page. en:wp editors quite rightly have directed those complaints to more appropriate venues. Whether this is due to local wp problems, I cannot tell. Whether en:wp should be regarded as a paragon of virtue w.r.t. WM seems to me to be extremely moot; being the most trafficked project within the WM umbrella, it clearly is going to be the cockpit for some disputes, perhaps more those based on policy rather than content, and it is, like any sub-project, self-governing, and the Foundation does not step in, in either an advisory, administrative, admonitory, or judicial capacity, and perhaps nor should it. It would be wonderful if en:wp could be *the* model of behaviour, structure, review, and how to write an online encyclopedia, but, sadly, it ain't. I'd amplify, but I'm tired; of more or less everything. I didn't come here to fight for the obvious, because it should be simply that: obvious. I'm glad in a way, that I am banned from Wikipedia, because it no longer stresses me as it did- unfortunately for the world, I can no longer add to the sum total of human knowledge, as Jimmy so optimistically offered. I keep a list of articles suitable for en:wp, but missing; but it doesn't shrink in the current circumstances. What a waste of an opportunity! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal image filter: leave it to third parties
MZMcBride wrote: If someone wants to make Conservative Wikipedia or Kid-Friendly Wikipedia or Tiananmen Square-Free Wikipedia, they're free to. They can even sell it. Contributors made that deal long ago with the open license of the sites. Wikimedia's goal is to provide free educational content to the world. The world is then free to make its own filters (personal bubbles) or even impose them on others (in the workplace, at school, at public libraries), but not with Wikimedia's help or harm. Wikimedia should remain neutral in the matter. The content is available and it is possible to fork and/or filter with technology today. (And, in fact, some places undoubtedly already filter particular Wikipedia titles, ineffective as some of these approaches surely are.) Leave the issue to third parties / a free market. If there's really demand for School-Friendly Wikipedia, someone will make it. But it's not Wikimedia's place to say who should and shouldn't have access to the sum of all human knowledge and what particular pieces of it constitute (graphic violence, pornography, etc.). MZMcBride Don't [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Simple] and [http://schools-wikipedia.org/ Schools Wikipedia] fulfil that goal? Perhaps I've missed the point you are making, but also, perhaps, WMF should make it clear that alternatives exist, and this is not a case of censorship, rather than targetting an approriate readership. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of UseforReview
Sue Gardner wrote: On 8 September 2011 19:01, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust debate, although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines. Oh yikes, Phil, please don't misunderstand me! The conversations we were having were about one or two people who have been repeatedly harassing large numbers of Wikimedians for years. I am not talking about editors who engage in discussions and get a bit rude; I am talking about people who are probably seriously mentally ill. This is not a backdoor attempt to enforce kindness. We're just trying to support and protect editors against really very egregious behaviour. Thanks, Sue Maybe I have missed the point, but my lawyer's/Wikimedian's mind tells me that hiking the TOS's is not going to have a major effect, and the effort into changing the TOS is arguably outweighed by the effort expended by those who care not for subscribing to those terms. I think I've been around for long enough to know that not only are WM projects vulnerable to those with an agenda, who care not for blocks or bans, whether local or global; these people are committed to some agenda that is prepared to reject any idea of community, and proceed with that agenda as long, and as much as they can. I think we know of whom we are talking here. But changing, and toughening up the TOS is sending the right message to the wrong people. Any technically savvy journalist is going to realise the weakness in doing that, and any committed troll/vandal/disrupter is going to be able to subvert any technical measures, if only by moving his/her laptop into a new WiFi Area and crating a new account. As a principle, global blocking is OK; in practice, it's a non-starter, and changing the TOS is not going to change that unless the Foundation is going to institute legal proceedings in extreme cases, which it has never done, and brings into doubt its s.530 status. I'm aware of more than one case in which this could have been done, but hasn't. unless and until there is a real move to do that, merely changing the wording, even globally, is nothing more than a gesture. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personal image filter: leave it to third parties
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: MZMcBride wrote: If someone wants to make Conservative Wikipedia or Kid-Friendly Wikipedia or Tiananmen Square-Free Wikipedia, they're free to. They can even sell it. Contributors made that deal long ago with the open license of the sites. Wikimedia's goal is to provide free educational content to the world. The world is then free to make its own filters (personal bubbles) or even impose them on others (in the workplace, at school, at public libraries), but not with Wikimedia's help or harm. Wikimedia should remain neutral in the matter. The content is available and it is possible to fork and/or filter with technology today. (And, in fact, some places undoubtedly already filter particular Wikipedia titles, ineffective as some of these approaches surely are.) Leave the issue to third parties / a free market. If there's really demand for School-Friendly Wikipedia, someone will make it. But it's not Wikimedia's place to say who should and shouldn't have access to the sum of all human knowledge and what particular pieces of it constitute (graphic violence, pornography, etc.). MZMcBride Don't [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Simple] and [http://schools-wikipedia.org/ Schools Wikipedia] fulfil that goal? Perhaps I've missed the point you are making, but also, perhaps, WMF should make it clear that alternatives exist, and this is not a case of censorship, rather than targetting an approriate readership. They are different, simple wiki is a different content project and schools-wikipedia is a sanitized, hand-picked, individually collected version from past dumps for schools, as in a not up-to-date version (2008/9). MZ is referring to bubbles- certain governments, corporations, schools etc. can make to protect their own standards and effectively live in bubbles themselves, without any involvement from Wikimedia. I absolutely agree that Wikimedia should remain neutral in this matter. The sum of all human knowledge can not and should not, be sanitized or censored for anyone. If there is a clear need for it, someone will fill it until then it is our responsibility to remain completely open, unbiased and neutral. Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: A more plausible option is to make WMF more conspicuous. Right now it's almost unknown that WP is part of a wider project. Wikipedia | Wikiquote | Wikispecies | ... An educational website of the Wikimedia Foundation That is almost exactly what Fajro suggested in December 2010, with pretty mockups, and mentioned again in this thread. http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249381685 Fajro, I like it. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I agree. The thing that can be done by something as simple as this is tie the Wikimedia brand to the Wikipedia product. I'm not comfortable with them describing Wikipedia as a brand, since a brand is an envelope. The evolution of the brand hasn't developed, though I suppose that's the point of this, isn't it? But I'm not sure how we can develop Wikipedia as a brand, since sister projects are separate. Let's take... Nestlé® Toll House Cookies®[1] as an example in branding by evolution. Toll house cookies were a synonymous name with a certain cookie produced in out location. Popularity pushed the product to be purchased eventually by Nestlé, who then began marketing the cookies. Still a product. However, they began selling just the chocolate chips. At this point, a brand is created. The brand expands with labeling additional products with Toll House and the name is now a symbol for the original product, the cookie. People trust the brand because they know the products. Wikipedia doesn't have this. The sister projects are not minor projects of Wikipedia, they are all part of Wikimedia with equal potential for stature. Wikimedia is the brand, Wikimedia is the Brought to you by... as mentioned. But the brand is woefully established, if it's established at all. Something well worth pondering, and if staffing permits, the WMF should look into researching. As often mentioned from our non-English Wikipedians, they get the perception from the greater community, the Foundation, and the Board that their projects are perceived as less worth because they don't generate the donations and/or press. Introducing a way to make Wikimedia not at the side and bottom of the pages helps, I think. I'm certain that well paid advertising executives probably shouldn't waste so much time on an interactive logo to attract new users since we attract new web traffic every day no matter the logo. Plus the Wikipedia logo is well established. If it ain't broke... -- ~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] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: A more plausible option is to make WMF more conspicuous. Right now it's almost unknown that WP is part of a wider project. Wikipedia | Wikiquote | Wikispecies | ... An educational website of the Wikimedia Foundation That is almost exactly what Fajro suggested in December 2010, with pretty mockups, and mentioned again in this thread. http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249381685 Fajro, I like it. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I agree. The thing that can be done by something as simple as this is tie the Wikimedia brand to the Wikipedia product. I'm not comfortable with them describing Wikipedia as a brand, since a brand is an envelope. The evolution of the brand hasn't developed, though I suppose that's the point of this, isn't it? But I'm not sure how we can develop Wikipedia as a brand, since sister projects are separate. Let's take... Nestlé® Toll House Cookies®[1] as an example in branding by evolution. Toll house cookies were a synonymous name with a certain cookie produced in out location. Popularity pushed the product to be purchased eventually by Nestlé, who then began marketing the cookies. Still a product. However, they began selling just the chocolate chips. At this point, a brand is created. The brand expands with labeling additional products with Toll House and the name is now a symbol for the original product, the cookie. People trust the brand because they know the products. Wikipedia doesn't have this. The sister projects are not minor projects of Wikipedia, they are all part of Wikimedia with equal potential for stature. Wikimedia is the brand, Wikimedia is the Brought to you by... as mentioned. But the brand is woefully established, if it's established at all. Something well worth pondering, and if staffing permits, the WMF should look into researching. As often mentioned from our non-English Wikipedians, they get the perception from the greater community, the Foundation, and the Board that their projects are perceived as less worth because they don't generate the donations and/or press. Introducing a way to make Wikimedia not at the side and bottom of the pages helps, I think. I'm certain that well paid advertising executives probably shouldn't waste so much time on an interactive logo to attract new users since we attract new web traffic every day no matter the logo. Plus the Wikipedia logo is well established. If it ain't broke... -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_House_cookies -- ~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] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia
I also enjoy the photo with the guy pointing at the storyboard, and under awarness it has the point put a face. -- ~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
