[Foundation-l] New Models of Affiliation draft parameters
Dear all, Many thanks for bringing the discussion on New Models of Affiliations this far. Building on earlier Movement Roles discussions from last year and on the New Models working group's discussions earlier this month [1], here are a set of draft principles and parameters for the four categories of models: -Chapters or National/Sub-national Organizations -Partner Organizations or Focused Organizations -Associations or Wiki Groups -Affiliates or Official Partners of the Wikimedia Movement They can all be accessed from the Wikimedia affiliation models summary page [2]. Apart from comments, questions and thoughts that will help us to clarify and strengthen these draft principles and parameters, we would very much like your feedback on the proposed nomenclature. In the working group, we agreed that the names chapters, partners, associations and affiliates are often misleading, somewhat interchangeable, can mean different things in different contexts, and may get lost in translation. Proposals to change the names are on the talk page [3]. Please do leave any additional comments there. Cheers, Bishakha [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models/Summary [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models/Summary ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] New Models of Affiliation update
Dear all, A quick update on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement since the publication of the board letter on 13 Feb. The letter is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models. From the emails responding to this, SJ and I extracted a number of relevant questions that are slowly being discussed on the talk page. A small informal working group is aiming to move this discussion forward in the next 15 days. We are: Bence Damakos - ChapCom Bishakha Datta - WMF Board Joan Goma - Amical Sam Klein - WMF Board Delphine Menard - WM DE, ChapCom Achal Prabhala - ChapCom advisor Marcos Talles - WM ES Galileo Vidoni - WM AR Our aim is to discuss and progressively fine-tune the draft proposal on New Models of Affiliation for the Wikimedia Movement. Each of the members is already part of this discussion, has expressed a deeper interest in the issue, or is likely to be affected by it. We will conduct our discussions on meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models as per the following timetable: *2.1 Affiliation models, names, and overlaps * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Affiliation_models.2C_names.2C_and_overlaps Deadline to add our comments and additional questions to this section: 2 March *2.2 Requirements for recognition * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Requirements_for_Recognition Deadline to add our comments, more questions to this section: 4 March *2.3 Rights and duties * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Rights_and_Duties Deadline for our comments and questions: 6 March *2.4 Overlaps and privileged status within a region * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Overlaps_and_privileged_status_within_a_.28region.2Fcontext.29 Deadline for c and q: 8 March *2.5 Membership, communities and collaboration* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Membership.2C_Communities.2C_and_Collaboration Deadline: 10 March *2.6 Mentoring and review* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Mentoring_and_review.2Fsummary_of_groups Deadline: 12 March *2.7 Governance* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Governance Deadline: 14 March It would help us immensely if any of you with an interest in this issue would participate in the meta discussion as per the time-table above. (Broken into bite-sized pieces to ensure we can focus on smaller bits; the whole thing is a lot to chew off at once). I will continue to announce the smaller bits at the start of each to stimulate participation - and get back next week on steps after 14 March. We hope this will help us develop the New Models of Affiliation draft proposal into a solid set of recommendations and look forward to your interest and participation. Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Serious that you can't see the good side in ask the chapters, Bishakha? Awaiting your and others' thoughts on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Questions Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Movement Roles: questions on New Models
Dear all, I went through the lists and collated a bunch of questions that have been asked (without identifying who has asked these). I have put them on the talk page of the MR letter, so that we can systematically start considering and addressing them. This is the link: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models#Questions_on_several_aspects I would be most obliged if you would go through these, add your thoughts, and more questions that need answering. I have yet to put up questions on the proposed Affiliations Committee, but feel free to add these too. Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nlwrote: 2012/2/14 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: It is clear to me that there is a close link between the fundraising/dissemination discussion and the increased options of organising ourselves. I am also convinced that we Indeed, and it may not be a coincidence that these two letters came out more or less at the same time. :-) I find it good that the WMF board is taking up these discussions and opens them again. How about asking the *official* opinion of the chapters, within a certain time frame (e.g. 1 or 2 months)? Meaning? I continue to think it would be great if we had a wide range of opinion on this - both from chapters and from others in the movement. Because the MR process has gone on for so long, I'm personally sceptical of extending the deadline. (I'm not convinced we will actually get more discussion with more time - that has not necessarily been the history of MR since 2010 July, when it began. So at this moment, I'm leaning towards a one-month focused period of discussion. Best Bishakha Then we would have a more substantial and reliable feedback, compared to the mails on a mailinglist or talk page comments, all done by people as individuals. Kind regards Ziko -- --- 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Mathias Damour mathias.dam...@laposte.netwrote: I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's. I see new 'models' as a positive proposal to encourage and enable many more types of affiliations to take place - formal, informal, geographic, not defined by geography, thematic etc - rather than as a 'stick' to put down or threaten chapters. That's why I'm in favour of this. Personal view. Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote: One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation * whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. How would this benefit the movement? Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Indian Minister Kapil Sibal Wants to Censor social
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:25:03PM +0530, Achal Prabhala wrote: On Tuesday 06 December 2011 08:27 PM, Kim Bruning wrote: I do not believe that the Indian internet community shares Kapil Sibal's position. Though they'll have to speak for themselves, of course! :-) They have: http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10pid=2664 and Mr Sibal's passing thought of yesterday is probably not going anywhere. And hurrah for that! :-) A cautious hurrah. In April this year, the Indian government tried to restrict web content by holding sites and service providers - or 'intermediaries' liable for content. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/technology/28internet.html?_r=2scp=1sq=india%20onlinest=cse These new rules will be considered by Parliament in the winter session - and continue to pose a huge threat to online freedom of expression in India. Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
Thanks for the reply, Rupert, and for pushing me to think harder. I like that! Without repeating myself and building on your questions, here's what I'll say: I agree that chapters are an important way to take the wikimedia movement forward across the globe. No issues with that. I'm still not convinced that *any entity* should see itself at the centre of the movement either globally or in a country - either because it has members, or because it has funding, or because it is an entity. For any reason. Why is it important for an entity in a volunteer movement to be at the centre at all? If there is anyone or anything that I see at the centre of the wikimedia movement, it is individual volunteers - who work on the projects, edit day in and day out, do other things etc. When entities and formal organizations start up in a country, individual volunteers who are not affiliated to any of these start seeing themselves as 'lower order volunteers' in some way; to me, this is tremendously sad. I've heard editors in India say, I'm just a volunteer (to describe themselves, since they are neither office bearers in the chapter, nor work in the program trust). When I hear that, I feel we're doing something wrong - the presence of entities in a country should make individual volunteers and editors feel supported and part of this universe, not devalued or disconnected. In response to your questions about not doing it differently in India, I think there's good reason for us to experiment in different ways in different geographies - wasn't wikipedia itself a grand experiment to begin with? But yes, experiment in a way that does not exclude the communities that have organically grown in these places. If we really want to sustain the projects at a time when the editor base is declining, I do think some experimentation may be in order. Agree that things don't work out should be dropped, but maybe new ways of doing things can also provide new answers. And yes, a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to work, given how culturally diverse the world is. So yes, boots on the ground, but also ear to the ground. :) Cheers Bishakha On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: hi bishaka, many thanks for your mail! i like a lot your attitude a lot to challenge constantly existing ways of thinking and doing :) just let us look on others. our exemplary organizations are not doing anything different than in all other countries: * http://www.indianredcross.org/sb.htm * http://www.msfindia.in/ * national indian football leage * http://www.wwfindia.org/ coming to the other point you made about living up to expectations. i am pretty sure you know that the chapters are per definition at the center stage, like wmf is. and you know of the careful ant patient proceeding which led, in a second try, to a successful UK chapter. and the thoughtful and friendly and listening proceeding to make every organization in the wiki universe live up to the expectations and get better, which now can be seen exemplary by planning the future fundraising and fund disemination. is there a reason why the wikimedia movement should address it differently in india? why not be patient? why not be consistent? why not do like the other big ones, surely much more experienced in india than we are? rupert On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 04:08, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo, Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and want to take this conversation forward. One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness within the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as givens - these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone explored in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated almost as sacrilege. One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there - regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some sort of trespasser or gate-crasher). A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default, and without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for many countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only workable model?) For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27 countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not mistaken. India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Dear Bishakha, I apologize for intruding in this discussion again as someone who has little knowledge about India and the local situation. Your reply made me happy - it broadened the conversation beyond borders, it made me feel we can still exchange ideas without snarling at each other, and it made some solid points. I feel no particular need to respond to anything, but just wanted to thank you for pitching in. Really. After a long time, I'm smiling on this thread. Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia India Program Trust
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Arjuna Rao Chavala arjunar...@gmail.comwrote: Hi all, This thread has brought up several points of interest to Wikimedia India. First let me take this opportunity to thank the Foundation Grants team for all the help for our bootstrapping work, be it Legal consultant or Documentation for FCRA etc. We have been interacting regularly with India programs, it was limited to sharing of the plan and progress on each other's initiatives and some collaboration, as Hisham and myself are on the advisory board of Wiki Conference India 2011. snip In summary, while the objectives of Wikimedia India and Wikimedia Foundation India programs are common, we really need to define the relationship to a sufficient level of clarity and continue to iterate the same based on experiences. I'd like to propose that the India chapter and the Program trust do a joint review in Feb 2012 or so to generally take stock of what's working, what's not, what can be improved etc. Suggesting Feb 2012 since it will be 12 months since Hisham would have started work, and about 13 months since the chapter would have been officially registered in India, so similar time spans. Of course, it could be done later too - you'll can figure out the right time together...feel this might help, in addition to the monthly calls, informal interactions etc. Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudh...@gmail.com wrote: The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants with the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally, have paid employees and bypass community. From what I have seen, the program office does not behave like a law unto itself, as implied above. This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects which support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN has already had interest from and meetings with other donors, including pretty big ones in India (I was there at one such in 2010), so why this feeling that WMIN can't acquire the big grants? WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to WIPT, given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces. As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it never had a chance. This is how WMIN has been made redundant (something that I have been saying for a long, long time). I really don't get this. Given that India is a huge country - with more than 1 billion people - and zillions of opportunities to grow editing communities in different languages, how can WMIN become or be made redundant? Also, given that the chapter is less than a year old, and has some new office-bearers, and has announced new plans for moving forward, how is it redundant? My personal view is that there is enough work ahead for not just one, or two, but numerous entities, formal and informal, to enter the fray and actualize this potential. Already, there are many more requests for collaboration within India than either WMIN or WIPT or both put together can handle. Given this huge potential, I don't see why this discussion has to be framed through the lens of competition or territoriality. Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
This thread started out with questions about the legal and practical differences between chapter and trust, but has veered much more into the terrain of funding and money. In addition, there have been numerous emails on bank accounts, grants, fellowships and what not. I'm glad we're talking about money and funding, but it's seeming like this is of greater concern than programs and activities - surely, funding is just a means to an end, rather than an end in itself? Funding is being discussed almost as if funding is an 'end' in itself - as if money is of greater importance than the huge amounts of work needed to build editing communities. This is both ironical in a volunteer community, and a source of worry, and I would like to place this on record. Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Can you elaborate on the legal and practical differences between the new India Trust and the India Chapter? Dear Liam, Since I run a non-profit in India in my other life, I'll pitch in on one part of this: the legal differences between the India trust and the India chapter. There are three common ways of legally incorporating a non-profit in India: trust, society, section 25 company. The chapter is registered as a society, traditionally considered a more open incorporation structure, with members, elections etc. All these are specified in its by-laws. The program office is registered as a trust, which requires a minimum of two trustees to function. A trust does not usually have members; trustees can be appointed or elected (as per what's specified as the method on the trust deed). Check out the table at the bottom of the attachment [1] to get more details on this. Cheers Bishakha [1] http://www.ngosindia.com/resources/ngo_registration.php ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote: The problem is that what is usually called the Board on this list is not a single entity. It is actually a group of persons. And right now, the situation is that there is no real agreement within the Board about what to exactly do or not do. While I totally agree that each of us, as individual board members has our own individual take on this issue (as we do on many other issues), that does not mean we are incapable of making a collective decision on this as a Board. I think Ting, Phoebe and Sue have accurately summarized this in their emails to this list. Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: If you are right that the board is split on this (and I expect you are), then what seems to be happening is that they can't make a decision so they are telling the staff to make it for them. That is really not the way a board of trustees should work. From my experience, this is not how we work. There is no question of the staff making decisions for the Board, because we cannot do so! Best Bishakha ___ 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] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Hiya Bishakha On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: I have said, it is a matter of perspective how you view them. But if we go by the assumption that editorial judgement is a separate thing, whose job is it to exercise it? WMF has long held the position that the project are independent and it has not editorial control over what the community decides- this would not be the case if we consider the filter an editorial judgement. Keeping in mind the reaction that has been shown by different communities, would it mean, WMF would be exercising that control? using an already existing structure of categories created earlier, possibly by editors who don't agree with the filter, to implement the said editorial control? What about editorial independence[1]? Good point - I don't think WMF is trying to take editorial control. WMF is trying to develop a software feature. Yes, editorial independence is part of editorial judgement and editing. (Am at Seoul airport, not slept all night, so pardon my fuzziness). No, it is only being hidden. Not being hidden for everyone - you hide if you want, I don't if I don't want. Based on an arbitrary system of categories that can be exploited. Agree that there has been a good discussion on categorization, and the issues related to this, both on this list and on meta - and useful models proposed. Best Bishakha [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_independence ___ 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] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: If you want to make a valid counterargument, say that you are worried that some censorious ISPs and countries might use our category definitions as a starting point for a bolt-on censorship system that restricts access to these images. However, be clear that then it would be *them* who would be hiding our content, not us. The worst you can accuse us of is that we made it easier for them. That does worry me though. We'd still be in good company, as all other major websites, including Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems that are widely accepted. I thought youtube had community guidelines where users could report images they found offensive and those were removed from the site - although from these guidelines it is not clear how many users need to complain before something is taken down. 1? 10? 100? 1000? I can't link the guidelines, they're coming in Korean at Seoul airport, where I am. So I thought we were actually proposing something quite different from youtube, for instance. Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US (Brazil/Portugal) is against. Hope we're not going to call this a poll. :) Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: (not responding to anyone in particular) I'm one of the people who tried to participate in the discussion without taking a strong standpoint (intentionally - because I'm quite nuanced on the issue, and open for good arguments of either side) and I have to fully agree with Ryan. I have yet been unable to participate in this discussion without either being ignored fully (nothing new to that, I agree) or being put in the opposite camp. I basically gave up. My personal reaction to the discussion: I followed it, found some implementation ideas useful, and also found the barrier to entry too high. Both the noise and the black and white-ness of the discussion. So I agree that one of the unfortunate consequences of the 'either you are for or against' the filter discussion is that other points of view and voices are being, not 'censored', but silenced, perhaps unintentionally. And that is where I think Sue's blog post is useful: in bringing in another dimension - the issue of editorial judgment, which is a more 'grey' or somewhat 'subjective' area. Whether one agrees with it or not, this is a dimension worth considering. While neutrality is no doubt a key project principle, editorial judgment or selectivity is exercised in the projects on a daily basis. (Even selecting an image to accompany a wikipedia is a selection or an editorial judgement of some sort, right?) Given that this is the case, is it any different to exercise editorial judgment on this issue than it is to exercise editorial judgment on anything else? It may be productive to discuss this issue in the overall context of editorial discussions and selections on the project, rather than in a ghetto by itself. I totally understand and get the anger emanating from the community. And, numbers apart, this does say something. But because of the anger, is this issue being 'exceptionalized' too much and being placed on a different pedestal, where no discussion beyond the black and white, on greys such as editorial judgement is possible? In that broader sense, I agree with Sue that there is a need to go back to and discuss the underlying issue: how to responsibly handle objectionable imagery. At the same time, as someone who works with images, I don't like the term 'objectionable imagery'. It's not necessarily an image, per se, that is objectionable, but a gaze that renders it such. (Two people can look at the same image, one finds it objectionable, the other does not). **I am also dismayed at the use of the word 'censorship' in the context of a software feature that does not ban or block any images. But somehow there doesn't seem to be any other paradigm or language to turn to, and this is what is used as default, even though it is not accurate. It's been mentioned 1127 times in the comments, as per Sue's report to the board, and each time it is mentioned, it further perpetuates the belief that this is censorship. Anyhow, about the filter issue. I think at this stage it is very hard to determine any opinion about the filter because everybody seems to have their own idea what it will look like, what the consequences will be and how it will affect their and other people's lives. I myself find it hard to take a stance based on the little information available and I applaud the visionaries that can. Information I am even more missing however (and I think it would have been good to have that information *before* we took any poll within our own community) is what our average 'reader on the street' thinks about this. Do they feel they need it? What parts of society are they from (i.e. is that a group we are representative of? Or one we barely have any interaction with?) What kind of filter do they want (including the option: none at all). Obviously this should not be held in the US, but rather world wide - as widely as possible. I agree. I don't think we really have sufficient data on what readers want (or atleast I have not seen it) and this is another missing dimension. We are assuming we know, but we don't. We are also not hearing back on how much of a problem this is from many of the projects. Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Hoping for a constructive discussion and more data on what our 'readers' actually want and/or need... Also, while we don't have reader data, we do have more than 20,000 answers to the referendum or survey or whatever it should accurately be called. As per Sue's report to the Board, which Erik referred to [1]: The referendum did not directly ask whether respondents supported the idea of the filter. It did ask this question: *On a scale of 0 to 10, if 0 is strongly opposed, 5 is neutral and 10 is strongly in favor, please give your view of the following: It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers.* 24,023 people responded to that question, with 23,754 selecting a number on the scale. The result was mildly in favour of the filter, with an average response of 5.7 and a median of 6. How do we understand this? And how should this be factored into making a decision? Best Bishakha [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Sue%27s_report_to_the_board/en#What_has_happened_since_the_referendum ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman from the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such posts in the future. As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how does it correlate with cultures. I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter, nor all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to generalize on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple correlation. Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender or culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly. Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what? That doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser human. And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see the filter as proposed as censorship. The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And just as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why is it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or she sees a vulva? That's what I don't get. Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and what not. Theo: they are different things, and given the premium on accuracy and precision at wikipedia, I don't think we can claim that editorial judgments and censorship are the same. It should not be our job to censor our own content. We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is being removed from the sites. [1] The strongest argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which use 1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe. Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different would we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for all the people that do flinch? There is no proposal to remove anything from the sites; as I understand it, it is proposed that users can click on a button to turn off some images - those who want to continue to see everything can continue to do so. Nothing goes. But when the Indian government bans Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses or James Lane's book on Shivaji, that is censorship.[2] I can point to Indian IB ministry issues or Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than me. Yes, I know from personal experience - had a huge brush with the Censor Board in 2001 and refused to remove any content from my docu as demanded by them. [3] Cheers Bishakha [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_India [3] http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/the-limits-of-freedom/the-secret-life-of-film-censorship.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 6:45 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: I want to ask you something else. It's been suggested several times at various places that the present resolution is justified as a compromise to prevent a considerably more repressive form of censorship. This implies that the proposed image hiding feature is a less repressive form of censorship. I do not see the proposed feature as censorship - all the images remain on the site. Nothing is removed. Nothing is suppressed. Everything remains. [1] I am however going to ask whether the fact that such proposals were entertained, shows the validity of the argument that we're on a slippery slope. Are we truly on a slippery slope with 'informative labelling' with neutral language? Or can this be considered another aspect of curation? Once you admit censorship, it's hard to limit it; once you admit POV editing, it inevitable develops into arrant promotionalism. Censorship is inherently POV editing. Are we really admitting censorship via the front or even through the back door through the image hiding feature? If everything remains on the site, and you and I can continue to see everything that exists just as we do today, how are we 'admitting censorship'? I have read the comments on meta, about the possibility of this opening doors to government requests for removal of content - that, in my view would be censorship. The Board resolution affirms that Wikimedia projects are not censored. [2] Cheers Bishakha [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Languages and numbers
I posted this on the India list (many people are not subscribed to foundation-l) - forwarding this question which just popped up. Bishakha -- Forwarded message -- From: Vickram Crishna vvcris...@radiophony.com Date: Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Languages and numbers To: Wikimedia India Community list wikimediaindi...@lists.wikimedia.org It is fascinating, although I think I may not have understood the classifications. Is there only one Indian Sign Language, for instance? I was told by a user (in the UK) that several are in use in different parts of the country. Still, perhaps the variants do not have sufficient numbers of users to qualify for this listing. However, the context in which I was told was precisely the severe lack of support materials for helping users become self-sufficient and good communicators, so the list itself becomes a barrier. Unfortunately, I do not know at the moment how to fix the problem. [296,097,274 349 India] Does the population number mean that the existing indic language wikipedias covers the rest of the population ie over 90 crore? Is this information updated from the current census? On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: While preparing Missing Wikipedias [1], I've got numbers of speakers and languages by area and country with chapter not covered by Wikipedias. Numbers are preliminary, some of them should be corrected. I didn't exclude Han languages, which mostly shouldn't be counted, and similar. Note, also, that every language should be analyzed separately. Many languages are spoken not just inside of one country. Please, fix errors and comment. * * * Areas. They approximate the usual definitions of areas, but they are different because of linguistic corrections. * Afro-Asiatic Area: Area where Afro-Asiatic languages are dominant. North Africa + Middle East + Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia - Iran. * Europe: Europe (including Caucasus) includes Turkey. * South Asia: South Asia + Iran. Dominantly Indo-European and Dravidian languages. * Sub-Saharan Africa: The rest of Africa. * Polynesia, Australia and Oceania: Includes Malaysia and Taiwan (Taiwanese languages not covered in Wikipedias are dominantly Austronesian.) * East Asia: Han China China (Central), Korea and Japan. * South-East Asia: Includes non-Han south China China (South). * Latin America: Parts of America where Spanish and Portuguese are official languages. * Anglo-French America: Parts of America where English, French and Dutch are official languages. * North Asia: Asian part of former USSR, Mongolia and non-Han northern and western China China (North). The first column is number of speakers, the second number of languages, the third is area. 399259294 592 South Asia 353676706 1805 Sub-Saharan Africa 221855457 253 Afro-Asiatic Area 138979263 2198 Polynesia, Australia and Oceania 107363760 37 East Asia 99260271 447 South-East Asia 47901185 143 Europe 30361602 724 Latin America 8481452 227 Anglo-French America 3724384 45 North Asia * * * Countries with chapters. (Numbers are not fully correct, as they include some languages removed in the list below this one.) If any chapter (or interested group) is interested in full list of missing languages, I'll provide it by request before completing the work. I suppose that some chapters are interested in languages with less than 100K of speakers, as well. 296,097,274 349 India 71,356,176 681 Indonesia 46,676,395 157 Philippines 7,819,010 9 Germany 7,994,871 76 Russian Federation 5,386,580 5 Serbia 4,785,299 6 South Africa 2,841,300 17 Israel 1,139,750 4 Ukraine 1,085,931 125 United States 832,000 3 Netherlands 705,967 70 Canada 472,470 1 Czech Republic 375,704 17 Taiwan 313,642 6 Chile 246,900 3 United Kingdom 200,500 4 Spain 191,430 5 Poland 151,240 7 Sweden 132,809 12 Argentina 86,390 155 Australia 50,000 1 France 30,000 1 Hungary 29,980 4 Switzerland 17,460 5 Finland 15,000 1 Portugal 10,500 2 Norway 5,000 1 Denmark 4,500 1 Estonia Languages with more than million or more than 100,000 of speakers without Wikipedia and with chapter in the country: India (more than million) 38261000 Awadhi 3470 Maithili 1750 Chhattisgarhi 1300 Magahi 1300 Haryanvi 1280 Deccan 1040 Malvi 950 Kanauji 900 Dhundari 776 Bagheli 697 Varhadi-Nagpuri 6170900 Santali 600 Lambadi 5622600 Marwari 500 Mewati 473 Hadothi 4004490 Konkani 390 Merwari 380 Mina 3633900 Konkani, Goan 300 Shekhawati 300 Godwari 292 Garhwali 268 Indian Sign Language 236 Kumaoni 211 Dogri 210 Bagri 2094200 Kurux 200 Mewari 197 Sadri 195 Tulu 195 Gondi, Northern 193 Waddar 171 Wagdi 170 Kangri 158 Khandesi 1560280 Mundari 1543300 Bodo 150 Ho 143 Nimadi
Re: [Foundation-l] Seat and Donations (SPLIT from: EFF Bitcoins)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote: But going forward, the idea that a stranger can ride into town and instantly lead a global movement-- that's not gonna be sustainable, I don't think. This central thought resonated so strongly with me that I had to write in. I came on to the Board last year in much the same way, and until I went through the full appointment process, I too could not fathom why the Foundation would even consider an 'outsider' for a role such as this. Going through the process put most of my doubts at rest: it was very obvious that this was well thought out, in terms of the composition of the Board, its current strengths, what was missing or needed, how to fill this gap etc. (I'm not doing Board public relations here, just telling it how I see it). What I still find amazing is the amount of trust and faith that is reposed in someone coming from the outside; this is part of wikip/media's unique model of collaboration, and this also pushes us to live up to it. At the same time, those of us who start off as outsiders also struggle to establish our credibility with the communities and the larger movement and breach the outsider/insider divide. Since I live in India, it was easier for me to build a relationship and gain acceptance within the indic language editing communities, but I am well aware that I am still a stranger to the larger community (strengthening this relationship is one of my personal goals for this year as a Board member). In my early days, one of the concepts that I found very useful was that of how to lead with a community, which I saw on Phoebe's userpage. [1] I personally think the sentiment you identify above is totally valid in the context of a movement that does not work on the principle of 'authority' per se - and that as chapters come up in many different parts of the world, and appointed Board members also come in without prior wikimedia roots, this question will recur. It is essential that we find ways to address this. Cheers Bishakha [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New members of Language committee
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:48 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: I am glad to announce that Language committee is stronger for three new members. By the time of getting their applications, the list is: Congratulations (or commiserations depending on your point of view I guess :) ) to all the new members, it looks like a good group. Will all of them be at the in person meeting coming up? Congratulations to all three new members - nice to see both Africa and Asia in the fray. And thanks for explaining the broader thinking behind the selections, Millosh. Am always a bit hesitant to make such suggestions for fear they will be (mis)read as pushing India's case, rather than making a larger point about geography and representation (which is meaningful only if other relevant criteria are met too, as happened in these cases). Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] An agenda for the meeting of the language committee
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: As I read the roster of the people who may attend, I am amazed at their qualifications. All people are involved in their Wikipediashttp://wikipedia.org/in the Incubator http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, they are linguists, standard people, a script expert, Wikimedians. Hey Gerard, Very impressed with the wide spread of languages/backgrounds in the Language Committee...and lovely that you'll are meeting for the first time. One thought occurred to me: there is no representation of Asian languages in the committee (and I don't mean only Indian languages). Would the committee want to consider an expansion in membership to include someone who is fluent in one or more Asian languages? Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Hindi has three genders that I know of
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: To top it off, Hindi has a form for inanimate objects. Some Indian languages have genders for nouns, others don't. Hindi is one of those that has two genders: feminine and masculine nouns [1], including for inanimate objects [2]. What I would like to learn is if Bishanka has an opinion about being addressed as a woman in her mother tongue. My mother tongue is Bengali, which is genderless - it does not have 'gendered' nouns or other aspects of gender like Hindi. So a man and a woman are addressed in the same way in Bengali. This is what I grew up with, am used to, and what I like. But that's just my personal preference, not necessarily my opinion on how women should be addressed in their mother tongues. (I can't speak for other women on this; I imagine it would differ from woman to woman.) Cheers Bishakha [1] http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hindi_1:2_Nouns_and_Adjectives [2] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hindi_Lessons/Lesson_4 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Questions about new Fellow
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:21 PM, whothis whoth...@gmail.com wrote: I assume you probably had some say in selecting the current Board Member from India since you announced his appointment Even though this is tangential to the main discussion, let me explain the process through which I was appointed to the Board of Trustees in March 2010. As I understand it, several names were given to the board committee dealing with this appointment, including mine. I then went through the following six interviews in this order: 1)Headhunter/recruitment firm from San Francisco (phone - I live in India) 2)Michael Snow, then WMF board chair (in person in SF) 3)Kat Walsh, WMF board member (in person) 4)Stu West, WMF board member (in person) 5)Sue Gardner, ED, WMF (in person) 6)Jimmy Wales, board member (Skype) I was then offered a position on the board. Achal did not announce my appointment on the Foundation list, Michael Snow did. (Also, I'm a woman: 'her' appointment) Achal mentored me into the India part of the role, introducing me to the community via the India list and offlist, and the chapter board via a separate list - and did some serious handholding in the first three months. I am truly grateful for that - it helped me find my feet much more quickly than I would have had I been trying to fit the pieces together on my own. Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Umberto Eco's interview
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: A translation can be found here: http://it.wikinews.org/wiki/Intervista_a_Umberto_Eco/Traduzione It's a lovely interview, Ilario. Congratulations :-) It's very interesting - and very useful. Just forwarded it to some of my literary friends in India, since Eco is well known here too. Cheers Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Welcome to a new board member
Thanks, all. Thought I would just introduce myself a bit more. Building on Michael (Snow's) email, for the last 12 years I have run Point of View (www.pointofview,org), a Mumbai-based non-profit that puts the voices and points of view of women in the public domain through media, art and culture. We work on issues ranging from domestic violence, sex workers' rights, gender and HIV - to enabling women in low-income communities to access and use digital technologies (video, photo, net) to tell their own stories and talk about their own realities. Info-activism, specially via online platforms, is one of the issues that we started working on a couple of years back. Our first foray into info-activism was as one of the seeders of the Public Access Digital Media Archive (http://pad.ma), which is built on open source software and principles. Apart from managing POV, I also make documentary videos on issues of gender and sexuality, and am currently writing a non-fiction book on the lives of sex workers in India. I also serve on the boards of many other non-profits that work in the Global South, including CREA (www.creaworld.org) and Breakthrough (www.breakthrough.tv) - and consult for foundations and non-profits in India, the US, and parts of Africa. Coming to Michael (Peel's) question about my prior involvement with Wikipedia, I'm one of its millions of daily readers/users around the world. I have yet to contribute enough by way of edits to call myself an editor. Cheers - and really do look forward to contributing in more ways than one, Bishakha On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Aphaia aph...@gmail.com wrote: Welcome aboard Bishaka, great to see a female activist and creator from Asia, I hope you enjoy your new role and feel comfortable in our community. Greetings warmly from Wikiquote, On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, Michael and Ting. Look forward to this new adventure, to becoming part of the community - and to meeting up soon. Yes, I did wonder whether you'll had noticed the POV-NPOV irony - but no worries on that score. Cheers Bishakha On 05-04-2010 14:06, Ting Chen wrote: Welcome Bishakha and looking forward to meet you soon in person. Ting Michael Snow wrote: As many of you know, we have had one vacant seat left on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for the board to appoint. We have now filled that seat by appointing Bishakha Datta, a journalist, filmmaker, and nonprofit leader from India. In the course of finding Bishakha, we met with a number of great people and had a lot of support going through the process, and I want to thank everyone who participated. I hope everyone will warmly welcome Bishakha as part of our community. By way of background, Bishakha runs a nonprofit based in Mumbai that focuses on conveying women's perspectives in culture and the media. She also has been involved in other international nonprofit work, and her knowledge of India should be a great help to us as we move forward with the strategic plan. In general, her experience will be a wonderful asset and I think she is an ideal fit for the remaining board seat. In a bit of an ironic twist, Bishakha's organization is called Point of View, but rest assured that she understands and endorses the neutral point of view approach for Wikimedia projects. Her journalistic background means she appreciates the value of an objective presentation, and throughout our conversations with her it was clear that she supports our mission and values. We will have an official press release in the next day or so with some more information. I'm excited to be able to work with Bishakha, and I know that she is looking forward to being involved as well. --Michael Snow ___ 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 -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ 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] Welcome to a new board member
Thanks, Michael and Ting. Look forward to this new adventure, to becoming part of the community - and to meeting up soon. Yes, I did wonder whether you'll had noticed the POV-NPOV irony - but no worries on that score. Cheers Bishakha On 05-04-2010 14:06, Ting Chen wrote: Welcome Bishakha and looking forward to meet you soon in person. Ting Michael Snow wrote: As many of you know, we have had one vacant seat left on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for the board to appoint. We have now filled that seat by appointing Bishakha Datta, a journalist, filmmaker, and nonprofit leader from India. In the course of finding Bishakha, we met with a number of great people and had a lot of support going through the process, and I want to thank everyone who participated. I hope everyone will warmly welcome Bishakha as part of our community. By way of background, Bishakha runs a nonprofit based in Mumbai that focuses on conveying women's perspectives in culture and the media. She also has been involved in other international nonprofit work, and her knowledge of India should be a great help to us as we move forward with the strategic plan. In general, her experience will be a wonderful asset and I think she is an ideal fit for the remaining board seat. In a bit of an ironic twist, Bishakha's organization is called Point of View, but rest assured that she understands and endorses the neutral point of view approach for Wikimedia projects. Her journalistic background means she appreciates the value of an objective presentation, and throughout our conversations with her it was clear that she supports our mission and values. We will have an official press release in the next day or so with some more information. I'm excited to be able to work with Bishakha, and I know that she is looking forward to being involved as well. --Michael Snow ___ 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
