[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Chapters Committee Call for Candidates

[Bence Damokos]

Dear all,

The Chapters Committee[1], the committee that is mainly responsible
for the preparation of approval of new chapters is looking for five
new members, and we are looking for candidates.

The main focus of Chapcom is to guide groups of volunteers in forming
chapters. We make sure that the group is large enough (and advise them
on how to get bigger), review their bylaws for compliance with the
requirements for chapters and advise the Board of the Wikimedia
Foundation on chapter approvals.

This requires communication with chapter candidates all over the
World, negotiating skills and cultural sensitivity and the ability to
understand legal texts.

Key skills/experience that we are looking for in new members are typically:
   * willingness to work in a sometimes bureaucratic process
(reviewing bylaws can be somewhat boring)
   * 1-2 hours per week availability
   * international orientation
   * good communication skills in English
   * ability to work and communicate with other cultures
   * a strong understanding of the structure and work of both chapters
and the WMF
   * experience with or in an active chapter
   * an active position in a chapter is a plus
   * communication skills in other major world languages are a plus

The number of chapter applications is increasing and help is wanted!
You can send your applications with your name, contact data,
experience and motivation to the ChapCom email address,
chaptercommitte...@lists.wikimedia.org by February 15. The
applications will be considered by the current members.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me
privately. I am also happy to chat with anyone about our work, if this
helps them decide to apply.

Please distribute this call widely among your networks, and do apply
if you are interested.


Best regards,
Bence Damokos
chair,
Chapters Committee

[1]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its 
projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Resolution:Developing Scenarios for future of fundraising

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:

>
> Following consultation with the Wikimedia community on meta, the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is now releasing the guiding
> principles below, which are intended to govern Wikimedia fundraising and
> funds dissemination practices.
>
> We now ask the Executive Director to develop for the Board a
> recommendation for fundraising and funds dissemination practices that
> will align as well as possible with the guiding principles while
> consulting appropriately with stakeholders and interested parties. The
> Board asks that the recommendation be ready to be shared with the Board
> for discussion at the February 2012 Board meeting.
>
>  Guidelines for Fundraising Scenarios 
>
> * Consistency with mission, vision and values. All Wikimedia fundraising
> activities must be conducted in a manner that's consistent with our
> overall mission, vision and values. They must not create unnecessary
> legal exposure for the projects, or otherwise unduly interfere with our
> ability to achieve our mission.

The only problem I have with this is that it is put directly under the
heading starting with the word "Guidelines". I don't think it is one.
I think it should be hammered in stone.
.
> * Transparency: All Wikimedia fundraising activities must be truthful
> with prospective donors. We need to tell people what we intend to use
> their money for, before they donate. And we need to report in a timely
> fashion on how it was actually spent.

This is a very new and novel concept. I don't know of any charity which
does this in the history of mankind. I would be very interested to hear
the reasoning behind it. There have been special cases where such
prior earmarking of funds has been promised, but the experience has
infact produced the worst charity-funding disasters of all-time (I can
give you chapter and verse, but this is going to be long enough as it,
ask me in private E-Mail, perhaps.)

All we really need to convince them of is that we are working for a good
cause and have a record of doing so. And actually work at keeping it
that way. Partially through showing we are working towards the genuine
mission and not being able to be bought off by temporary considerations.

> * Internationalism: Our movement is international in scope, and our
> fundraising practices must support the easiest possible transfer of
> money internationally in support of the movement's priorities.

Um, do you mean out from the direct foundation control, or towards
the direct control of the foundation?

>
>  Guidelines for Funds Distribution Scenarios 
>
> * Protect the core: Core activities that ensure the continuity of the
> projects need to be funded first.

I think If I had to pick one bit of this statement, I think this is the one
I am in the strongest agreement with. (Do not fall into the trap of
thinking I don't agree, or disagree with something just because I
do not comment on it. I comment when I can add something to the
conversation. Or at least I hope I do.)

> * Responsibility and accountability: Funds must be distributed in ways
> that enable the Wikimedia movement to confidently assure donors that
> their donations will be safeguarded appropriately, and that spending
> will be in line with our mission and with the messages used to attract
> donors.

Okay. I will ask the question. (And no, don't have an answer; just
think it is a legitimate question.) What if messages used to attract
donors and
spending being in line with our mission are in conflict? Which comes up
trumps? And if it is our mission that comes up trumps should we
confidently tell the donors that is the way it is going to be for
ever, and that our view of our mission is going to define what is
appropriate, not theirs. Or is there some other way to speak to them
"confidently"?


-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[Kirill Lokshin]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Theo10011  wrote:

> Would this bleed over to Wikimania? That is the largest conference WMF
> organizes.


Strictly speaking, Wikimania is organized by a local organizing team/entity
(which, in recent years, has always been a chapter) rather than by the WMF,
so the Foundation's event policies wouldn't necessarily apply unless they
were put into place by the local entity as well.

As far as I'm aware, the Foundation hasn't (yet?) asked Wikimedia DC to put
this particular policy into effect for Wikimania 2012.

Cheers,
Kirill

--
Kirill Lokshin
Secretary | Wikimedia District of Columbia
http://wikimediadc.org | @wikimediadc
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Policies on wikimediafoundation.org

[MZMcBride]

phoebe ayers wrote:
> It would be, though I'm not sure that's the most useful division --
> I'd imagine what most people want to know is what policies apply to
> all of the global projects vs what policies apply to just the WMF vs
> what policies might apply to the WMF & other wikimedia entities
> (chapters and groups). It is difficult to figure out what the global
> project policies are, and that is a question that comes up pretty
> regularly.

A "Scope" section on every policy would be nice. Or even a scope column next
to the list of policies...

All kinds of different policies. Board --> staff; Board --> everyone; staff
--> staff; staff --> everyone(!).

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Policies on wikimediafoundation.org

[MZMcBride]

Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild)
>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 19:38, Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>> I think it makes sense to better delineate what applies to different
>>> groups.
>> 
>> Agreed. A good starting point is the navigation template for
>> Board-approved policies, which distinguishes between global policies
>> (like the licensing policy) and staff policies (like the credit card
>> usage policy): https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:Policy-board
> 
> Yes.  I just split the policy template into -board and -staff to
> suggest which group is effectively maintaining that policy.  Some
> staff policies started life via a Board resolution when the staff was
> small, but should now be maintanied by staff.
> 
> We might want a -draft template as well for policies in development.

Thanks for this. I saw your edits. Overall pretty good. :-)

Using your tagging, it might be easier to clarify
.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[Theo10011]

Actually, what is WMF technical events specifically? It would be helpful to
mention what those are.

Would this bleed over to Wikimania? That is the largest conference WMF
organizes. It is a bit unclear about the scope. It states that it applies
to "Foundation-organized activities" and then "Wikimedia Foundation
technical events". I assume Foundation-organized activities have a much
larger scope than technical events like Hackathons.

Regards
Theo

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Gregory Varnum
wrote:

> So then perhaps we should modify the intro as I suggested below.  :)
>  Right now the intro says "and applies to Foundation-organized activities."
> - what's a wording that would be more helpful to folks?
>
> Also, I don't assume everyone is - I was speaking to MZMcBride.
>
> -greg
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>
> > Mr. Gregory Varnum, 22/01/2012 00:33:
> >> MZMcBride - I guess I'm unclear what the purpose of this thread is.
> Just a FYI or are you asking for something specific to be done? I'm not
> sure how you got confused about its scope given the listserv you forwarded
> this from which outlined all this in great depth already.
> >
> > You seem to assume that everybody reading that page will come from such
> a thread, but it's in the main space and linked from
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies , so this is definitely not
> the case.
> >
> > Nemo
> >
> > ___
> > 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] [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[Gregory Varnum]

So then perhaps we should modify the intro as I suggested below.  :)  Right now 
the intro says "and applies to Foundation-organized activities." - what's a 
wording that would be more helpful to folks?

Also, I don't assume everyone is - I was speaking to MZMcBride.

-greg


On Jan 21, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Mr. Gregory Varnum, 22/01/2012 00:33:
>> MZMcBride - I guess I'm unclear what the purpose of this thread is. Just a 
>> FYI or are you asking for something specific to be done? I'm not sure how 
>> you got confused about its scope given the listserv you forwarded this from 
>> which outlined all this in great depth already.
> 
> You seem to assume that everybody reading that page will come from such a 
> thread, but it's in the main space and linked from 
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies , so this is definitely not the 
> case.
> 
> Nemo
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Mr. Gregory Varnum, 22/01/2012 00:33:

MZMcBride - I guess I'm unclear what the purpose of this thread is. Just a FYI 
or are you asking for something specific to be done? I'm not sure how you got 
confused about its scope given the listserv you forwarded this from which 
outlined all this in great depth already.


You seem to assume that everybody reading that page will come from such 
a thread, but it's in the main space and linked from 
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies , so this is definitely 
not the case.


Nemo

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

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[Mr. Gregory Varnum]

I fully supported this policy's development and feel volunteers impacted by it 
were directly involved in its authoring.

Should the intro be modified to make it clearer this is for tech conferences? 
Although I personally didn't find that confusing.

MZMcBride - I guess I'm unclear what the purpose of this thread is. Just a FYI 
or are you asking for something specific to be done? I'm not sure how you got 
confused about its scope given the listserv you forwarded this from which 
outlined all this in great depth already.

A separate discussion - not on this thread - about similar or broader policies 
for use outside the Wikimedia developer community seems appropriate and I'd 
agree this list is the right forum for that discussion. I don't think it's the 
best place for a discussion on this particular policy.

-Greg


Sent from my iPhone. Apologies for any typos. A more detailed response may be 
sent later.

On Jan 21, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:32 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
>>> Thanks to all of you for your feedback on this.  We've now finalized the
>>> policy and it now lives at
>>> 
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy
> 
> Thank you for working on this, Sumana.
> 
>> I don't think the Volunteer Development Coordinator (or any Wikimedia
>> Foundation employee) has the power or authority to institute policies like
>> this, particularly Wikimedia-wide.
> 
> Perhaps you misread the width of this policy.
> Staff can and generally do set policies affecting WMF-run processes
> and events.
> Most have not to date been recorded on the wmfwiki; it is good to see
> that change.
> 
>> I'm inclined to move this into Sumana's user space for now. It seems like a
>> straightforward policy to have, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to have
>> an accompanying Board resolution, though some of the language will
>> undoubtedly need to be tweaked first.
> 
> It is fine where it is.
> 
> As for the right place to post comments or suggestions related to such
> policies: we should turn on comments for the talk pages on the
> wmfwiki.  Most if not all of the pages there could use some sort of
> polishing and updating over time.
> 
> Sam.
> 
> ___
> 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] OSM license change

[MZMcBride]

Strainu wrote:
> Has anyone made an analysis on what the license change would mean to
> Wikipedia? Looking at the ODbL FAQ on the OSM website, it seems that
> using maps would not be affected. But what about using data from OSM
> in our articles? Also, my unterstanding is that reverse import of data
> (that is from Wikipedia to OSM) will be impossible after the change,
> right?

You really ought to include links or at least spell out what you're talking
about in (opening) posts. "ODbL FAQ on the OSM website" kind of made my head
spin, and I knew two of the three.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Policies on wikimediafoundation.org

[Samuel Klein]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild)
 wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 19:38, Steven Walling  
> wrote:
>> I think it makes sense to better delineate what applies to different
>> groups.
>
> Agreed. A good starting point is the navigation template for
> Board-approved policies, which distinguishes between global policies
> (like the licensing policy) and staff policies (like the credit card
> usage policy): https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:Policy-board

Yes.  I just split the policy template into -board and -staff to
suggest which group is effectively maintaining that policy.  Some
staff policies started life via a Board resolution when the staff was
small, but should now be maintanied by staff.

We might want a -draft template as well for policies in development.

S.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[Samuel Klein]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:32 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
>> Thanks to all of you for your feedback on this.  We've now finalized the
>> policy and it now lives at
>>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy

Thank you for working on this, Sumana.

> I don't think the Volunteer Development Coordinator (or any Wikimedia
> Foundation employee) has the power or authority to institute policies like
> this, particularly Wikimedia-wide.

Perhaps you misread the width of this policy.
Staff can and generally do set policies affecting WMF-run processes
and events.
Most have not to date been recorded on the wmfwiki; it is good to see
that change.

> I'm inclined to move this into Sumana's user space for now. It seems like a
> straightforward policy to have, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to have
> an accompanying Board resolution, though some of the language will
> undoubtedly need to be tweaked first.

It is fine where it is.

As for the right place to post comments or suggestions related to such
policies: we should turn on comments for the talk pages on the
wmfwiki.  Most if not all of the pages there could use some sort of
polishing and updating over time.

Sam.

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

[Foundation-l] OSM license change

[Strainu]

Hi,

Has anyone made an analysis on what the license change would mean to
Wikipedia? Looking at the ODbL FAQ on the OSM website, it seems that
using maps would not be affected. But what about using data from OSM
in our articles? Also, my unterstanding is that reverse import of data
(that is from Wikipedia to OSM) will be impossible after the change,
right?

Thanks,
   Strainu

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

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[Ryan Kaldari]

1]On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

>
> David, I'm a bit surprised that you think a policy that includes the
> language "Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference
> venue or talks." is a good idea. I think it'd be difficult to have a
> discussion about Wikimedia Commons with a rule like this. Was this what you
> were +1ing?
>
> MZMcBride
>


This is purely a policy for tech conferences. Other types of events, such
as GLAM conferences are developing their own versions which have different
language as appropriate.[1] It is certainly possible to discuss technical
issues surrounding Commons without using porny presentations.[2]

1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAMcamp_DC/Friendly_space_policy
2. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Porny_presentation

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

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[Erik Moeller]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> I think it'd be difficult to have a
> discussion about Wikimedia Commons with a rule like this.

Right now, the policy is pretty much framed around technical events
like hackathons, because that was what motivated its creation. In that
context, explicit presentation content is definitely an edge case.
It's less of an edge case for general Wikimedia events.

There have been efforts to generalize these kinds of policies by
stating that explicit content is acceptable if it fits the content and
the purpose of the presentation, and if the presentation is clearly
marked as such so that attendees can choose not to go. I think we
should try to find some language to that effect for a generalized
version of the friendly space policy.

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

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

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Policies on wikimediafoundation.org

[Jesse (Pathoschild)]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 19:38, Steven Walling  wrote:
> I think it makes sense to better delineate what applies to different
> groups.

Agreed. A good starting point is the navigation template for
Board-approved policies, which distinguishes between global policies
(like the licensing policy) and staff policies (like the credit card
usage policy): https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:Policy-board
.

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse (Pathoschild)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Policies on wikimediafoundation.org

[phoebe ayers]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 wrote:
> MZMcBride, 21/01/2012 01:19:
>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies#Policies lists policies of
>> the
>> Wikimedia Foundation.
>>
>> Would it make sense to sub-divide these policies into sub-lists? It seems
>> very strange to place all of these policies next to each other in a single
>> list.
>>
>> I thought about splitting between "Board-approved" and "Otherwise." Then I
>> considered splitting between "Staff-related", "Contributor-related,"
>> "Meetings-related,"  etc., but I wasn't so sure how many of these policies
>> actually (allegedly) apply to contributors (e.g., the whistleblower
>> policy).
>>
>> Any thoughts on this?
>
>
> It should be easy to divide board-approved policies from legal-approved
> policies and other policies (which are usually "self-policies", and are
> sometimes on Meta only).
>
> Nemo

It would be, though I'm not sure that's the most useful division --
I'd imagine what most people want to know is what policies apply to
all of the global projects vs what policies apply to just the WMF vs
what policies might apply to the WMF & other wikimedia entities
(chapters and groups). It is difficult to figure out what the global
project policies are, and that is a question that comes up pretty
regularly.

I don't have much spare time right this minute to do it, but I can
lend a hand with this; having legal involved would also be helpful.

cheers,
phoebe

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

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

MZMcBride, 21/01/2012 23:32:

Sumana Harihareswara wrote:

Thanks to all of you for your feedback on this.  We've now finalized the
policy and it now lives at

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy


I don't think the Volunteer Development Coordinator (or any Wikimedia
Foundation employee) has the power or authority to institute policies like
this, particularly Wikimedia-wide.


It's basically statement of obvious (for us, but not for everyone) 
principles plus some self-regulation, so I don't see any problem besides 
a lack of clarity which might make wmfwiki quite confusing.


Nemo

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

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[MZMcBride]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 21 January 2012 22:50, Steven Walling  wrote:
> 
>> If a policy makes good sense, we clearly need it, and feedback about the
>> text is mostly positive, then we should adopt it. Rejecting a good idea
>> because of process wonkery is stupid.
> 
> +1

David, I'm a bit surprised that you think a policy that includes the
language "Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference
venue or talks." is a good idea. I think it'd be difficult to have a
discussion about Wikimedia Commons with a rule like this. Was this what you
were +1ing?

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[MZMcBride]

Steven Walling wrote:
> If a policy makes good sense, we clearly need it, and feedback about the
> text is mostly positive, then we should adopt it. Rejecting a good idea
> because of process wonkery is stupid.

Really? Does this apply to discussions on any Wikimedia wiki at any time
with any group of people? This way forward certainly has the potential to
create some interesting policies. :-)

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[David Gerard]

On 21 January 2012 22:50, Steven Walling  wrote:

> If a policy makes good sense, we clearly need it, and feedback about the
> text is mostly positive, then we should adopt it. Rejecting a good idea
> because of process wonkery is stupid.


+1


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[Steven Walling]

On Jan 21, 2012 2:33 PM, "MZMcBride"  wrote:
>
> Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
> > Thanks to all of you for your feedback on this.  We've now finalized the
> > policy and it now lives at
> >
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy
>
> I don't think the Volunteer Development Coordinator (or any Wikimedia
> Foundation employee) has the power or authority to institute policies like
> this, particularly Wikimedia-wide.
>
> I'm inclined to move this into Sumana's user space for now. It seems like
a
> straightforward policy to have, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to
have
> an accompanying Board resolution, though some of the language will
> undoubtedly need to be tweaked first.
>
> Thoughts?

If a policy makes good sense, we clearly need it, and feedback about the
text is mostly positive, then we should adopt it. Rejecting a good idea
because of process wonkery is stupid.

Sumana is not declaring that she gets to force arbitrary rules on everyone
whenever she wants. She is solving a problem for us.

>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Policies on wikimediafoundation.org

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

MZMcBride, 21/01/2012 01:19:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies#Policies lists policies of the
Wikimedia Foundation.

Would it make sense to sub-divide these policies into sub-lists? It seems
very strange to place all of these policies next to each other in a single
list.

I thought about splitting between "Board-approved" and "Otherwise." Then I
considered splitting between "Staff-related", "Contributor-related,"
"Meetings-related,"  etc., but I wasn't so sure how many of these policies
actually (allegedly) apply to contributors (e.g., the whistleblower policy).

Any thoughts on this?


It should be easy to divide board-approved policies from legal-approved 
policies and other policies (which are usually "self-policies", and are 
sometimes on Meta only).


Nemo

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

Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[MZMcBride]

Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
> Thanks to all of you for your feedback on this.  We've now finalized the
> policy and it now lives at
> 
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy

I don't think the Volunteer Development Coordinator (or any Wikimedia
Foundation employee) has the power or authority to institute policies like
this, particularly Wikimedia-wide.

I'm inclined to move this into Sumana's user space for now. It seems like a
straightforward policy to have, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to have
an accompanying Board resolution, though some of the language will
undoubtedly need to be tweaked first.

Thoughts?

MZMcBride



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

[Foundation-l] FW: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

[MZMcBride]

A new policy should always be announced on foundation-l; forwarding.

MZMcBride

-- Forwarded Message
From: Sumana Harihareswara 
Organization: Wikimedia Foundation
Reply-To: Wikimedia developers 
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:30:07 -0800
To: Wikimedia developers 
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] proposed tech conference anti-harassment policy

Thanks to all of you for your feedback on this.  We've now finalized the
policy and it now lives at

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy

-- 
Sumana Harihareswara
Volunteer Development Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikitech-l mailing list
wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

-- End of Forwarded Message



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Maggie Dennis to continue with WMF

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Agreed and congrats!

Jan-Bart


On 20 jan. 2012, at 22:45, Kat Walsh wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Philippe Beaudette
>  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I'm thrilled to announce that Maggie Dennis, our community liaison, has
>> agreed to transition to a permanent role with the Wikimedia Foundation.
> 
> Congratulations, Maggie--you have been doing great work and I'm glad
> that you're crazy enough to want to keep doing it!
> 
> -Kat
> 
> -- 
> Your donations keep Wikipedia free: 
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, 
> k...@mindspillage.org
> (G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: 
> mindspillage
> 
> ___
> 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] Resolution:Developing Scenarios for future of fundraising

[FT2]

Agree that "raise the maximum" is a serious concern. Perception of greed
and money focus is one. The other problem is it mandates a specific
priority on the organizers of "all" fundraising events which may be
incompatible with the best interests of the project. For example I could
"maximize" fundraising by paying less attention to other points, but those
other points may be important and need balance too.

My redraft:

"Funds are needed for current and planned operations, contingencies and
opportunities, and as a buffer for future. Fundraisers should aim to
organize fundraising with a view to efficiently obtaining sufficient funds
for these possible future needs, and should do so in a manner compatible
with and balanced against the goals of our movement."


FT2



On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Joan Goma  wrote:

> > From: Ilario Valdelli 
> >
> > >
> > > Why does the Board of Trustees think that WMF should raise the ?maximum
> > > possible amount of money??
> > > Why not ask for what is needed and nothing more?
> > >
> >
> > I agree. A no profit association should raise the "opportune" amount
> > otherwise there a "profit".
> >
> > Ilario
> >
> >
> >
> > Non profit means that the raised money will go to develop the mission of
> the organization not to the pockets of its owners.
>
> From a mathematical point of view you can maximize the funds raised while
> keeping constant the disruption or you can minimize the disruption for a
> given amount of funds to be raised. But you cannot do both simultaneously.
>
> But this is not a mathematical statement I think it transmits well the idea
> of balancing both effects keeping in mind that the disruption caused is of
> high importance and that the money raised is needed because we have many
> ideas and opportunities to do things that need not only volunteer effort
> but also some money.
> ___
> 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] Research assistance

[Fred Bauder]

> I am applying for a summer student to do a Wikipedia Medicine research
> project through my department at UBC. One potentially project I am
> looking
> it is having them review all the edits made to Wikiproject Medicine
> articles. The student will go through each edit and a) determine if the
> edit is okay and revert it/fix it if it is not b) determine which edits
> are
> made from IP/new users verses long term edits c) calculate the percentage
> of positive/negative edits from each group d) they will be going over
> edits
> from more than one day old thus we will be able to determine how good
> Wikipedia is at repairing itself. I am thinking of collecting a weeks
> worth
> of edits.
>
> While we have a list here
> http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/wikiproject_watchlist.py?template=WikiProject%20Medicine&order=desc&limit=200&t=0&m=1&b=0&user=&off=0&cat=0&hip=0&q=1
> if multiple edits
> are made to the same page in a single day it only shows the last one. Is
> it
> possible to get a list of all edits? If should be possible to work with
> this list if another is not available.

For the first topic on that list click on "hist" and you'll get the
editing history for the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychopathy&action=history

You can take that back, usually, to the first edit which created the
article.

This is a wonderful project. There is a study that 50% of doctors
sometimes consult Wikipedia and that 5% edit, probably the largest
percentage of any professional group; and you can't say they're not busy.

I suspect that ips in this area are more often responsible editors than
is usual, simply doctors who do not have an account.

Fred

>
> If I am able to get approval and funding from UBC I am hoping to run a
> second round collecting the same data but with "pending changes" turned
> on
> for a week on all medical articles. This students would be required to
> handing all pending changes to all medical articles and will be
> collecting
> the same data as before. This will allow us to determine 1) if pending
> changes affects the numbers of IPs editing 2) if and to what degree
> pending
> changes reduces the visibility of poor quality content. The proposed
> student will be either between first and second year or second and third
> year medicine and will be working 40 hours per week for 6-8 weeks during
> the summer. If of course the last part of the project does not get
> approval
> I will still try to go ahead with the first part and will have the
> student
> join me on the "Medical Translation Project" as discussed here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> 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] Research assistance

[James Heilman]

I am applying for a summer student to do a Wikipedia Medicine research
project through my department at UBC. One potentially project I am looking
it is having them review all the edits made to Wikiproject Medicine
articles. The student will go through each edit and a) determine if the
edit is okay and revert it/fix it if it is not b) determine which edits are
made from IP/new users verses long term edits c) calculate the percentage
of positive/negative edits from each group d) they will be going over edits
from more than one day old thus we will be able to determine how good
Wikipedia is at repairing itself. I am thinking of collecting a weeks worth
of edits.

While we have a list here
http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/wikiproject_watchlist.py?template=WikiProject%20Medicine&order=desc&limit=200&t=0&m=1&b=0&user=&off=0&cat=0&hip=0&q=1
if multiple edits
are made to the same page in a single day it only shows the last one. Is it
possible to get a list of all edits? If should be possible to work with
this list if another is not available.

If I am able to get approval and funding from UBC I am hoping to run a
second round collecting the same data but with "pending changes" turned on
for a week on all medical articles. This students would be required to
handing all pending changes to all medical articles and will be collecting
the same data as before. This will allow us to determine 1) if pending
changes affects the numbers of IPs editing 2) if and to what degree pending
changes reduces the visibility of poor quality content. The proposed
student will be either between first and second year or second and third
year medicine and will be working 40 hours per week for 6-8 weeks during
the summer. If of course the last part of the project does not get approval
I will still try to go ahead with the first part and will have the student
join me on the "Medical Translation Project" as discussed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MED/Translation_project

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Resolution:Developing Scenarios for future of fundraising

[Joan Goma]

> From: Ilario Valdelli 
>
> >
> > Why does the Board of Trustees think that WMF should raise the ?maximum
> > possible amount of money??
> > Why not ask for what is needed and nothing more?
> >
>
> I agree. A no profit association should raise the "opportune" amount
> otherwise there a "profit".
>
> Ilario
>
>
>
> Non profit means that the raised money will go to develop the mission of
the organization not to the pockets of its owners.

>From a mathematical point of view you can maximize the funds raised while
keeping constant the disruption or you can minimize the disruption for a
given amount of funds to be raised. But you cannot do both simultaneously.

But this is not a mathematical statement I think it transmits well the idea
of balancing both effects keeping in mind that the disruption caused is of
high importance and that the money raised is needed because we have many
ideas and opportunities to do things that need not only volunteer effort
but also some money.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Murdoch Company Claims Copyright on Wikipedia Video

[Mike Dupont]

Hi there,
If you have size restrictions on commons, use
http://www.archive.org/create/ it has no size restrictions.
thanks,
mike

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:38 AM,   wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to update everyone about our progress in putting up WikiConference 
> India 2011 videos on Youtube. I did not intend to post about this until we 
> had put all the videos online, however the circumstances are such that I 
> thought its best to keep everyone posted.
>
> Yesterday when one of our volunteers was working on the videos and tried to 
> change the licensing of the ones uploaded thus far to CC in the Wikipedia 
> Spirit, he realised that the Keynote address by Jimmy [1] has a Copyright 
> Claim by Star News, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. The video had 
> been blocked in certain countries and we could not change the licensing to 
> enable people to reuse freely (and there are ads next to the video).
>
> This morning I have filed a dispute with Youtube and sent an email to Google 
> as well mentioning that this is outrageous since it was our event and our 
> videographer - I fail to understand how this claim is tenable! Will keep you 
> posted on the response.
>
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsfmCnyg8Mc
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
> PS: Commons was not used due to file size restrictions.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Murdoch Company Claims Copyright on Wikipedia Video

[K. Peachey]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:38 PM,   wrote:
> PS: Commons was not used due to file size restrictions.
If you get the files to the foundation staff in some method (USB
Drive/DVD/Hosted on a server somewhere they can download them) they
can get them uploaded to commons without worrying about the upload
size.

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