Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: It's simply common courtesy not to speak on behalf of others unless they have elected you to do so, and I wish more Wikimedians observed that courtesy. I agree with this. Cimon's commented that the community responded as one man; I have not expressed an opinion either way on the image filter debate, and nor, I suspect, have the majority of the (highly productive) editors I interact with on en-wiki. Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright and cakes...
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.comwrote: I suspect a court would hold that the set of cakes is disjoint from the set of objects on permanent display, and thus that a photograph of cake can never benefit from freedom of panorama. You mean we can't have the cake and eat it too? Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright and cakes...
You're right, the topic is done. Filing it under WP:SILLY would be the icing on the cake. On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Best all around to simply destroy the evidence (by eating it?). ... can this topic end now? Or be moved on-wiki so that it can be filed under WP:SILLY? Thanks, Mike On 5 Mar 2012, at 23:23, Thomas Dalton wrote: On 5 March 2012 23:14, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: eating the cake would damage the moral rights of the logo author. Since he cannot give general permission to violate moral rights, eating the cake would be illegal. If you take a slice out of the cake, that could be an issue since you have created a new work that negatively portrays the logo. I think the only option is the eat the entire cake at once. ___ 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] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: Realistically *we are all part of the problem*. You, me, etc. because the problem is the entire ecosystem. Even stuff we think is polite and sensible might be incomprehensible to a newbie. Simple things like linking to, or quoting, parts of policy instead of taking time to write a simple explanation. The use of templates. The resistance to listen to arguments. It all adds up into a confusing user experience. This is not a new problem; many online communities suffer, and have suffered, from it. All of the things I mentioned are useful once your dealing with editors aware of the workings - it's not new and scary at that point and acts as a useful shortcut to streamline our interaction. The key thing to work on, I think, is easing newbies into that process without bombarding them with too much of it at once. This is part of the reason why I have been advocating that the education programs take an active role in encouraging the academics who teach classes on Wikipedia to become contributors themselves. If we can provide high-quality one-on-one mentoring to academics in the workings of Wikipedia we could increase the percentage of users who have a foot in both worlds. Editors without subject matter expertise will always be needed but to solve some of the problems on Wikipedia, particularly those regarding undue weight and comprehensiveness of coverage, we have to attract experts and help them become editors. Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communicating effectively: Wikimedia needs clear language now
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:40 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Erik Moeller wrote: Terms like strategy, mission statement and stakeholder have concrete organizational meaning. Yes, they are also often used as part of marketing copy or organizational copy in ways that are unhelpful, because people who aren't good writers feel the need to plug holes by picking from the shared vocabulary of organization-speak. That doesn't make them meaningless, anymore than the fact that every idiot has an opinion on quantum physics makes quantum physics meaningless. That's just your guilt talking. You've been as big an offender in this area as anyone. I can't be the only person who remembers that there's an entire Strategic Planning wiki. Anyone interested in a broad sampling of bullshit language need look no further. :-) Adding a smiley to an insult doesn't make it any less an insult. I think there are ways to make this argument more politely. Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for our credibility when a very respected journal, The Chronicle of Higher Education, features an op-ed that outlines, in very convincing detail, what happens when a subject-matter expert attempts to play the rules and is still slapped down. If I thought this author's experience is rare, I wouldn't be troubled by it. But as someone who frequently fielded complaints from folks who were not tendentious kooks, my impression is that it is not rare, and that the language of UNDUE -- as it exists today -- ends up being leveraged in a way that hurts Wikipedia both informationally and reputationally. Do you have specific ideas either as to what is wrong with the current language, or what it should be changed to say? Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad editing rather than to encourage good editing. I don't think that can be changed. It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's judgement that was called for with the Haymarket article. Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Cartman Gets an Anal Probe English Wikipedia's featured article today
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:50 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/2/7 HaeB haebw...@gmail.com Actually, the English Wikipedia's Featured Article Director What is that? has stated himself Why are not that decissions taken under community consensus? that some articles will not be featured on the main page (although he prefers to keep that list short and it currently consists only of the article Jenna Jameson): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/archive25#Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED_and_the_Main_Page I read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us that Wikipedia has no editorial board. Why is there a person deciding what can't be shown in the main page? There is currently an RfC on both the nature and occupancy of the role. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles/2012_RfC_on_FA_leadership Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
I'm not a fan of me-too posting, but I am breaking that rule to reinforce the point that there are those who, like Gregory and me, did not see any problem with the survey. Those who don't like it are, naturally, posting to comment; those who found no issues with it are probably not. I would not like to see anyone deducing what the majority opinion is from these comments. Having said that, the opposition that has been expressed is quite rational, and I think the proposed changes to the banner are sensible, but to me it was unproblematic as originally designed. Mike On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Gregory Varnum ad...@wikiqueer.org wrote: Having taken the survey - I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Sure the banner could have been designed better - but this seems like a disproportionate reaction to that minor mistake in the grand scheme of a one year approval process that obviously was transparent. They're US based organizations, so why are people surprised they'd target en.WP? It's the largest WMF project, so logical to focus on it over say en.WT. Focusing on editors or people with accounts makes a lot of sense. I'm not really sure why people seem to be all caught up in the numbers or target audience. I've worked on research that had much higher target numbers than this. This is one of the more bizarre (although not the most bizarre) reactions I've seen. I have no stake in the matter nor was I involved in its approval process, but as I was taking it I was thinking of many ways WMF and other nonprofits could utilize the data. Understanding people's altruistic behavior is vital to volunteer recruitment and fundraising efforts. I was impressed with how well it was put together, the explanations were especially well done. I'm not surprised people on enWP objected. You could suggest we had a search box or print feature and I'm confident at least a small vocal group would express displeasure without realizing they're features already present. I'm not saying they should be dismissed outright, but feel they should be taken in better context. Nothing anyone has said convinces me this is worth such in-depth and cyclical debate. Seems to have gone off the rail a bit... Thank you to the folks involved for providing responses and background information. Already gone beyond what I would have personally expected. Just my two cents - you may now return to finding problems with it. -greg aka varnent --- Gregory Varnum Lead, Aequalitas Project Founding Principal, VarnEnt @GregVarnum fb.com/GregVarnum On Dec 10, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Risker wrote: Hi Jerome - The only documentation from the research team that I have seen so far with respect to the target participation is in the initial proposal on enwp back in 2010, when it was proposed to leave 40,000 talk page messages; there was no indication that 30,000 of them would be newly registered users at that time. Not to criticize the genuine attempt at information sharing on Dario's part - it is much appreciated - but there is so much change in what was put forward from what we had initially been approached about that it's preferable to hear it from the researcher's mouth, and to have it well documented. Something that has never been clear is the reason that English Wikipedia editors were identified as the preferred target; there does not appear to be anything in this study that is particularly oriented toward Wikipedia activity. Risker/Anne 2011/12/10 Jérôme Hergueux jerome.hergu...@gmail.com This is actually not the case. Those 30,000 users or so are users who registered their Wikipedia account 30 days prior to the launch of the study. There are no other requirements for those users to be eligible to participate. This is in line with Dario's previous message: the banner has been designed to target a subsample of the English Wikipedia registered editor population. Based on estimates by the research team, the eligibility criteria apply to about 10,000 very active contributors and about 30,000 new editors of the English Wikipedia. Regards, Jérôme. 2011/12/10 Risker risker...@gmail.com Hi Jerome - please show me where it says that; I've not been able to verify that interpretation at all. My understanding is that the 30,000 are users with fewer than 100 edits per month on average, not that they are new users. Risker/Anne 2011/12/10 Jérôme Hergueux jerome.hergu...@gmail.com I do, however, have concerns about any research that expects to contact 40,000 editors and involve 1500 of them; that is a very significant portion of our active editorship on the English Wikipedia project. Commenting on this: out of those targeted 40,000 editors, 30,000 or so are *newly registered users*, so that the sample remains somewhat representative of the diversity we find on en:wp. The rest of it indeed
