Re: [Foundation-l] Will Beback

[Ray Saintonge]

On 03/12/12 12:35 PM, George Herbert wrote:

Without delving into the specifics here, or concluding either way as
to the current case lacking actual evidence in front of me, it is a
real and quite serious problem if we don't hold senior and longtime
editors to account for abuses they may perpetuate on the Wiki.

The hue and cry of "But I contributed XZY!" is true, but irrelevant.
If one is abusive on the Wiki, one damages the community in deep and
divisive ways.  Everyone needs to understand that.  If you start
disrupting the community, no matter who you are or where you were, it
needs to stop.


This would be fine if all the established admins who abuse newbies were 
held to the same standards.


But as has been said, Wikipedia is not a democracy. That's enough to 
make secret Stalinist processes valid.


Ray


On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Nathan  wrote:

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, James Heilman  wrote:


I must disagree with Risker that this is simply a local issue involving a
single project or with a previous editor who feels that English Wikipedia
can take care of itself. We have a serious lack of editors not only on
English Wikipedia but within the project as a whole and this is getting
worse rather than better. The foundation has been putting great efforts
into attracting editors and Will's case touches on the issue of recruitment
and retention of editors to the project as a whole and thus is directly
relevant to the WMF. We have had issues with how some admins treat new
editors to the movement and it seems we also have issues with how some of
our long standing editors are dealt with specifically by Arbcom. If we base
our decisions on isolated behavioral matters exclusively without taking
into account content issues or the contribution histories of the editors in
question this institution will make bad decisions for the project and the
movement as a whole.

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___


Are you suggesting that the WMF, or the Wikimedia community, should impose
or agitate for a policy on the English Wikipedia of immunizing prolific
contributors from conduct policies?

I'm not sure that would have your intended effect on retention. It has been
as commonly argued, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, that we are already too lax
on vested contributors when it comes to conduct policy... and that this
veterans' privilege contributes to a sometimes poisonous atmosphere that
damages new editor recruitment and retention.

What might be more useful is the development of better tools to support
editors in difficult and important subject areas, better community
engagement in those areas, and a mechanism to intervene before the
battleground ethos overtakes otherwise sterling contributors.




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

Re: [Foundation-l] Will Beback

[David Richfield]

Mailing list posts are the wrong place to complain about ArbCom rulings.
They provide one point of view in a way that favours one side of the story,
while ArbCom has a full process of evidence and debate.

As others have said, en.wikipedia can take care of this stuff, and it isn't
appropriate for WMF to micromanage.
___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 12 March 2012 20:24, Tobias Oelgarte 
> wrote:
>
> > I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything
> important
> >  multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the
> > following:
> > Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it.
> >  ¹ includes strong language, overly repeated selective examples, bending
> of
> > words, bending of facts and accusations that aren't true.
>
>
> Indeed. Andreas' posts bring this to mind:
>
>
> http://www.salon.com/2012/03/10/the_right_wings_pornography_of_resentment/singleton/
>
> There's concern, and then there's lasciviating morbid fascination.



It's not me who's uploading hundreds of pornographic media onto Wikimedia
sites. There are places for porn online, just like there are places for
online poker, and amateur digital art. I have no problem with any of them.
But listen to yourself – you are accusing me of prudery because I say that
as a tax-exempt educational website we should be handling porn and other
explicit content as responsibly – no more, no less – as Google, YouTube or
Flickr.

Are the adult media sharing groups in Flickr populated by prudes? I don't
think so. But are they in favour of abandoning the Flickr rating system?
No. Are Google right-wingers? No, and they happen to be among our biggest
donors and benefactors.

Your "porn must be fre " stance puts you into a fringe corner from
the perspective of which the entirety of mainstream society looks like a
bunch of dastardly right-wing prudes.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Am 12.03.2012 23:14, schrieb Andrew Gray:

On 11 March 2012 00:23, David Gerard  wrote:

On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray  wrote:


The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the
response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to
do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need
to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!"
any time someone tries to discuss the problem.

There are theoretical objections, and then there are the actual objectors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Gay_pornography

The objector here earnestly and repeatedly compares the words "gay
pornographic" in *text* on the page to images of child pornography.

Well, yes, and everyone else involved in that discussion is (at some
length) telling them they're wrong.

There are *other* actual objections, and ones with some sense behind
them; the unexpected Commons search results discussed ad nauseam, for
example. I don't think one quixotic and mistaken complaint somehow
nullifies any other objection people can make about entirely different
material...

At the same time we have a huge amount of search terms that give the 
expected results, while we only see the examples where it goes wrong. I 
remember that Andreas picked "drawing style" as an example.[1] Was this 
just an coincidence? No it wasn't. He actually knew about an image that 
I uploaded some time ago, he attacked it later on and now used it's file 
description to construct an example.[2] That's how this examples are 
created.


Additionally I proposed a solution for the search a while ago, that 
would avoid any problems from both sides entirely.[3] If we, the board 
or the foundation would put some heart into it, then we would have one 
less problem, even so I don't see it as problem as it currently is. But 
i would also benefit from this kind of improved search. (no tagging, no 
rating, no extra work for users, still better)


[1] 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Buttons_to_switch_images_off_and_on
[2] 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
[3] 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#A_little_bit_of_intelligence




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

[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Nederland reports for January and February 2012

[Ziko van Dijk]

This is the chapter report for Wikimedia Nederland for January 2012.

== Cultural heritage ==

Together with Teylers Museum in Haarlem there is a "challenge" in
which people are asked to write Wikipedia articles about subjects
related to that museum.
Conferences etc.

On Saturday January, 21st WMNL was the guest of Teylers Museum in
Haarlem. Our new years reception (nieuwjaarsborrel) was visited by ca.
120-150 people.

== Press and outreach ==

The anti SOPA strike was a news subject in the Netherlands on and
around January 18th. Many newspapers reported, and our president was
on national TV for the issue.

== Upcoming ==

February: strategy weekend board
March: general assembly



This is the chapter report for Wikimedia Nederland for February 2012.

== Cultural heritage ==

User:Husky gave a short one-day course on editing in Wikipedia to
volunteers in Gouda, co-organized by Goudanet and The Gouda platform
for History. People made their first edits and wrote their first
article on Gouda history. Around 10 people participated including
people from the local library. The volunteers will continue to edit
Wikipedia in the next few months.
Conferences etc.

== Other  ==

The board of WMNL met in Zutphen on the 4th and 5th for a strategy
weekend. The results should be presented to the members before the
general assembly on March 24th, so they will have time to give
feedback on the results.

On the 25th the WMNL board had an afternoon scheduled on the day of a
Wiki-Saturday to receive people who are interested in a board
position.

== Upcoming ==

March: general assembly




http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Nederland#Wikimedia_Nederland

-- 

---
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/
---

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

[Andrew Gray]

On 11 March 2012 00:23, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray  wrote:
>
>> The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the
>> response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to
>> do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need
>> to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!"
>> any time someone tries to discuss the problem.
>
> There are theoretical objections, and then there are the actual objectors:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Gay_pornography
>
> The objector here earnestly and repeatedly compares the words "gay
> pornographic" in *text* on the page to images of child pornography.

Well, yes, and everyone else involved in that discussion is (at some
length) telling them they're wrong.

There are *other* actual objections, and ones with some sense behind
them; the unexpected Commons search results discussed ad nauseam, for
example. I don't think one quixotic and mistaken complaint somehow
nullifies any other objection people can make about entirely different
material...

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

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

Re: [Foundation-l] UK Parliament Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions

[David Gerard]

On 12 March 2012 02:52, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> There are a number of sections touching on Wikimedia, notably those
> beginning on the following pages:
> http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=425


Written by you and ... Edward Buckner (aka Peter Damian).


> http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=218


Wherein you helped nobble Fae's bid for admin on Commons. Well done,
you're showering yourself with glory which reflects on your causes.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] IRC office hours with Sue Gardner

[John Vandenberg]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Philippe Beaudette
 wrote:
> Hi everyone:  Just a reminder of this.  :-)  Starts in about 90 minutes.

Here is the log that Philippe uploaded after the meeting:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-03-12

(Thanks Philippe!  Looking forward to reading it over the morning coffee)

--
John Vandenberg

___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Fae]

Andreas,

I am not going to express an opinion on the case you reference, this is
still a hot debate, particularly on Commons, and I do not believe there is
a stable consensus yet. I certainly have no personal interest in being
continually dragged into penis wars or be forced to read criminal
allegations about contributors, though had I not been maliciously harassed
by an off-wiki group you are associated with, I might have been a Commons
administrator at this point and had more useful influence on these policy
related issues.

The question is more complex and contentious than I find email is a
suitable medium for, and any way forward must cater for how our
international projects can collaborate on policies that protect free speech
(under a USA definition) and enable continued free access for the widest
possible educational good in as many countries as possible. I have already
proposed you take advantage of our UK open a board meetings to talk openly
with us about collaborating on how the Wikimedia community can work
positively on this area, such as encouraging positive debate to mature the
Commons community and policies. I suggest you prepare for that by talking
the issues over with the Wikimedia UK CEO.

We are listening and remain open, I hope you can approach this subject with
a similar frame of mind, realizing that such change will only happen
slowly. It would help discussion if those involved could avoid the drama
of inflammatory attacks or fueling those whose main interest appears to be
destruction rather than improvement in their ambitions to make a name for
themselves by tilting at the WMF or, far worse, the open movement itself.

Thanks,
Fae
___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[David Gerard]

On 12 March 2012 20:24, Tobias Oelgarte  wrote:

> I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything important
>  multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the
> following:
> Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it.
>  ¹ includes strong language, overly repeated selective examples, bending of
> words, bending of facts and accusations that aren't true.


Indeed. Andreas' posts bring this to mind:

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/10/the_right_wings_pornography_of_resentment/singleton/

There's concern, and then there's lasciviating morbid fascination.


- d.

___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Tobias Oelgarte]

I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything 
important  multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only 
write the following:


Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it.

 ¹ includes strong language, overly repeated selective examples, 
bending of words, bending of facts and accusations that aren't true.


nya~ (said the lobby cat and repeated itself again)


Am 12.03.2012 20:22, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae  wrote:


Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than
"Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art
and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches.
No problem with wading through "100 dicks and arseholes". In fact,
carefully checking through the first 100 matches of that search gave
me no explicit photographs of naked people or their private parts at
all.



Well, if you just search for "male", you still get lots of penises and
sphincters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=male&fulltext=Search


Bear in mind that this is what students get in schools, too.




Having a better optimized search engine is the issue here, not
filtering all images of body parts.



I agree that a better search engine is part of the answer. Niabot made an
excellent proposal (clustered search) a week ago, which is written up here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons


But I don't think it obviates the need for a filter, which
is frankly standard even in mainstream *Western* sites that contain adult
material.




Commons has over 10,000,000
images, having several hundred images of human genitals is not to be
unexpected, or a reason to give up on collaboration and turn to
extremes of lobbying multiple authorities and newspapers with claims
that the WMF is promoting paedophilia with the side effect of fuelling
well known internet stalkers to harass staff and users.



We have had a consistent problem with pedophilia advocates in Commons
becoming involved in curating sexual images. It is a problem when an editor
with a child pornography conviction that was prominent enough to hit the
press, who did several years in jail and was deported from the US, is so
involved in our projects.

It is a problem when that editor's block is promptly endorsed by the
arbitration committee on English Wikipedia, but is equally quickly
overturned in Commons.

It is a problem if a Commons admin says, when being made aware of Sue
Gardner's statement about Wikimedia's zero-tolerance policy towards
pedophilia advocacy, that

"You can quote Sue if you want - but Sue is Sue and not us. Sue also tried
to install a image filter and was bashed by us."

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68051777


By the way, that statement of Sue's has now been removed from the Meta page
on pedophilia:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=3557747&oldid=3546718


Now, English Wikipedia has for some time had a well-defined process for
such cases. They are not to be discussed on-wiki, but are a matter for
private arbcom communication. That is sensible. However, Commons has lacked
both an arbitration committee, and any equivalent policy. (There are
efforts underway now to write one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection)

This being so, there has been no other way to address this in Commons than
to discuss it on-wiki, and it is a problem if an editor who posts evidence
on Commons proving that the person in question has continued to advocate
pedophilia online quite recently, and well after their release from prison,
is blocked for "harassment", while the editor in question remains free to
help curate pornographic material. But that is Commons for you.

I am afraid that to most people out there in the real world, it will seem
absolutely extraordinary that an educational charity lets someone with a
child pornography conviction curate adult material, while its
administrators block an editor who points out that the person has continued
to be an open and public "childlove" advocate online.

Andreas
___
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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Tobias Oelgarte]

Even if it is only one click it is still the same as appending a dislike 
button to it (if no all or nothing option). At least it shows, that we 
think, that it is something disturbing. At this point it has nothing to 
do with curating content, it's a mere tool to represent POV.


nya~

Am 12.03.2012 14:55, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:

Hoi,
When you consider that the current proposal is for a system where it takes
one click to see something anyway, I do think the notion that something is
not knowable is over the top.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On 12 March 2012 14:07, David Gerard  wrote:


On 12 March 2012 12:28, Richard Symonds
  wrote:


deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India,
which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong

religious

vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language, it is

only

natural that people from the bible belt /do/ have a say in whether or not
having an image filter is appropriate. We owe it to these people to make
sure that Wikipedia is not blocked in their countries.


You're describing places in terms of fundamentally rejecting the
Enlightenment. General encyclopedias, starting from l'Encyclopedie,
are an Enlightenment project. Ultimately, we can't cripple Wikipedia
for the world because some parts of it are not happy with the idea of
people being allowed to know stuff in general.


- d.

___
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] Will Beback

[George Herbert]

I would almost like to simply +1 here, but...

Without delving into the specifics here, or concluding either way as
to the current case lacking actual evidence in front of me, it is a
real and quite serious problem if we don't hold senior and longtime
editors to account for abuses they may perpetuate on the Wiki.

The hue and cry of "But I contributed XZY!" is true, but irrelevant.
If one is abusive on the Wiki, one damages the community in deep and
divisive ways.  Everyone needs to understand that.  If you start
disrupting the community, no matter who you are or where you were, it
needs to stop.


-george

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
>> I must disagree with Risker that this is simply a local issue involving a
>> single project or with a previous editor who feels that English Wikipedia
>> can take care of itself. We have a serious lack of editors not only on
>> English Wikipedia but within the project as a whole and this is getting
>> worse rather than better. The foundation has been putting great efforts
>> into attracting editors and Will's case touches on the issue of recruitment
>> and retention of editors to the project as a whole and thus is directly
>> relevant to the WMF. We have had issues with how some admins treat new
>> editors to the movement and it seems we also have issues with how some of
>> our long standing editors are dealt with specifically by Arbcom. If we base
>> our decisions on isolated behavioral matters exclusively without taking
>> into account content issues or the contribution histories of the editors in
>> question this institution will make bad decisions for the project and the
>> movement as a whole.
>>
>> --
>> James Heilman
>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>> ___
>>
>
> Are you suggesting that the WMF, or the Wikimedia community, should impose
> or agitate for a policy on the English Wikipedia of immunizing prolific
> contributors from conduct policies?
>
> I'm not sure that would have your intended effect on retention. It has been
> as commonly argued, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, that we are already too lax
> on vested contributors when it comes to conduct policy... and that this
> veterans' privilege contributes to a sometimes poisonous atmosphere that
> damages new editor recruitment and retention.
>
> What might be more useful is the development of better tools to support
> editors in difficult and important subject areas, better community
> engagement in those areas, and a mechanism to intervene before the
> battleground ethos overtakes otherwise sterling contributors.
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae  wrote:

> Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than
> "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art
> and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches.
> No problem with wading through "100 dicks and arseholes". In fact,
> carefully checking through the first 100 matches of that search gave
> me no explicit photographs of naked people or their private parts at
> all.
>


Well, if you just search for "male", you still get lots of penises and
sphincters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=male&fulltext=Search


Bear in mind that this is what students get in schools, too.



> Having a better optimized search engine is the issue here, not
> filtering all images of body parts.



I agree that a better search engine is part of the answer. Niabot made an
excellent proposal (clustered search) a week ago, which is written up here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons


But I don't think it obviates the need for a filter, which
is frankly standard even in mainstream *Western* sites that contain adult
material.



> Commons has over 10,000,000
> images, having several hundred images of human genitals is not to be
> unexpected, or a reason to give up on collaboration and turn to
> extremes of lobbying multiple authorities and newspapers with claims
> that the WMF is promoting paedophilia with the side effect of fuelling
> well known internet stalkers to harass staff and users.
>


We have had a consistent problem with pedophilia advocates in Commons
becoming involved in curating sexual images. It is a problem when an editor
with a child pornography conviction that was prominent enough to hit the
press, who did several years in jail and was deported from the US, is so
involved in our projects.

It is a problem when that editor's block is promptly endorsed by the
arbitration committee on English Wikipedia, but is equally quickly
overturned in Commons.

It is a problem if a Commons admin says, when being made aware of Sue
Gardner's statement about Wikimedia's zero-tolerance policy towards
pedophilia advocacy, that

"You can quote Sue if you want - but Sue is Sue and not us. Sue also tried
to install a image filter and was bashed by us."

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=68051777


By the way, that statement of Sue's has now been removed from the Meta page
on pedophilia:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=3557747&oldid=3546718


Now, English Wikipedia has for some time had a well-defined process for
such cases. They are not to be discussed on-wiki, but are a matter for
private arbcom communication. That is sensible. However, Commons has lacked
both an arbitration committee, and any equivalent policy. (There are
efforts underway now to write one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Child_protection)

This being so, there has been no other way to address this in Commons than
to discuss it on-wiki, and it is a problem if an editor who posts evidence
on Commons proving that the person in question has continued to advocate
pedophilia online quite recently, and well after their release from prison,
is blocked for "harassment", while the editor in question remains free to
help curate pornographic material. But that is Commons for you.

I am afraid that to most people out there in the real world, it will seem
absolutely extraordinary that an educational charity lets someone with a
child pornography conviction curate adult material, while its
administrators block an editor who points out that the person has continued
to be an open and public "childlove" advocate online.

Andreas
___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Hubert]

Am 12.03.2012 18:02, schrieb Marc Riddell:

on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote:


The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is
just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's
best ignored, along with the people who use it.


Nathan, how on earth do you equate the phrase "bible belt" with
anti-Americanism?

Marc Riddell


he forgot to say Antisemitism.
h.


___
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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Hubert]

???

Hubertl

Am 12.03.2012 16:43, schrieb Nathan:

The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is
just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's
best ignored, along with the people who use it.
___
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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae  wrote:
>
>> Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than
>> "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art
>> and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches.
>> No problem with wading through "100 dicks and arseholes". In fact,
>> carefully checking through the first 100 matches of that search gave
>> me no explicit photographs of naked people or their private parts at
>> all.
>>
>>
>
> Just a second here – this search
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=20&redirs=0&profile=images&search=male+human
>
> doesn't give you any "explicit photographs of naked people or their private 
> parts at all" in the first 100 matches? Really?
>
> The 1st image is a close-up of a urinating penis. The 5th image is a close-up 
> of a penis. The 8th, 9th and 11th image are close-ups of penises, one of them 
> erect, and one with a hand grabbing the scrotum. The 13th image is a close-up 
> of an arsehole. The 14th image a close-up of a scrotum. The 15th, 17th, 18th, 
> and 19th are images of erect penises. And so on. I haven't mentioned any of 
> the other nude images.
>
> Andreas
>
>
I think I misread Fae, who was probably referring to his search for "male
figure" when he said he did not have a problem having to wade through
sexual images. Apologies. :)

Andreas
___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Fae  wrote:

> Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than
> "Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art
> and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches.
> No problem with wading through "100 dicks and arseholes". In fact,
> carefully checking through the first 100 matches of that search gave
> me no explicit photographs of naked people or their private parts at
> all.
>
>

Just a second here – this search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=20&redirs=0&profile=images&search=male+human

doesn't give you any "explicit photographs of naked people or their
private parts at all" in the first 100 matches? Really?

The 1st image is a close-up of a urinating penis. The 5th image is a
close-up of a penis. The 8th, 9th and 11th image are close-ups of
penises, one of them erect, and one with a hand grabbing the scrotum.
The 13th image is a close-up of an arsehole. The 14th image a close-up
of a scrotum. The 15th, 17th, 18th, and 19th are images of erect
penises. And so on. I haven't mentioned any of the other nude images.

Andreas
___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Nathan]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:

> on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion
> is
> > just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance.
> It's
> > best ignored, along with the people who use it.
>
> Nathan, how on earth do you equate the phrase "bible belt" with
> anti-Americanism?
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>
>
Because of the context in which it is used in image-filter / controversial
content discussions. It's a pejorative throw-away, a way for people to
dismiss concerns about controversial content as the province of parochial
Americans clutching Bibles. Even when the phrase "bible-belt" isn't used,
it's a pretty common tactic in this debate to ascribe support for the image
filter to a sort of moral imperialism or lack of a cosmopolitan ethic.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
Hoi,
In the Netherlands we have our own bible belt.. it is not exclusive to the
USA
Thanks,
   Gerard

Nevertheless, I suspect when the phrase is used in controversial context
discussions, it is not meant to refer to the Netherlands.
___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Fae]

On 12 March 2012 16:34, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
...
> You got this the wrong way round, mate. All those pictures of dicks and
> arseholes are preventing people from learning what they might want to
> learn, because actual worthwhile knowledge is crowded out by all the dicks
> and arseholes.
>
> There is more things to learn about the human male than that it has a dick
> and an arsehole. If I have to wade through 100 photographs of Wikimedians'
> dicks and arseholes to find
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Study_of_a_Male_Figure_Seen..._-_Sir_Peter_Paul_Rubens.png
> then
> perhaps we have our priorities slightly back to front.
...

Strangely enough, searching Commons for "Male figure" rather than
"Male human" shows me artwork from the National Museum of African Art
and a Michelangelo Buonarroti sketch from the Louvre in top matches.
No problem with wading through "100 dicks and arseholes". In fact,
carefully checking through the first 100 matches of that search gave
me no explicit photographs of naked people or their private parts at
all.

Having a better optimized search engine is the issue here, not
filtering all images of body parts. Commons has over 10,000,000
images, having several hundred images of human genitals is not to be
unexpected, or a reason to give up on collaboration and turn to
extremes of lobbying multiple authorities and newspapers with claims
that the WMF is promoting paedophilia with the side effect of fuelling
well known internet stalkers to harass staff and users.

Fae

___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Marc Riddell]

on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

> The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is
> just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's
> best ignored, along with the people who use it.

Nathan, how on earth do you equate the phrase "bible belt" with
anti-Americanism?

Marc Riddell


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

Re: [Foundation-l] IRC office hours with Sue Gardner

[Philippe Beaudette]

Hi everyone:  Just a reminder of this.  :-)  Starts in about 90 minutes.
___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org



On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> On Monday at 18:30 UTC, Sue will be having office hours.  As usual, it's
> in #wikimedia-office.  Check local date and time here:
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=18&min=30&sec=0&day=12&month=3&year=2012
> .
>
> All the usual details are at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours.
>
> Hope to see you there!
> ___
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> phili...@wikimedia.org
>
>
___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In the Netherlands we have our own bible belt.. it is not exclusive to the
USA
Thanks,
Gerard

On 12 March 2012 16:43, Nathan  wrote:

> The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is
> just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's
> best ignored, along with the people who use it.
> ___
> 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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Andreas Kolbe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=20&redirs=0&profile=images&search=male+human


So unless I want to see 100 dicks and arseholes I am somehow against *
knowledge*?

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=20&redirs=0&profile=images&search=male+human


You got this the wrong way round, mate. All those pictures of dicks and
arseholes are preventing people from learning what they might want to
learn, because actual worthwhile knowledge is crowded out by all the dicks
and arseholes.

There is more things to learn about the human male than that it has a dick
and an arsehole. If I have to wade through 100 photographs of Wikimedians'
dicks and arseholes to find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Study_of_a_Male_Figure_Seen..._-_Sir_Peter_Paul_Rubens.png
then
perhaps we have our priorities slightly back to front.

Contrary to what some Wikimedians seem to think, what their dicks and
arseholes look like from a distance of 30 centimetres is not the most
important piece of knowledge to share with the world.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:07 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 12 March 2012 12:28, Richard Symonds
>  wrote:
>
> > deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India,
> > which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong
> religious
> > vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language, it is
> only
> > natural that people from the bible belt /do/ have a say in whether or not
> > having an image filter is appropriate. We owe it to these people to make
> > sure that Wikipedia is not blocked in their countries.
>
>
> You're describing places in terms of fundamentally rejecting the
> Enlightenment. General encyclopedias, starting from l'Encyclopedie,
> are an Enlightenment project. Ultimately, we can't cripple Wikipedia
> for the world because some parts of it are not happy with the idea of
> people being allowed to know stuff in general.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Nathan]

The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is
just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It's
best ignored, along with the people who use it.
___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[David Gerard]

On 12 March 2012 14:35, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> That is beside the point. You are against the proposal that is on the
> table. It is a compromise. Now the fact that some want much more and you
> want much less makes it a compromise.


Erm, I'm addressing Richard's stated rationale.


- d.

___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
That is beside the point. You are against the proposal that is on the
table. It is a compromise. Now the fact that some want much more and you
want much less makes it a compromise.

So what gives, why do you refer to the opposing point of view ? Why not
accept the proposal as is and leave it at that?
Thanks,
 Gerard

On 12 March 2012 15:25, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 12 March 2012 13:55, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> > When you consider that the current proposal is for a system where it
> takes
> > one click to see something anyway, I do think the notion that something
> is
> > not knowable is over the top.
>
>
> The rationale is problematic: to appease a target audience of people
> who don't want knowledge to be general anyway. You have read
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad/Archive_1 ,
> right? They aren't concerned with images, or indeed text, on Wikipedia
> - they're concerned with it existing *anywhere*.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

[David Gerard]

On 12 March 2012 13:55, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> When you consider that the current proposal is for a system where it takes
> one click to see something anyway, I do think the notion that something is
> not knowable is over the top.


The rationale is problematic: to appease a target audience of people
who don't want knowledge to be general anyway. You have read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad/Archive_1 ,
right? They aren't concerned with images, or indeed text, on Wikipedia
- they're concerned with it existing *anywhere*.


- d.

___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you consider that the current proposal is for a system where it takes
one click to see something anyway, I do think the notion that something is
not knowable is over the top.
Thanks,
 Gerard

On 12 March 2012 14:07, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 12 March 2012 12:28, Richard Symonds
>  wrote:
>
> > deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India,
> > which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong
> religious
> > vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language, it is
> only
> > natural that people from the bible belt /do/ have a say in whether or not
> > having an image filter is appropriate. We owe it to these people to make
> > sure that Wikipedia is not blocked in their countries.
>
>
> You're describing places in terms of fundamentally rejecting the
> Enlightenment. General encyclopedias, starting from l'Encyclopedie,
> are an Enlightenment project. Ultimately, we can't cripple Wikipedia
> for the world because some parts of it are not happy with the idea of
> people being allowed to know stuff in general.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Will Beback

[Nathan]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> I must disagree with Risker that this is simply a local issue involving a
> single project or with a previous editor who feels that English Wikipedia
> can take care of itself. We have a serious lack of editors not only on
> English Wikipedia but within the project as a whole and this is getting
> worse rather than better. The foundation has been putting great efforts
> into attracting editors and Will's case touches on the issue of recruitment
> and retention of editors to the project as a whole and thus is directly
> relevant to the WMF. We have had issues with how some admins treat new
> editors to the movement and it seems we also have issues with how some of
> our long standing editors are dealt with specifically by Arbcom. If we base
> our decisions on isolated behavioral matters exclusively without taking
> into account content issues or the contribution histories of the editors in
> question this institution will make bad decisions for the project and the
> movement as a whole.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
>

Are you suggesting that the WMF, or the Wikimedia community, should impose
or agitate for a policy on the English Wikipedia of immunizing prolific
contributors from conduct policies?

I'm not sure that would have your intended effect on retention. It has been
as commonly argued, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, that we are already too lax
on vested contributors when it comes to conduct policy... and that this
veterans' privilege contributes to a sometimes poisonous atmosphere that
damages new editor recruitment and retention.

What might be more useful is the development of better tools to support
editors in difficult and important subject areas, better community
engagement in those areas, and a mechanism to intervene before the
battleground ethos overtakes otherwise sterling contributors.
___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[David Gerard]

On 12 March 2012 12:28, Richard Symonds
 wrote:

> deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India,
> which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong religious
> vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language, it is only
> natural that people from the bible belt /do/ have a say in whether or not
> having an image filter is appropriate. We owe it to these people to make
> sure that Wikipedia is not blocked in their countries.


You're describing places in terms of fundamentally rejecting the
Enlightenment. General encyclopedias, starting from l'Encyclopedie,
are an Enlightenment project. Ultimately, we can't cripple Wikipedia
for the world because some parts of it are not happy with the idea of
people being allowed to know stuff in general.


- d.

___
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 - the image filter disguised under a new label

[Richard Symonds]

I'm speaking as an individual here, not on behalf of my chapter.

The problem that the English language Wikipedia has that the German 
language one does not, is that we cover countries as far apart as the 
libertarian micronation of 'Sealand 
' in the UK, the 
deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and 
India, which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very 
strong religious vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one 
language, it is only natural that people from the bible belt /do/ have a 
say in whether or not having an image filter is appropriate. We owe it 
to these people to make sure that Wikipedia is not blocked in their 
countries.


Andreas raises some good points, and while I don't agree with him 
/completely/, I do feel that the current filtering system on the English 
projects is simply not working as well as it could. That said, it's not 
an insurmountable problem, and I think most of the global community (all 
languages included) would agree that a easier-to-use filter system is 
needed. I don't think it's helpful to use comparisons to the "bible 
belt" or "English speaking attacks". My wife is from the bible belt and 
is really quite reasonable (most of the time...)


Richard Symonds


On 10/03/2012 11:26, Möller, Carsten wrote:


I would like it the other way:
Why should some minorities force a worldwide project to obay their point of 
view regarding images or other controversial content?
Why should the german speaking community collect funds for this filtering and 
hiding project?
Every community is free to discuss which image is shown on a article by article 
basis.
And they have the option to use some tricks to show a certain image only after 
a second click, if they find that approbiate.

The German, Austrian and Swiss chapters would love to keep their share of the fundraiser 
in Europe and have a separate "eurocommons" without the sometimes funny attacks 
by english speaking users on some images. That would also avoid taxproblems on this side 
of the pond.
I think our financial stake is big enough.

Ist not the biblebelt or Hisbollah or Syria or Putin to dicte the rules.

Carsten Möller
Hamburg Germany



One thing I've never understood is why the Board wants to
allow the German
Wikipedia community to dictate what will be done in Commons, English
Wikipedia, and dozens of other projects that the German
community has no
stake in.

If the German Wikipedia does not want the image filter, then
let them opt
out. They genuinely need it less than most other projects ?
they serve a
culturally homogeneous language region whose standards are very
progressive, and they are generally more judicious in the way they use
explicit content.

But it is not fair to say that other projects can't have the
image filter,
just because the Germans don't want it, or need it.

German Wikipedia has Pending Changes, English Wikipedia
doesn't. Did we
tell the Germans that because English Wikipedia gave Pending Changes a
thumbs-down, it was verboten for the Germans to have it?

It's not the German community's place to dictate global WMF policy.

Andreas



--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 6493 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message


___
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] Wikipedia Scholarship in Medicine

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

James Heilman, 12/03/2012 11:07:

Seven month ago we at Wikimedia Canada offered a $1000 CAD scholarship to
be awarded to the Canadian university student who made the most significant
contribution to a disease related article on Wikipedia. The scholarship was
promoted using posters placed up at a number of Universities as well as
presentations at two Canadian universities. While the efforts garnered some
positive press as document here
http://wikimedia.ca/wiki/Wikimedia_Canada:About there where no serious
applicants. I am unsure why. It could possibly be related to Canadian
students being sufficiently wealthy that this was insufficient funding to
peak their interest. I am unsure if it would be worth offering it globally
next year or expanding those who can apply to high school students as well?
Anyway some though for those who consider trying something similar.


This is not surprising. The https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Zedler_Medal 
has existed for a long time
See also http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/incentives (wasn't this put 
anywhere?), from 
.


Nemo

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

[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Scholarship in Medicine

[James Heilman]

Seven month ago we at Wikimedia Canada offered a $1000 CAD scholarship to
be awarded to the Canadian university student who made the most significant
contribution to a disease related article on Wikipedia. The scholarship was
promoted using posters placed up at a number of Universities as well as
presentations at two Canadian universities. While the efforts garnered some
positive press as document here
http://wikimedia.ca/wiki/Wikimedia_Canada:About there where no serious
applicants. I am unsure why. It could possibly be related to Canadian
students being sufficiently wealthy that this was insufficient funding to
peak their interest. I am unsure if it would be worth offering it globally
next year or expanding those who can apply to high school students as well?
Anyway some though for those who consider trying something similar.

-- 
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] Will Beback

[James Heilman]

I must disagree with Risker that this is simply a local issue involving a
single project or with a previous editor who feels that English Wikipedia
can take care of itself. We have a serious lack of editors not only on
English Wikipedia but within the project as a whole and this is getting
worse rather than better. The foundation has been putting great efforts
into attracting editors and Will's case touches on the issue of recruitment
and retention of editors to the project as a whole and thus is directly
relevant to the WMF. We have had issues with how some admins treat new
editors to the movement and it seems we also have issues with how some of
our long standing editors are dealt with specifically by Arbcom. If we base
our decisions on isolated behavioral matters exclusively without taking
into account content issues or the contribution histories of the editors in
question this institution will make bad decisions for the project and the
movement as a whole.

-- 
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] Bangla Wikipedia Unconference 2012 in Chittagong

[Noopur]

That is great Tanvir :) Good going!
Regards
Noopur

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Tanvir Rahman wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I am so pleased to announce that Wikimedia Bangladesh, with the help of
> Independent University, Bangladesh, Chittagong, and Bangladesh Open Source
> Network, organized the first Bangla Wikipedia Unconference 2012 [1] in
> Chittagong [2] to promote Bangla Wikipedia [3] in Bangladesh. This outreach
> event was held in 2 and 3 of March and was attended by around 300
> participants. It was first big-level program of Wikimedia Bangladesh and it
> was outside of the Dhaka (the capital) to focus on country-wide outreach.
> We called it an "unconference" to give it a less formal look and to make
> the appearance more welcoming.
>
> This two days event was inaugurated by the Chittagong City Mayor and and in
> the last it was attended by the Since and Technology minister of Bangladesh
> Government. It was also attended by some other popular public figures,
> writers, and university professors, and media personalties. During the
> unconference we had events like workshops, photo exhibition, cultural
> program, seminars, article writing contest, etc. We had several teams from
> the schools, colleges, and universities in Chittagong as team participants.
> The unconference was hosted by Chittagong campus of Independent University,
> Bangladesh. You can see the some of the images of the events in the Commons
> category [4].
>
> Because of the presence of the popular public figures and government
> officials, the event got a significant amount of media coverage in national
> print and electronic media. We also even had billboards in the city's main
> crossings to let people know about Bangla Wikipedia which was the main
> purpose of this event and current strategic priority of Wikimedia
> Bangladesh.
>
> Wikimedia Bangladesh wants to thank everyone who supported us. We want to
> thank our sponsors and donors who helped us to arrange this big event. We
> want thank Wikimedia Foundation director Sue Gardner for her nice video
> speech that we screened in the inaugural ceremony. And of course to our
> participants, who eventually made this effort a success. And I apologize to
> let you guys know about this event in late. We are still working on putting
> everything on wiki.
>
> Regards,
> Tanvir Rahman
> Wikitanvir on Wikimedia
> Secretary,
> Wikimedia Bangladesh
>
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bangla_Wikipedia_Unconference_2012
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chittagong
> [3] http://bn.wikipedia.org
> [4]
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bangla_Wikipedia_Unconference_2012
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Noopur Raval
Student
Arts and Aesthetics
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Ph: 9650567690
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l