Re: [Foundation-l] Pre-wikis vs. maturing Wikipedia: taking away dedicated editors?
2012/3/7 Marcin Cieslak > I researched recently some material related to a recent catastrophic > event in Polish railway history[1] and I found out that volunteers > who traditionally dealt with railway matters on Polish Wikipedia > have virtually disappeared. Thought provoking, thanks a lot for this. > * They have to do lots of original research; it is impossible > to follow development of the railway infrastructure and > operations using only high quality published sources; I'm taking a hint from Clay Shirky's books here: What most people would consider high quality published sources - in this case, by railway companies, governments, standards institutions or engineering colleges - simply don't have the capacity to go into that much detail. The Polish (Russian, Israeli, American, Indian) volunteer railway geeks do have this capacity, and quite possibly the quality of the job that they can do is just as good as that of the above institutions. So the root question is whom do we trust. It's the same problem as with the recurring (and perfectly valid) "Oral citations" discussion: What's important is not in which medium the source is published, but how much do the no-original-research geeks trust it. And don't get me wrong - in the vast majority of cases, both the railway geeks and the no-original-research geeks are the good guys, who ultimately care about the readers getting the best information possible. I suppose that in this case of railways documentation, this problem can be solved by some kind of a statement by a famous Polish engineering college or the Polish railway company, which would say: "We salute the work of the volunteers who document the Polish railways on this wiki. We checked their work and found it to be correct and useful." It would have little substance, but it would be a kind of a quality control stamp. Unfortunately we haven't found a better quality control stamp yet. And by the way, this doesn't necessarily mean that all the information from this wiki should be copied to Wikipedia. It would be fine if that wiki would simply be recognized by the Wikipedia community as a reliable source. > (1) Do you see similar trend in your respective communities > (preferably not only English-speaking ones)? I can immediately remember similar cases in the Hebrew Wikipedia with writing about sex and about Jewish religious communities and rabbis. In the first case, this happened because the Hebrew Wikipedia community is very averse to writing about pornography and anything related to it - not because it's socially conservative, but because in the first years of its existence writing about pornography was strongly associated with trolls who disrupted other work. The difference between pornography and sex is obvious, yet the he.wikipedia community is very cautious now about both. As for Jewish religious communities, many articles about them look very similar to people who aren't involved, and this obviously raises notability concerns, so Jewish religious wikis sprang up. > (2) Is there a legitimate need for multi-tiered > development of the knowledge-related content (test > wikis, "pre-wikis", sighted revisions) or shall we pursue > "flat development space" ideal? It is perfectly legitimate. We are not supposed to want to swallow all human knowledge; we are supposed to want it to be accessible. Theoretically, such wikis could become new Wikimedia projects, but the fact is that new projects have not been started by the Foundation in the recent years. Another fact is that the Foundation gives little attention to its own existing non-Wikipedia projects. So if independent volunteers can make a good railway wiki by themselves, why not? > (3) Assuming we find the abovemetioned trend to be > generally a good thing, shouldn't we try to research > some methodologies to find out whether there is sizeable > effort supporting our goals outside of the core Wikimedia > movement? See the answer to the previous question; The Foundation is mostly preoccupied with Wikipedia. Though disappointing to Wikisource fans like myself, it's not necessarily bad. I suppose that it's not even a question of intent, but of capacity. At the very least, it should be remembered that there are different models of knowledge collection and sharing, so threads like this are important. > (4) Assuming we don't like what's going on, shouldn't > we revisit some of Wikipedia core values (like "no > original research", but not only) and try to address > the issue there? *Wikipedia*'s core values are fine. Without the no original research policy it wouldn't be as useful as it is now. Such wikis can, theoretically, be adopted as other projects. Or maybe as very particular namespaces in Wikipedia. The line must be drawn somewhere, however. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers wrote: >> >>> Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I >>> personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored >>> speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was >>> right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to >>> some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was >>> especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the >>> board acts as a corporate body. >> >> >> If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns, >> I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from >> your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say >> "actually, I disagreed with what I was doing." You can't claim your >> views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the >> representing. > > That's not actually what I was trying to say. I said that I changed my > mind -- probably around early autumn, if you want to put a date on it. > I haven't done much speaking or writing on the issue in the last few > months. I wouldn't have voted for the resolution if I had thought at > the time it was a truly bad idea; at least give me credit for that. > >> What stopped you from voicing your qualms? > > Partly, as I said, wanting to represent the board consensus. Partly > because things were so very uncivil in the heat of it. I got called > (among other things) an ugly American, a prude, freedom-hating, and a > poor representative of my profession. I just didn't feel like > dignifying any of that with engagement. > > And I think, though I don't have the energy to pull up all the emails > I've sent, that I tried very hard in all my communications to be > moderate, open-minded, and to err on the side of explanation of what > we were doing. Which is pretty much my approach to everything! > > So I'm not sure it's a case of voicing qualms or not, as just trying > not to talk about my own personal opinions (up to and including "can't > we please find something more important to argue about?!"). Oh well. > > Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like > search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons > search :) Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also. I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time on the board (since 2006, if you're counting). We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in agreement on. Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is the best decision? I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it, and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in progress. So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the principles of free access to information that we value. But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much more impact th
[Foundation-l] Pre-wikis vs. maturing Wikipedia: taking away dedicated editors?
[ Please excuse me if the subject has already been beaten to death here; I am not a regular visitor to this mailing list I tried to search for this stuff here & on strategywiki, but feel free to point me to the archives! ] I researched recently some material related to a recent catastrophic event in Polish railway history[1] and I found out that volunteers who traditionally dealt with railway matters on Polish Wikipedia have virtually disappeared. I remember that community being strong few years ago, and now we found out that even some basic information about infrastructure is left unchanged. Few people who still maintain that stuff on the Polish Wikipedia showed me that at least two other MediaWiki-based projects have been started to fill the gap: [2][3] The latter greets you even with a very nice shot of *the* railway junction that was instrumental in a recent railway crash. One of the projects got started by experienced Wikipedia editors. They still copy some of their content to the Polish Wikipedia, but only after it matures; I asked them about the reasons to go outside of the Wikipedia and they said: * They have to do lots of original research; it is impossible to follow development of the railway infrastructure and operations using only high quality published sources; * They got bitten a bit by the "notability" discussions in their field; they want to document every track, every junction and every locomotive and they are tired of discussing how "notable" a particular piece of railway equipment really is. I would have said it's just a single case, but I've seen some successful web portals being launched by people interested in history; what is different from many history research and fan pages is that I've also seen some active members of Wikipedia community becoming more and more active on those independent sites. It might be that (unproven theory) really valuable authors are living on a verge of original research; at some point they might prefer to turn over to indepedent sites. There may be other factors too: smaller, friendlier community; possibility to start anew and so on. As few of those sites are using MediaWiki software I started to call them "pre-wikis". Some of them might become a sort of a "waiting rooms" for the content to be published on "mature" Wikipedia. To me, analogy to the Wikipedia-Nupedia story is striking. What's interesting is that people are not afraid to use MediaWiki *again* (with all its well-known deficiencies). In general, I think this is nothing new. There are thousands of fan wikis on places like Wikia, where certainly some contributors copy over some mature content to Wikipedia, should licensing allow that. But maybe there is some trend that could probably be better researched, and here are my questions to you: (1) Do you see similar trend in your respective communities (preferably not only English-speaking ones)? (2) Is there a legitimate need for multi-tiered development of the knowledge-related content (test wikis, "pre-wikis", sighted revisions) or shall we pursue "flat development space" ideal? (3) Assuming we find the abovemetioned trend to be generally a good thing, shouldn't we try to research some methodologies to find out whether there is sizeable effort supporting our goals outside of the core Wikimedia movement? (4) Assuming we don't like what's going on, shouldn't we revisit some of Wikipedia core values (like "no original research", but not only) and try to address the issue there? (5) Has Wikipedia as a "product" achieved some maturity in a way that the real growth and innovation needs to go somewhere else, as no product/project lasts forever? Maybe it's something around the question that Kim Bruning asked on strategywiki [4] and also [5]: "we need to find some way to infuse new life into wikis that are coming to the end of the WikiLifeCycle. Wiki-communities can, do and will blow up, and we need to learn how to prevent it, or have plans on what to do and how to pick up the pieces." //Marcin Cieślak User:Saper from plwiki [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szczekociny_rail_crash [2] http://enkol.pl/ [3] http://semaforek.pl/wiki/index.php/Strona_g%C5%82%C3%B3wna [4] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=942&oldid=931 [5] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1075 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [SOPA etc.] [FSF] Fwd: Blood in the water: Brett Smith reports from the latest Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum
ACTA appears to be failing precisely because it was approved in smoke filled rooms and merely rubberstamped by politicians after the agreement. The real "snake in the grass" is still OPEN. They "make believe" they are crowdsourcing the law phrasing. But it smells precisely like the pathetic Britannica offer of taking suggestions to Encyclopaedia Britannica from readers. And fundamentally it is much more dangerous than SOPA. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [SOPA etc.] [FSF] Fwd: Blood in the water: Brett Smith reports from the latest Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum
A few weeks ago, there was a lot of fuss about TPP here in Chile because of the secret negotiations. A lot of comparisons with SOPA, PIPA and ACTA were raised and also criticism about it. After the campaign against the TPP, the Chilean government published a memo saying that intellectual propierty is currently being discussed so there are no agreement *yet* http://informa.gob.cl/comunicados-archivo/declaracion-publica-negociaciones-comerciales-del-acuerdo-transpacifico-tpp/ TPP is a free trade agreement being discussed by Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, the United States, Peru, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia. Osmar Valdebenito Gaete Presidente de Wikimedia Chile http://www.wikimediachile.cl 2012/3/6 Federico Leva (Nemo) > Seems worth a forward given that it mentions the SOPA protest as one of > the main causes for a better acceptance of sensible copyright lobby (true > or not?). > > Nemo > > Messaggio originale > Oggetto:Blood in the water: Brett Smith reports from the latest > Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum > Data: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:22:38 -0500 > Mittente: Free Software Foundation > > I'm in Melbourne to advocate for free software users and developers at > the latest round of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership > Agreement (TPP), and I'm chomping at the bit to share a little good news > with you all. The tone of the discussion here has turned much more > friendly to us—and *it's thanks to your activism.* > > Officially, the TPP negotiations are secret, but based on leaked text > and what we've heard from negotiators, it looks like once again the > United States will try to use this trade agreement to promote even more > draconian copyright, patent, and anti-circumvention legislation > internationally. In past negotiating rounds > , negotiators heard plenty of > opposition to such proposals from the groups you'd expect, like the FSF, > Knowledge Ecology International, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. > Now, that tent is expanding. > > TPP negotiators have seen the overwhelmingly negative response to SOPA, > PIPA, and ACTA, and it worries them. They want to make sure the same > fate doesn't befall TPP, and several stakeholder presentations have been > framed to offer a solution to just that problem. We and our allies have > the easiest job of that: we simply point out that our concerns match the > protestors', and TPP can do better by heeding our suggestions. > Technology industry groups are now more vocally expressing their > concerns and explicitly positioning themselves opposite big copyright > companies. Even our political opponents feel pressured to adopt this > frame: Gina Vetere from the US Chamber of Commerce took pains to note > that TPP does not include SOPA's provisions, and suggested that the > lesson to learn from the SOPA debate was that “all stakeholders” support > the DMCA's approach to copyright enforcement. (I made sure to set the > record straight during her Q&A!) > > Your activism around SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA—your protests, your phone > calls and letters to legislators, your Web site blackouts—have had a > real positive impact on the terms of the discussion here in Melbourne. > Of course, that doesn't mean our work on TPP is done. Everyone's well > aware that the US trade delegation, and the companies that stand to > benefit from its work, are bullheaded and persistent. But negotiators > are taking our concerns more seriously than ever before. I thank you for > the effort that got us to this moment, and I'll do everything I can to > make the most of it during the negotiations. > > *Help keep the pressure up!* TPP hasn't received enough attention to > date—because the negotiations are secret, many media outlets assume > there's nothing to report. Spread the word however you can—through > blogs, mailing lists, and social media—to let your friends and > colleagues know that TPP is a threat just as serious as ACTA or SOPA. > Negotiators will meet several times over the course of 2012 as they rush > to finalize the text. If they're coming to your town, that's a great > opportunity for activism like protests and public events. We'll have > more details after negotiations conclude in Melbourne, and we're > planning follow-up posts with more ideas for how you can help. > > We also plan to attend more TPP Stakeholder Forums so we can continue > advocating for free software users and developers throughout the > drafting process. Please support our efforts (and help cover the travel > costs!) by joining as an Associate Member or making a donation . > > > -- > Follow us on identi.ca at http://identi.ca/fsf | Subscribe to our blogs > via RSS at http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS > Join us as an associate member at http://fsf.org/jf > > __**_ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.**org > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] [SOPA etc.] [FSF] Fwd: Blood in the water: Brett Smith reports from the latest Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum
Seems worth a forward given that it mentions the SOPA protest as one of the main causes for a better acceptance of sensible copyright lobby (true or not?). Nemo Messaggio originale Oggetto:Blood in the water: Brett Smith reports from the latest Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum Data: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:22:38 -0500 Mittente: Free Software Foundation I'm in Melbourne to advocate for free software users and developers at the latest round of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), and I'm chomping at the bit to share a little good news with you all. The tone of the discussion here has turned much more friendly to us—and *it's thanks to your activism.* Officially, the TPP negotiations are secret, but based on leaked text and what we've heard from negotiators, it looks like once again the United States will try to use this trade agreement to promote even more draconian copyright, patent, and anti-circumvention legislation internationally. In past negotiating rounds , negotiators heard plenty of opposition to such proposals from the groups you'd expect, like the FSF, Knowledge Ecology International, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Now, that tent is expanding. TPP negotiators have seen the overwhelmingly negative response to SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, and it worries them. They want to make sure the same fate doesn't befall TPP, and several stakeholder presentations have been framed to offer a solution to just that problem. We and our allies have the easiest job of that: we simply point out that our concerns match the protestors', and TPP can do better by heeding our suggestions. Technology industry groups are now more vocally expressing their concerns and explicitly positioning themselves opposite big copyright companies. Even our political opponents feel pressured to adopt this frame: Gina Vetere from the US Chamber of Commerce took pains to note that TPP does not include SOPA's provisions, and suggested that the lesson to learn from the SOPA debate was that “all stakeholders” support the DMCA's approach to copyright enforcement. (I made sure to set the record straight during her Q&A!) Your activism around SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA—your protests, your phone calls and letters to legislators, your Web site blackouts—have had a real positive impact on the terms of the discussion here in Melbourne. Of course, that doesn't mean our work on TPP is done. Everyone's well aware that the US trade delegation, and the companies that stand to benefit from its work, are bullheaded and persistent. But negotiators are taking our concerns more seriously than ever before. I thank you for the effort that got us to this moment, and I'll do everything I can to make the most of it during the negotiations. *Help keep the pressure up!* TPP hasn't received enough attention to date—because the negotiations are secret, many media outlets assume there's nothing to report. Spread the word however you can—through blogs, mailing lists, and social media—to let your friends and colleagues know that TPP is a threat just as serious as ACTA or SOPA. Negotiators will meet several times over the course of 2012 as they rush to finalize the text. If they're coming to your town, that's a great opportunity for activism like protests and public events. We'll have more details after negotiations conclude in Melbourne, and we're planning follow-up posts with more ideas for how you can help. We also plan to attend more TPP Stakeholder Forums so we can continue advocating for free software users and developers throughout the drafting process. Please support our efforts (and help cover the travel costs!) by joining as an Associate Member or making a donation . -- Follow us on identi.ca at http://identi.ca/fsf | Subscribe to our blogs via RSS at http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Join us as an associate member at http://fsf.org/jf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Author "Wikimedia Foundation" at Barnes&Nobles shop on Nook
I've notified the WMF legal department. Ryan Kaldari On Mar 6, 2012, at 8:49 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote: > John Vandenberg, 06/03/2012 10:23: >> The problem isnt that they are providing ebooks, but >> >> 1. they are "By Wikimedia Foundation" >> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/c/wikimedia-foundation >> 2. they are poor quality, or dont work > > The second is their problem, but the first is clearly untrue and illegal. > Luckily there are only five such items at that link, while the others are > more truthful (including some linked by others in this thread, although they > seem to mention "Wikipedia" on the cover as a sign of approval), but these > five must be corrected. > The WMF legals should be made aware of it, if they're not yet. In this case a > letter to B&N probably suffices. > > 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Author "Wikimedia Foundation" at Barnes&Nobles shop on Nook
John Vandenberg, 06/03/2012 10:23: The problem isnt that they are providing ebooks, but 1. they are "By Wikimedia Foundation" http://www.barnesandnoble.com/c/wikimedia-foundation 2. they are poor quality, or dont work The second is their problem, but the first is clearly untrue and illegal. Luckily there are only five such items at that link, while the others are more truthful (including some linked by others in this thread, although they seem to mention "Wikipedia" on the cover as a sign of approval), but these five must be corrected. The WMF legals should be made aware of it, if they're not yet. In this case a letter to B&N probably suffices. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
> Partly, as I said, wanting to represent the board consensus. Partly > because things were so very uncivil in the heat of it. I got called > (among other things) an ugly American, a prude, freedom-hating, and a > poor representative of my profession. I just didn't feel like > dignifying any of that with engagement. > I am not sure where and in what context these accusations were made (I can not recollect seeing any of them), but in any case, be it on wiki or on a mailing list, each of them is uncivil, constitutes a personal attack, and must be stopped by a warning, a block or by putting the offender on moderation. This level of discussion is absolutely unacceptable and can not be tolerated in our community. BTW I think that being an open-minded and able to change opinions is a very appropriate quality for a Trustee. Cheers Yaroslav PS I have whatsoever no relation to the elections as I am not a member of any Chapter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 8, Issue 10 -- 05 March 2012
News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-05/News_and_notes In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-05/In_the_news Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-05/Discussion_report WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-05/WikiProject_report Featured content: Best of the week http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-05/Featured_content Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-05/Arbitration_report Technology report: With the 1.19 deployment now (mostly) complete, developers consider possible "mini" deployment later in the month http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-05/Technology_report Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-05 http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost ___ 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] Wikimedia Foundation Mid-Year Presentation to the Board of Trustees
Liam, Regarding the word convening, WMF has held one with the Arabic Wikipedia folks in Qatar. Check this blog to better understand the term/context: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/23/arabic-wikipedia-convening/ --Abbas. > From: liamwy...@gmail.com > Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 09:57:27 + > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Mid-Year Presentation to the > Board of Trustees > > On 3 March 2012 10:34, Chris Keating wrote: > > > > > > > 23, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > on February 3, the Wikimedia Foundation senior staff gave a > > > > presentation to the Board of Trustees as part of its Board meeting in > > > > San Francisco, recapping the fiscal year so far (our year begins July > > > > 1) and looking ahead. The slide deck is now available here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Mid-Year_Review_February_2012.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this - very interesting :-) > > > > For me, the most reassuring part is at the end. (It feels a bit odd > > highlighting this, given the amount of cool stuff in the report, but I > > suppose it's cool stuff I already knew about). I am very glad to hear that > > these issues are on peoples' minds and I think identifying them is a really > > helpful step. > > > > ● Everybody at all levels of the WMF needs to stop spending > > social & political capital accidentally, or on stuff that doesn't > > matter; > > ● We need to stop surprising the community: we need to > > acknowledge that time works differently for volunteers, and > > they need lots of advance notice for everything. Overtransparency has never > > harmed us, but lack of transparency > > has; > > ● Internally in the organization we need to shift from the > > assumption that our scarcest resource is money, to the > > acknowledgement that it's time. We need to get better at > > conserving energy, focusing and saying no; > > > I too agree that this was a very interesting reading. Much of it I knew > from being an avid reader of the Signpost but it's very good to be able to > see an overview like this. I appreciate the honest about the failure of the > Indian Education Program (slide 37) and learned a lot from the Technology > section (slides 9-22). I, like Chris, found the three points on slide 56 > (quoted above) under the heading "stop doing this" to be very enlightening. > There are also some related points on the subsequent slides (under the > leading "start doing this") that are also related, which include: > ●Assign other resources to explicitly earning social & political > capital for the org, so it can be spent on editor retention; > ●Actively monitor the bank balance (social & political > capital); > ●Assess community views and factor them into the total cost > of projects before green-lighting. In some cases, community > opposition will be a dealbreaker; > ●Develop easy routinized methods for assessing community > sentiment (RfCs, polls) in multiple languages, and routinely > dedicate resources to community input-seeking and > facilitation of discussions (TOU, AFT); > ●Better support editors along language lines and activity lines > (e.g., page patrollers, ArbComs, OTRS workers): find out what they need and > give it to them; > > In all the focus on reversing the downward trend of new-user retention > (which I wholeheartedly agree with, don't misunderstand me), I've been > feeling a bit like the WMF has seen the existing community as "the problem" > rather than part of "the solution". I think that these points that Chris > and I have quoted are pertinent because they seem to be aimed at trying to > reverse that feeling. They argue for the WMF to dedicate resources > specifically to support the existing community, to make their work easier, > and to take the time to bring the community along with changes rather than > announcing 'surprises'. But most of all, I'm interested in the repeated > phrase "social and political capital". If I read the text cynically that > phrase could look manipulative, but I don't believe that to be the case. > Rather, I'm pleased to see that the WMF is overtly addressing the fact that > *trust* is the most valuable form of currency in a volunteer project - and > that Chapter-WMF-Community trust levels have been less than ideal lately... > So - I look forward to seeing this proactive effort to build "social and > political capital" with the existing community put into practice :-) After > all, there's no point in increasing the number of new users if the existing > community is so frustrated that they're unwilling to train and acclimatise > the newbies. > > However, on a different note, I note with interest (though not surprise) > that it seems the exec have decided that the recent fundraising debates > between Chapters-WMF have already been concluded and that the decision for > the WMF to centrally manage all future
Re: [Foundation-l] Author "Wikimedia Foundation" at Barnes&Nobles shop on Nook
I would suggest, quietly, that these books suggest that we endorse their use of the work. There's also the issue of our 'moral rights', which in some countries would mean that we could get our names removed from the text Richard Symonds Office& Development Manager Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0992 -- Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable Company Registered in England and Wales, No: 6741827. Charity No:1144513 Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. Wikimedia UK is the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. On 06/03/2012 08:39, Neil Babbage wrote: So, correct WMF is not the author and this should be changed. Listing people as editors of a book using material from WP or any other project is acceptable. The terms of use and licenses simply require the appropriate attribution and you'd need to buy the book to confirm if this has or hasn't been done. However my view on this is that this reuse was exactly what was intended when the decision was made to make the content freely available and we aren't in a position to complain now. If this wasn't intended then Jimbo could have started WP with a "no commercial use" license. Sure it seems a rip off to us but there are always going to be people who buy stuff they could get for free - bottled water anyone? Personally I'd like to see someone set up a pay wall version of WP that has strict content control making it available to those groups that won't trust or use WP because of its free-for-all nature. Someone will make money but more knowledge will be spread which I think outweighs the "evil" of charging a fee... Neil / QuiteUnusual@Wikibooks -Original Message- From: Sarah Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:27:39 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Author "Wikimedia Foundation" at Barnes&Nobles shop on Nook I also wish the Wikimedia Foundation would do something about these books. Here is one by me, or by Wikipedia, but NOT by Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), and John McBrewster (Editor). http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/marshalsea-frederic-p-miller/1028062431?ean=9786130034771&itm=1&usri=marshalsea The byline apart, it's disturbing that someone might be conned into paying $77 for it, when they can download it for free. Sarah On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM, RYU Cheol wrote: You can find that at this link. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wikibooks-wikimedia-foundation/1102082833?ean=2940012379689&itm=1&usri=wikimedia+foundation I think anybody can sell well organized ebook on commercially. But the author is not the Wimedia Foundation exactly. I think the seller eM publication's business is illegitimate. It is a trademark infringement if the foundation did not permit the use. Cheol 2012/3/5 RYU Cheol Hi, all! I searched "Wikimedia Foundation" by chance and a lot of Wikibooks, possibly collections of Wikipedia articles. The author of the books is "Wikimedia Foundation." I don't think Wikimedia Foundation is selling the e-books for 2~3 dollars, and I think it is a fraud. Many buyer commented that they want their money back. I think the Foundation needs to find out the case and alert the bookshop. Cheol ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Mid-Year Presentation to the Board of Trustees
On 3 March 2012 10:34, Chris Keating wrote: > > > > 23, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > on February 3, the Wikimedia Foundation senior staff gave a > > > presentation to the Board of Trustees as part of its Board meeting in > > > San Francisco, recapping the fiscal year so far (our year begins July > > > 1) and looking ahead. The slide deck is now available here: > > > > > > > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Mid-Year_Review_February_2012.pdf > > > > > > > Thanks for this - very interesting :-) > > For me, the most reassuring part is at the end. (It feels a bit odd > highlighting this, given the amount of cool stuff in the report, but I > suppose it's cool stuff I already knew about). I am very glad to hear that > these issues are on peoples' minds and I think identifying them is a really > helpful step. > > ● Everybody at all levels of the WMF needs to stop spending > social & political capital accidentally, or on stuff that doesn't > matter; > ● We need to stop surprising the community: we need to > acknowledge that time works differently for volunteers, and > they need lots of advance notice for everything. Overtransparency has never > harmed us, but lack of transparency > has; > ● Internally in the organization we need to shift from the > assumption that our scarcest resource is money, to the > acknowledgement that it's time. We need to get better at > conserving energy, focusing and saying no; I too agree that this was a very interesting reading. Much of it I knew from being an avid reader of the Signpost but it's very good to be able to see an overview like this. I appreciate the honest about the failure of the Indian Education Program (slide 37) and learned a lot from the Technology section (slides 9-22). I, like Chris, found the three points on slide 56 (quoted above) under the heading "stop doing this" to be very enlightening. There are also some related points on the subsequent slides (under the leading "start doing this") that are also related, which include: ●Assign other resources to explicitly earning social & political capital for the org, so it can be spent on editor retention; ●Actively monitor the bank balance (social & political capital); ●Assess community views and factor them into the total cost of projects before green-lighting. In some cases, community opposition will be a dealbreaker; ●Develop easy routinized methods for assessing community sentiment (RfCs, polls) in multiple languages, and routinely dedicate resources to community input-seeking and facilitation of discussions (TOU, AFT); ●Better support editors along language lines and activity lines (e.g., page patrollers, ArbComs, OTRS workers): find out what they need and give it to them; In all the focus on reversing the downward trend of new-user retention (which I wholeheartedly agree with, don't misunderstand me), I've been feeling a bit like the WMF has seen the existing community as "the problem" rather than part of "the solution". I think that these points that Chris and I have quoted are pertinent because they seem to be aimed at trying to reverse that feeling. They argue for the WMF to dedicate resources specifically to support the existing community, to make their work easier, and to take the time to bring the community along with changes rather than announcing 'surprises'. But most of all, I'm interested in the repeated phrase "social and political capital". If I read the text cynically that phrase could look manipulative, but I don't believe that to be the case. Rather, I'm pleased to see that the WMF is overtly addressing the fact that *trust* is the most valuable form of currency in a volunteer project - and that Chapter-WMF-Community trust levels have been less than ideal lately... So - I look forward to seeing this proactive effort to build "social and political capital" with the existing community put into practice :-) After all, there's no point in increasing the number of new users if the existing community is so frustrated that they're unwilling to train and acclimatise the newbies. However, on a different note, I note with interest (though not surprise) that it seems the exec have decided that the recent fundraising debates between Chapters-WMF have already been concluded and that the decision for the WMF to centrally manage all future fundraising is now a *fait accompli*: - From slide 28 "Collaborated more closely with *remaining* payment processing chapters to improve their donors' experience" and "Improved experience for donors in several countries where chapters processed payments last year". - From slide 40 "*Reposition* the grants process as a core funds dissemination mechanism for the movement with strong community ownership and tight accountability" [*my emphasis*] Finally, a question. Slide 31 says that in the future the WMF will run "Worldwide convenings of highly active contributors in mature Wikipedias". I know the noun "a
Re: [Foundation-l] Author "Wikimedia Foundation" at Barnes&Nobles shop on Nook
The problem isnt that they are providing ebooks, but 1. they are "By Wikimedia Foundation" http://www.barnesandnoble.com/c/wikimedia-foundation 2. they are poor quality, or dont work http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wikibooks-wikimedia-founation/1029279842 "I hardly ever write negative reviews. WIKI has produced excellent books on numerous wars and aircraft I am sure this would be of excellent quality if it would load. The book does not load. The loading screen comes up then after about 3-4 seconds, it closes and goes back to the homescreen. I have a Nook Tablet." http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wikibooks-wikimedia-foundation/1102082833 "Has no organization. Seems to be a collection of random notes. The code examples do not render well on nook (dashes are missing, word wrapping is messed up, line numbers are off). You will not learn C by reading this book" "Don't buy this one. Very hard to navigate! The contents list is impossible." On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Neil Babbage wrote: > > So, correct WMF is not the author and this should be changed. Listing people > as editors of a book using material from WP or any other project is > acceptable. The terms of use and licenses simply require the appropriate > attribution and you'd need to buy the book to confirm if this has or hasn't > been done. However my view on this is that this reuse was exactly what was > intended when the decision was made to make the content freely available and > we aren't in a position to complain now. If this wasn't intended then Jimbo > could have started WP with a "no commercial use" license. Sure it seems a rip > off to us but there are always going to be people who buy stuff they could > get for free - bottled water anyone? > > Personally I'd like to see someone set up a pay wall version of WP that has > strict content control making it available to those groups that won't trust > or use WP because of its free-for-all nature. Someone will make money but > more knowledge will be spread which I think outweighs the "evil" of charging > a fee... > > > Neil / QuiteUnusual@Wikibooks > > -Original Message- > From: Sarah > Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:27:39 > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Author "Wikimedia Foundation" at Barnes&Nobles > shop on Nook > > I also wish the Wikimedia Foundation would do something about these books. > > Here is one by me, or by Wikipedia, but NOT by Frederic P. Miller, > Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), and John McBrewster (Editor). > http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/marshalsea-frederic-p-miller/1028062431?ean=9786130034771&itm=1&usri=marshalsea > > The byline apart, it's disturbing that someone might be conned into > paying $77 for it, when they can download it for free. > > Sarah > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM, RYU Cheol wrote: >> You can find that at this link. >> http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wikibooks-wikimedia-foundation/1102082833?ean=2940012379689&itm=1&usri=wikimedia+foundation >> >> >> I think anybody can sell well organized ebook on commercially. >> But the author is not the Wimedia Foundation exactly. I think the seller eM >> publication's business is illegitimate. It is a trademark infringement if >> the foundation did not permit the use. >> >> Cheol >> >> 2012/3/5 RYU Cheol >> >>> Hi, all! >>> >>> I searched "Wikimedia Foundation" by chance and a lot of Wikibooks, >>> possibly collections of Wikipedia articles. The author of the books is >>> "Wikimedia Foundation." I don't think Wikimedia Foundation is selling the >>> e-books for 2~3 dollars, and I think it is a fraud. Many buyer commented >>> that they want their money back. >>> >>> I think the Foundation needs to find out the case and alert the bookshop. >>> >>> Cheol >>> -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Author "Wikimedia Foundation" at Barnes&Nobles shop on Nook
So, correct WMF is not the author and this should be changed. Listing people as editors of a book using material from WP or any other project is acceptable. The terms of use and licenses simply require the appropriate attribution and you'd need to buy the book to confirm if this has or hasn't been done. However my view on this is that this reuse was exactly what was intended when the decision was made to make the content freely available and we aren't in a position to complain now. If this wasn't intended then Jimbo could have started WP with a "no commercial use" license. Sure it seems a rip off to us but there are always going to be people who buy stuff they could get for free - bottled water anyone? Personally I'd like to see someone set up a pay wall version of WP that has strict content control making it available to those groups that won't trust or use WP because of its free-for-all nature. Someone will make money but more knowledge will be spread which I think outweighs the "evil" of charging a fee... Neil / QuiteUnusual@Wikibooks -Original Message- From: Sarah Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:27:39 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Author "Wikimedia Foundation" at Barnes&Nobles shop on Nook I also wish the Wikimedia Foundation would do something about these books. Here is one by me, or by Wikipedia, but NOT by Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), and John McBrewster (Editor). http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/marshalsea-frederic-p-miller/1028062431?ean=9786130034771&itm=1&usri=marshalsea The byline apart, it's disturbing that someone might be conned into paying $77 for it, when they can download it for free. Sarah On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM, RYU Cheol wrote: > You can find that at this link. > http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wikibooks-wikimedia-foundation/1102082833?ean=2940012379689&itm=1&usri=wikimedia+foundation > > > I think anybody can sell well organized ebook on commercially. > But the author is not the Wimedia Foundation exactly. I think the seller eM > publication's business is illegitimate. It is a trademark infringement if > the foundation did not permit the use. > > Cheol > > 2012/3/5 RYU Cheol > >> Hi, all! >> >> I searched "Wikimedia Foundation" by chance and a lot of Wikibooks, >> possibly collections of Wikipedia articles. The author of the books is >> "Wikimedia Foundation." I don't think Wikimedia Foundation is selling the >> e-books for 2~3 dollars, and I think it is a fraud. Many buyer commented >> that they want their money back. >> >> I think the Foundation needs to find out the case and alert the bookshop. >> >> Cheol >> >> > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation Mid-Year Presentation to the Board of Trustees
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Chris Keating wrote: > > Thanks for this - very interesting :-) > > For me, the most reassuring part is at the end. (It feels a bit odd > highlighting this, given the amount of cool stuff in the report, but I > suppose it's cool stuff I already knew about). I am very glad to hear that > these issues are on peoples' minds and I think identifying them is a really > helpful step I hope you will accept that I am not talking to you personally. Just want to clarify a few things to people who share similar attitudes to save a bit of time... I will put "you" in scare quotes throughout, just to emphasize I am not talking to you personally, But to the "you" of the attitude. . > > Everybody at all levels of the WMF needs to stop spending > social & political capital accidentally, or on stuff that doesn't > matter; To be blunt. Again, to help you acclimatize "you". No this is *not* how we tend to operate here. "You" may think it should be that way. But can "you" honestly argue with the results? This not my private view on this issue. It isn't set in stone either. There is a metaphor that is quite central to our movement and ones even remotely like it. It is that we are "herding cats". Any number of our people will explain that to "you".I'll do it, if "you" send me a personal E-Mail. But it is such fundamental short hand that I would be wasting space and peoples time explaining it here. > ● We need to stop surprising the community: we need to > acknowledge that time works differently for volunteers, and > they need lots of advance notice for everything. Overtransparency has never > harmed us, but lack of transparency > has; That is one thirds + 1/6th right. The volunteers are always ahead of "you", and surprising them *will* fail. "You" will be surprised that they know much more about what "you" suggest, because they have all been there, done that, and have the T-Shirt. Or a whole suitcase full of them. The governance side does need to learn to be honest (or transparent). And it has to stop thinking it *can* take the community by surprise. > ● Internally in the organization we need to shift from the > assumption that our scarcest resource is money, to the > acknowledgement that it's time. We need to get better at > conserving energy, focusing and saying no; Focusing on saying "maybe" gets much better results in the long run, and lots of less time gets wasted. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
