Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia creator Jimmy Walker - wikileaks

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Jimmy Wales  wrote:

> I was mentioned in a leaked US diplomatic cable - with my name spelled
> wrong!
>
> http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/11/08SANTIAGO1015.html
>
> Hilarious.
>
> --Jimbo
>

Dy-no-MITE!

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] FW: Call for input: Strategic planning at Wikimedia Australia

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded on behalf of a non-member.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Jutta von Dincklage 
Date: Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Subject: FW: Call for input: Strategic planning at Wikimedia Australia
To: "foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org>

Dear All,

Wikimedia Australia’s Strategic Planning group, a sub-committee of the WMAu
Committee, is currently working hard to develop a strategic plan for the
organisation. We are seeking input from all our members, the friends of
WMAu, and community stakeholders. An initial Strategic Planning Subcommittee
workshop on the 16th and 17th July will deliberate over these issues
including submissions received up to 15th July.

** **

We know that this is short notice, but Wikimedia Australia would welcome
your ideas by 15 July 2011 (before our first strategic planning workshop on
16-17 July)!

** **

*How to contribute your ideas and suggestions*

**1.   **Read our strategic planning
pages


**2.   **Submit your suggestions on our Wikimedia Australia's ideascale
page 

** **

Wikimedia Australia members can also discuss ideas on our public discussion
place  and the private mailing
list .

** **

*Timeline: 1 July - 15 July 2011*

** **

We look forward to hearing about your suggestions.

** **

** **

Best wishes,

** **

Wikimedia Australia Strategic Planning Sub-committee



-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Fwd: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded to the list on behalf of a non-member.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Jacob Franklin 
Date: Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM
Subject: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org


Dear WikiMedia,
In recent weeks I have been reading about the work of your
foundation and all of the wikipages you have created. The scope of
your organization is vast, along with the amount of people who use its
tools. I believe that this incredible reach gives you a wonderful
opportunity to positively affect the lives of many people.

My name is Jake Franklin and I am an educator. I graduated from
Colby College with a degree in Philosophy in 2008. Since then I have
been teaching English in Shenyang, China and studying Chinese. Next
year I am planning to return to the US to go to graduate school for a
Masters in Educational Policy or International Education. I am
extremely passionate about improving the educational opportunities,
tools, and resources for all students. I believe that giving all
students access to quality education both enriches their educational
experience and provides them with a strong foundation to build towards
a better future.

   It is because of this dedication to the enrichment of education
that I wish to develop a relationship with your foundation. I have an
idea that I am passionate about and dedicated to and am writing this
email to introduce it to you.

 The basic idea is to create a version of wikipedia that is
exclusively written and edited by students. It is called
wikiEducation. There is one site for each grade level, and teachers
can sign up their classes to be writers and editors. The site grows
through students submitting their work as wikiEducation articles,
which are then edited by other students. By pairing collective
responsibility and a published presence, wikiEducation gives both
writers and editors a sense of achievement, a feeling of
responsibility and a relationship with each other that would be absent
without this tool. Moreover giving students ownership of the
information on the site motivates them to develop more intimate and
long-lasting relationships with the material.

 I think the idea would work best if implemented through the
Wikimedia Foundation and therefore have come to you first. I think
that you have the people and experience to build the site in the best
possible way. I would like to work with you to bring this idea to
fruition. I don’t have the technical know-how to build a website but I
do have the desire, drive and experience to bridge the gap between the
technical aspects of website building and the creation of an effective
teaching tool. WikiEducation’s success depends on teacher use. I can
work with the teachers and the builders to create a highly functional
website that teachers will enjoy using.

   The detailed business plan includes; a more detailed description of
the site, information about the site’s special features, market
analysis, and potential problems along with suggested solutions.
Please let me know whom I should send the plan to, and how I can
continue to play a role in its creation.

   Sincerely,
   Jake Franklin
   Email: jake.frankl...@gmail.com
   Skype: jakefranklin2




-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] en.wp HACKED?

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Risker  wrote:

> I'm not sure what kind of on-wiki discussions you might expect to see,
> Sage.
>

I think he might have been going with Chris' assertation that every page was
affected, which doesn't appear to be true - the template's transcluded on
just under 1,000 pages.  My guess is that all of the pages Chris saw were
affected, but the vast majority of articles weren't, meaning that it's not
anything new.

I recognize that this is probably a touchy issue given the controversy on
the English Wikipedia over flagged revisions (which I thankfully wasn't a
part of), but maybe flipping flagged revisions on for everything in the
template namespace would help the cause.  Certainly most edits to templates
are fine, but when it comes to truly malicious vandalism (as opposed to
newbie test edits, and young kids screwing around) templates are both the
most affected, and the most visible.  As-is, a number of highly visible
templates are fully protected, so this would be a step down in many cases
and a step up for many others.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Please Block This Guy

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Done.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking on Wikipedia

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:07 AM, George Herbert wrote:

> I would like to request that Dror be moderated on Foundation-L.  This
> is not an appropriate use of Foundation-L, Dror has one of the more
> extensive sockpuppetry histories of any Wikipedia abuse case (
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drork/Archive
>  ) and is using identical phrasing in comments here as the IP editor
> who is now IP range blocked, which aligns with prior comments he has
> historically made.  He has in private email responded to my question
> as to whether he is the IP editor by demanding to know what connection
> I have with Supreme Deliciousness.
>

I'm not sure moderation is appropriate at this point.  We try to keep
dialogue relatively open on foundation-l (possibly to our detriment, but I
feel that it's important to have a place somewhere within Wikimedia where
open dialogue can be raised, even amongst unpopular users).

That said, to me, I don't see any stalking whatsoever.  It is common when
investigating sockpuppets to send evidence privately to other trusted users,
so that the (suspected) sockpuppeteer does not change their habits to avoid
detection.  I don't see any other evidence presented to substantiate the
claim that someone is stalking Dror.  If there is no stalking, then this is
not a foundation issue.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] CentralNotice use

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> > Factually incorrect: it displayed to every reader for only 3 days.  It
> then
> > switched (as was always planned) to logged in users only.
>
> Planned where and by whom?
>
> MZMcBride
>

The Board Elections committee.  We felt that it was important to display the
notice to logged-out readers for a short time, because there are many people
(myself included) who consider themselves part of the Wikimedia community,
but do not log in regularly.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:53 PM,  wrote:

> I have a problem with this admin comprehending what exactly "Vandalism"
> means.
> In what way is the initial version "vandalism".
>
> If I cared enough I would suggest that re-training might be appropriate
> here.
>
> W
>

The third incarnation of the article (the one that was labeled "vandalism")
was labeled as a "hoax" under CSD G3 by an IP editor.  It looks like the
admin meant to delete it as a hoax, but picked the wrong option from the
drop-down box -- G3 covers both "vandalism" and hoaxes, and there are
separate deletion summaries for each.

As for whether it's a hoax, obviously it wasn't a "hoax"; that said, most of
the article is written almost like a fictional story, and it could have come
across as a hoax or something similar, particularly on first glance.  Also,
it was a copyvio, exactly like the second version that was deleted.  So to
me, it looks like the admin made the right call, but the reason given for
deleting it was incorrect.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Showing the difference between the sexes

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Rather than implementing MediaWiki code that could be controversial, there's
probably an easier solution that requires no code:

- Add a pseudo-namespace (such as the WP: prefix on Wikipedia, WN: on
Wikinews, etc.) that forwards from Benutzerin to Benutzer (and the relevant
User talk namespaces).  This would mean that either Benutzer or Benutzerin
would successfully link to one's user pages.

- Let users add a template to their user and talk pages that changes the
title of the page from Benutzer to Benutzerin.  This could be easily done
using the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and possibly JavaScript to modify the
user/user talk links at the top of the page.

This has the benefits of not adding more code to MediaWiki, not requiring
users to choose their gender unless they want to, and ensuring that if
someone doesn't know whether I'm male or female, they can get to my user
page without having to guess.

It would obviously be a decision for communities to make, but if there were
consensus to do it, I'm pretty sure that it could easily be done this way.

Any thoughts?

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Fwd: First Call for Papers WikiSym 2011

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarding to the list on behalf of a non-member.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Finn Aarup Nielsen 
Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:31 PM
Subject: First Call for Papers WikiSym 2011
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org

CALL FOR PAPERS - WikiSym 2011 - 7th International Symposium on
Wikis and Open Collaboration
October 3-5, 2011 | Mountain View, California

http://www.wikisym.org/ws2011

The International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym) is the
premier conference on open collaboration and related technologies. In 2011,
WikiSym celebrates its 7th year of scholarly, technical and community
innovation in Mountain View, California at the Microsoft Research Campus in
Silicon Valley.

Submissions are invited for the following categories, further details
are available on the conference website:

http://www.wikisym.org/ws2011/submitting:start

* Research Papers, Panels, Workshop: April 1
* Posters, Demos: May 13
* Notification of Acceptance: June 17

The conference program will include a peer-reviewed research track, as well
as workshops, a doctoral consortium, invited keynotes and panel speakers.
Evening social events will follow, because wiki folks know the value of a
good party for sparking conversation and collaboration. As always, Open
Space, a participant-organized track will also run throughout the
conference. Many of the most innovative technology companies in the world
have a presence in Mountain View, which makes it an ideal venue for hatching
new ideas and thoughtful debate about collaborative computing among
technologists, researchers, educators, and activists.

Topics appropriate for research submissions include all aspects of the
people, tools, contexts, and content that comprise open collaboration
systems. For example:

* Collaboration tools and processes
* Social and cultural aspects of collaboration
* Collaboration beyond text: images, video, sound, etc.
* Communities and workgroups
* Knowledge and information production
* New media literacies
* Uses and impact of wikis and open resources in specific fields, such
as
  - Education/Open Educational Resources
  - Law/Intellectual Property
  - Journalism
  - Art
  - Science
  - Publishing
  - Business
  - Entertainment

In addition to research and development topics, WikiSym also invites
innovative proposals for wiki-style art and performance.


Felipe Ortega, Conference Chair
University Rey Juan Carlos
http://felipeortega.net/

Andrea Forte, Program Chair
Drexel University
http://www.andreaforte.net/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] Big problem to solve: good WYSIWYG on WMF wikis

[Ryan Lomonaco]

I think this has been brought up before, but a thought I've had:  Apart from
the fact that it will require a ton of work in coding, what would keep us
from separating templates (and, for that matter, images) from the article
text?  Article text would exist by itself, and categories, templates, images
and metadata would all be kept and edited separately from the article
itself, with "pointers" indicating where the templates and images should go
within the article.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Project Proposal - wiki to monitor the government spending - GovSpendWatch Wiki

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded to the whole list on behalf of a non-member.

-- Forwarded message --
From: gps 
Date: Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM
Subject: Project Proposal - wiki to monitor the government spending -
GovSpendWatch Wiki
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org

Hello,

One of the biggest problems of democratic givernance is that Allocated funds
for various causes, initiatives and projects disappear due to corruption,
mismanagement or just lie unutilised due to poor or non-existant public
oversight.

Another aspect is that the public Audit watchdogs in may countries is unable
to function independently, and their reports disappear when inconvenient.

Many a times the issues come to limelight when irreparable damage has been
done, due to media expose or due to increasingly used Right-to-Information
provisions, however media moves on to next issue, and there is no permanant
vigil over the public expenditure. The same issue is rampant in Asia, Africa
and even in developed countries.

We need a Global countrywise repository for monitoring, tracking,
identifying possible issues in public expenditure. The domain is important
enough for Wikimedia, and the support / backing crucial enough for the
platform to succeed.
Pl. consider this request to start a wiki to monitor the government
spending, possibly named as GovSpendWatch-Wiki.
Project Proposal has been made @
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GovSpendWatchWiki

Pl. forward the proposal to foundation-l mail-list for review.

regards,
prasad gadgil - प्रसाद गाडगीळ
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Lead by example

[Ryan Lomonaco]

 On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:

> I forgot at least one of the rules (probably more) of this list, and
> (almost) always addressed my comments to the person who made the
> comment. The exchange went well, was mostly good humored, but that's
> not how things are supposed to happen here. I apologize for so
> blatantly disrespecting that list rule, and any other one, that I
> might not be aware at the moment. I appreciate the patience and
> understanding of all directly involved, and all the readers who had
> to endure my misbehavior.
>
> That said, there's no excuse for the overblowing of my comments and
> hyperbolic references to "personal attacks," by now a concept so
> overused that it has lost any credibility whatsoever.
>
> [...]
>
> To call the attention of ALL participants in the discussion to
> "Please focus on the comment, not the person making the comment." is
> absolutely right and appropriate. To make it in a message addressed
> to me smacks of "personal attack," and since it was made by a list
> moderator, I would say that is a very serious offense. We all should
> be aware of our responsibilities. We all have duties and rights here.
> One wrong, does not justify a worst one. Any moderator that fails to
> perform his duties appropriately, should take a leave of absence,
> graciously submitting a request to be relieved of his responsibilities.
>
>  From them on, an exemplary participation in this list would be the
> best and only argument to ask to be reinstated as a moderator.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
>

This comment slipped by the first time, but I want to bring this up to
illustrate a point.  Virgilio is referring to an e-mail I sent to him,
asking him to cool down in a somewhat heated discussion earlier this week.
I sent the e-mail while sleepy and probably could have phrased it better; I
also sent the e-mail to Virgilio only, rather than to all the participants,
who also could have used a reminder.  I've apologized to Virgilio for
handling the issue poorly, but this is another example of why it's a bad
idea to send an e-mail when not in the right frame of mind!

Proof that we all make mistakes.

-Ryan

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Accuracy required

[Ryan Lomonaco]

FT2,

Please let it go - I talked with Virgilio off-list yesterday; it sounds like
he didn't mean to stir up a storm, and would rather this thread die.

Thanks,
Ryan

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:23 PM, FT2  wrote:

> That won't help much.
>
> If I understand your email correctly, you want the information in order to
> protest on pt.wiki - either about your name being used or about being
> blocked for mentioning other users' names.
>
> There are problems with this.
>
>   1. The thread started by saying it is inaccurate to use a tag line "the
>   only person ruled by an arbcom under a real name (in the title)". Cases
>   exist (eg enwiki Arbcom)
>   2. Each project is independent. What enwiki does may truthfully be
>   different from ruwiki, ptwiki, dewiki. wikis can be very different and
> their
>   internal decisions on these things can be compared but it is not going to
>   persuade anyone about pt.wiki, if you try and argue about events on some
>   other wiki.
>   3. Even on a single wiki, treatment may vary within context. For example
>   on enwiki a user may be blocked indefinitely for naming another user's
> real
>   name, or an arbcom case may even be named after a real name. What is the
>   difference?  In the first case the real name was not public, in the
> second
>   case the real name was also their username. So a lot varies depending on
>   context and community.
>   4. You may be the only person dealt with under a real name *by
> pt-arbcom*.
>   But nobody has said you were or weren't.
>
> Hope this helps?
>
> FT2
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado  >wrote:
>
> > 1) No real names will be disclosed on this list on account of the request
> > made.
> >
> > 2) No action is asked or expected.
> >
> > These two personal commitments are important before answering an
> > absolutely legitimate request for clarification: "why [is] this issue
> > of such [...] importance to the thread-creator."
> >
> > It is very important for this user. Most are now familiar with the
> > use of his real name by the pt.wiki arbcom.
> >
> >
> >
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado
> > and
> >
> >
> >
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado
> >
> > That never bothered the user or the foregone decision to filter his
> > edits for infinity, a period that far exceeds his expected natural
> > life. The 53 irregularities that overshadowed the case bothered him a
> > great deal more.
> >
> > What is not so well known is that four months later, while quietly
> > working on a new subpage, after listing the real names of two users,
> > this was used against him and eventually led to him being blocked or
> > banned (depending on the page you look at) for infinity, by the same
> > administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and arbcom member (hopefully no
> > title was left out) that led the arbcom in the case using his real name.
> >
> > It is very important for the pt.wiki.
> >
> > The governance of the pt.wiki is in such disrepair that this user
> > felt compelled to gather as much information as possible on a Meta
> > page. Soon, that work was under attack by the same user mentioned
> > above and one of his accomplices, and his now on hold as a user subpage:
> >
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues
> >
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues
> >
> > This modest work was started in May 4, 2010, well before the
> > following reports on Meta:
> >
> > October 2010 -
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Lestaty_de_Lioncourt/Archive/October/2010
> >
> > November 2010 -
> >
> >
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es
> >
> >
> >
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards'_noticeboard
> >
> > It is very important to the communities at large.
> >
> > Unaware of the existence of this essay
> > (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kylu/Essay and
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kylu/Essay), this user
> > opened a request for comment on Meta on "What is public and
> > non-public personal information?"
> > (
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information
> > and
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information
> > )
> > which brought to the fore some of fears, tabus and misconceptions
> > that are quite widespread on Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > It is hoped that the above explanations fully justify the statement
> > that the user was inte

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:13 AM, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> I watched that thread spiral out of control and I think the mods did
> the right thing.
>
> Is Will off moderation now?
>

At the moment he remains on moderation, and I'm discussing the matter with
Austin and Alexandr.  Last year, Will was placed on moderation for similar
problematic posts, so personally, I'd like to see that his posts improve
before taking him off moderation.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Spinning off the moderation discussion to its own thread.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:45 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> The phrase you're looking for is, "An ounce of prevention is a pound of
> cure." Either be an active part of this mailing list and moderate as
> appropriate or give up the damn post already. The current system is clearly
> and desperately ineffective.
>

I agree that we probably should have stepped up and put a halt to things
earlier.  For my part, I didn't check my e-mail for the last 36 hours or so;
I read the first part of the discussion Sunday night, and checked back a few
hours ago.  That said, we have lives beyond moderating this list.  I would
not be opposed to adding another active moderator to help out, but a few
months ago, when we actively sought additional moderators, I was seriously
underwhelmed by the number of people who volunteered.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:47 PM,  wrote:

> Yes I agree.  It's pointless to actually allow people to speak freely, when
> you can easily silence your critics by stuffing a sock in their mouth.


We have a fundamental disagreement, then, as to the point of moderation.  To
me, moderation is not to stuff a sock in anyone's mouth, it's to improve the
quality of discussion by adding a gate-keeper for those users who need one.
While Will has made quality posts to the list, he's also made posts that
have hurt discussion, both in the last few days and previously.  Note that
his comments in that thread led the discussion quickly off the topic of
releasing server logs (which was an interesting discussion, in my opinion)
into a few different meta-discussions, and the original subject was
forgotten altogether.  I'm happy to approve posts from Will that are
on-topic, but until he shows the ability to avoid these random posts that
devolve perfectly good discussions, I think moderation is the best option.

I'll share with everyone the reasoning I gave Will as to why he is on
moderation (portion in  edited from my original message for the
purpose of clarity):

 Will,
>
> I've placed you on moderation.  Over the course of 48 hours you posted in
> that discussion 16 times, moving from a few well-argued comments [1, 2] to
> more argumentative comments [3] to bizarrely arguing that someone else is
> not a "reliable source" for a mailing list discussion [4, 5, 6, 7] to
> continuing to criticize what you perceived as a poor choice of words after
>  had already explained his meaning [8, 9, 10].
>
> I do not believe you are trolling, but I believe you are assuming bad faith
> in others, and you are missing the big picture.  When you do so, you make
> comments that are perceived by many as trolls, but that are also off-topic,
> and often bordering on personal attacks against others.  As such, I believe
> moderation is appropriate.
>
> 1.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062702.html
> 2.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062708.html
> 3.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062711.html
> 4.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062715.html
> 5.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062721.html
> 6.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062735.html
> 7.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062739.html
> 8.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062750.html
> 9.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062752.html
> 10.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062766.html
>

There are a few other things that I want to emphasize:

- There were one or two other posters who exhibited similar behavior, to
some extent baiting Will.  That said, Will was by far the most prolific
poster there, and was generally the one raising the heat of the discussion
throughout.  He's also had similar issues in the past.  I did not feel
moderation was appropriate in the cases of other users, but those users who
were involved should be much more civil in the future, and those with a
history of incivil or off-topic comments will be subject to moderation if
the behavior continues.

- Non-moderators should feel free to take a more active role in cooling down
discussions.  Moderators can't watch the list 24/7, and just one post
imploring a few heated participants to think before they hit "send" can be
very helpful.

- Most importantly, I want to also emphasize that I'm speaking on behalf of
myself only, and not on behalf of the other list moderators.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Ring of Gyges

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:26 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> For added self-referentiality, you can't read this article unless you
> identify yourself to the NYT.
>

I was able to read the article without registering - it's worth noting that
the NY Times has a rather interesting version of a paywall, where only a
handful of people who visit the article are required to register or log in.
So it leads to confusion when you send a link to 100 people, and, say, 15
people can't read it.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Enough, everyone.  I don't think anyone knows what the hell this
conversation is about anymore.  I certainly don't.

WJhonson is on moderation for the time being.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Moderation (was: Liu Xiaobo)

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> I agree that Peter's post exaggerates the problem the English
> Wikipedia sometimes has with groupthink and an entrenched,
> self-perpetuating bureaucracy. The comparison is unfair to Liu
> Xiaobo's history and work.
>
> Still, it's ironic that the first response to his somewhat
> inflammatory remarks was to moderate him (in other words, require the
> approval of an apparatchik before his words can be publicly seen.) I'm
> not Peter's biggest fan... but his recent participation on this list
> has been civil and thoughtful, and maybe a warning that Wikimedians
> are sensitive to unfavorable comparisons would have been sufficient.
>

The comparison was offensive not because it cast Wikimedia in a bad light,
but because it equated being imprisoned for your comments with being blocked
from a website for your comments.  That cheapens Liu Xiaobo's work.

That said, this was meant as a temporary measure to keep the discussion
civil, and it's done so.  After discussing the matter with Austin, we've
removed him from moderation.

I want to reiterate something I said about a year ago - one of the changes
we decided to make after discussion had gotten so bad that Brion placed the
entire list on emergency moderation:

"When appropriate, we will be using moderation more often, for short periods
of time when we feel doing so will allow cooler heads to prevail.  The idea
behind moderation has never been punitive, but it's often been treated as
such by many, and as a result, we have not used it as often as we could
have.  Going forward, our intent is that being placed on moderation should
not be viewed as a slight, or as a punishment, but as a way to retain
civility within a discussion."

While discussion has been a lot more civil over the last 11 months, and we
haven't needed to do this that often, I think it's a useful tool for letting
discussion cool down.  I hope that people will not see this as punitive, or
as a way to stifle speech -- because that's surely not our intent.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Liu Xiaobo

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Noein  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think it is not fair to censor Peter and then still talk about him and
> what he said. One or the other can be justified (and should be), but not
> both at the same time.
>

While Peter's intent surely was not to offend, his comments were
inarticulate, and his comparison is offensive.  As such, moderation is
appropriate.  That said, if he has something civil to add to this or any
other conversation - including responses to others in this thread - his
comments will of course be approved in short order.

That said, I think this conversation is going nowhere fast.  If there are
widespread cases of Wikimedia users being treated unfairly within a
community, let them come forward.  But in doing so, let's try to avoid
hyperbole.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] New list moderator

[Ryan Lomonaco]

I'd like to welcome a new list moderator, AlexandrDmitri, to join myself and
Austin Hair.  Alexandr is an administrator on the English Wikipedia and
English Wikinews, and serves as an arbitration clerk on the English
Wikipedia.  Please welcome him to the list.

Thanks,
Ryan Lomonaco (Ral315)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Michael Snow wrote:

> We would be better off with more people working
> seriously to figure out the best answers to the issues this feature
> addresses, plus whatever issues there may be with the feature itself,
> rather than having a debating duel about the significance of a set of
> polling statistics. It's like having politicians decide how to govern
> entirely based on opinion polls.
>

This is really a much better point than I made.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Risker  wrote:

> And even with it just being put forward as a second trial, the support for
> continuing dropped 10% in two weeks.
>
> You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys.
>
> Risker/Anne
>

I haven't followed the discussion at all, but I have two statistical
quibbles:  First, characterizing a drop from 65 to 59% as a "10% drop" is
misleading - while (65-59)/65 is 10%, it's really a 6% drop.

Second, A drop from 65% to 59% is not very statistically significant.  It
could very easily be explained if more of the people who voted against the
first time came back for the second vote.  But even if both polls are a
representative sample of the English Wikipedia as a whole, both polls will
have a margin of error of a few percent.

Again, this is just a statistical quibble, and I don't really have an
opinion on the plan as a whole.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Applications for list moderator position

[Ryan Lomonaco]

A reminder: Anyone interested in serving as a list moderator, please send an
e-mail to foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org, no later than 23:59 UTC on
September 23rd.  Please include the following information:

- Wikimedia username
- Projects you are active on
- Any roles you serve in on those projects (e.g. administrator, WikiProject
coordinator, mediator, etc.)
- Anything else that might be useful - info about yourself, etc.

Again, please send your submissions no later than 23:59 UTC on September
23rd.

Thanks,

Austin Hair, list moderator
Ryan Lomonaco, list moderator
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Applications for list moderator position

[Ryan Lomonaco]

We're looking to add one more list moderator for foundation-l.  On
foundation-l, the main role of a moderator is to approve posts made by
moderated users and users who are not subscribed to the list.  Occasionally,
a list moderator has to step in and control discussion when it gets
out-of-hand, but, thank goodness, that is generally a rare occurrence here.

Anyone interested in serving as a list moderator, please send an e-mail to
foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org, no later than 23:59 UTC on September
23rd.  Please include the following information:

- Wikimedia username
- Projects you are active on
- Any roles you serve in on those projects (e.g. administrator, WikiProject
coordinator, mediator, etc.)
- Anything else that might be useful - info about yourself, etc.

Again, please send your submissions no later than 23:59 UTC on September
23rd.

Thanks,

Austin Hair, list moderator
Ryan Lomonaco, list moderator
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded to the list on behalf of a non-member.  As per usual, I have no
opinion on the matter; just forwarding it on.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Seventy Nine 
Date: Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:00 AM
Subject: Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org


Hello,

I am sending this letter to this mailing list after several failed attempts
to address administrators in the "Arbitration Committee" and the "Unblock
mailing list". Apparently this is a Kafkaesque story which no one wishes to
handle.

I have recently started to edit on the English Wikipedia. I wished to remain
anonymous, which, to my best knowledge, is legitimate on the English
Wikipedia, therefore I contributed under my IP address. Later on, and after
several pleas on behalf of other editors, I opened an account. In order to
keep my edits under the same attribution, I called the account
"User:KnownAs-79-181-9-231" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KnownAs-79-181-9-231). My edits on the
article "Golan Heights" were reverted. I was asked to explain them, and so I
did, in details, on the "Talk Page" affiliated with the article. This
explanations were contested in a lengthy discussions. Some of the comments
were good, and I addressed them. Some, especially from two users whose
aliases I won't mention in this message, offered comments which seemed to be
politically motivated. One of these users posted questions on my personal
"Talk Page", which included threats (not "real life" threats, but threats to
act against me within the English Wikipedia editors' community). I refused
to answer his personal questions.

Then, one morning, and without any previous notice, I found myself banned
for being a "sock puppet" of some editor. The person who submitted the
request to ban me (a request which I found after searching many
administrative pages), is one of the two aforementioned users who objected
my edits. The editor who posted threats on my personal "Talk Page" second
him. The "evidences" were my edits, which, according to them, resembled the
edits of another editor who had been previously banned for one reason or
another. Apparently, my ban was sweeping, i.e. I couldn't comment on the
allegations against me, nor post a request to overturn the ban. I sent a
letter to the "Arbitration Committee" with copy to the "Unblock mailing
list". I asked to revoke the ban immediately, as it was based on sheer
speculations. The committee can ask me questions if it deemed it necessary,
but their first task is to lift a ban which was imposed without due process.

I received an outrageous response, suggesting my ban was legitimate until I
could prove otherwise. How exactly can I disprove far-fetched speculations?
Furthermore, after searching the administrative pages a bit more thoroughly,
I found out that the two users who asked my ban, where banned themselves
several times for making problematic edits on articles related to Middle
East issues. This makes the allegations against me even more peculiar.

Thank you very much for your attention.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] ru-Wikiversuty

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded to the list on behalf of a non-member (Mstislavl).



In reality the "Border Control Philosophy" has nothing to do with criticism
of the project or administration. This is a Rissian version of  what Jimbo
said after blocking some trolls in the English Wikiversity:

Strong community does not come from an «anything goes» attitude — but from
rallying around a set of principles that define the mission in such a way
that productive work can be accomplished.

And the Russian Wikiversity Story is indeed a replica but a replica of
English Wikiversity's one. People who can not effectively push their agenda
in Wikipedia because of the strong community there migrate to the
Wikiveristy where they can do whatever they want and the  big part of that
is attacking admins on Wikipedia. Sergey J who blocked Yaroslav also issued
a number of  arbitrary warnings to the active Russian Wikipedia contributors
(not all of tehm admins) for their actions in Wikipedia, and they have no
idea about these.

This is clearly a cross-project issue because the same trolls pop up on meta
and in a thousand of other places wasting everybody's time.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Private Wiki

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:33 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> I've found a shared Google Doc surprisingly usable in practice. (Even
> shows changes in slightly-behind-real-time!) Lacks history, though.
>

Google Docs generally do have history, although I don't find it as useful as
MediaWiki's history function.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

[Ryan Lomonaco]

As Andrew pointed out, this discussion has spiraled entirely outside the
scope of this list.  Discussions on the effects of copyright law with regard
to Wikimedia and its projects are welcome.  General discussions on copyright
law and piracy that have little to do with Wikimedia should be taken
elsewhere.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] "The problem with Wikipedia..."

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded per request.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Joseph Reagle 
Date: Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Foundation-l] "The problem with Wikipedia..."
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org

On Thursday, June 17, 2010, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Actually, the other way around, as others have stated.
>
> Now that you mention it, I've seen that quote attributed to Gareth
> Owen before, so that may actually be the origin of it. I think it's
> quite a bit older than 2006 though.

A wonderful question and one I've been interested in since I think such
aphorisms have an interesting normative power (e.g., some others include
[a]). Of course scholars, at least, like it so much because it shows that
the theory is incomplete and hence is grist for their mills, i.e., new
theory! :-)

I can't provide a provenance any more specific than already noted (i.e.,
appearing on Gareth Owen's user page) and I always found it ironically apt
that such a prominent statement about Wikipedia is attributed to an
anonymous. (If anyone knows Owen, please ask!) However, here's a bit of a
time-line, I think it certainly spread as a meme in wider circles thanks to
Cohen at the NYT.

20060120: Gareth Owen's user page [1].
20060321: Raul654's adds it to his laws [2].
20070423: Noam Cohen reference in NYT [3].
20070501: Quoted in Wikizine [4].
20070613: Sage Ross refers to it as old hat a few months later in response
to popular Britannica blog entry [5].
20080106: Cohen references it again [6].

[a]:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/inet-quotations-19990709.html
[1]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gareth_Owen&oldid=35978744
[2]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Raul654/Raul%27s_laws&oldid=44834502
[3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/technology/23link.html
[4]: http://en.wikizine.org/2007/05/year-2007-week-18-number-69.html
[5]: http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/06/authority-of-a-new-kind/
[6]: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/books/06cohenintro.html
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Gmail - List messages flagged as spam

[Ryan Lomonaco]

A housekeeping note: Gmail has been marking some list messages as spam for
the past five days or so.  It sounds like this is affecting other Wikimedia
lists, including Otrs-en-l and daily-article-l.  I don't know what if any
work has been done to try to fix this issue, but until it's sorted out, you
might need to watch your spam folders for list posts.

Thanks,
Ryan

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Usability: page weight

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Yann Forget 
Date: Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:57 AM
Subject: Usability: page weight
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org


Hello,

While we are talking about usability issues, I would like to mention
an issue which was not mentioned up to now : page weight.

I am now surfing most of time with a 3G key with a bandwidth of 16
KB/s maximum, and often less.
My experience of Wikimedia sites compared with the other websites I am
using regularly, GMail and Facebook,
shows that these load much faster than Wikimedia pages, even if the
page is mostly empty.
It seems that these sites use some fancy caching for that.

Page weight is a major hurdle for working on any Wikimedia sites
affecting users who do not enjoy a broadband connection.
And I believe that small wikis with non-European languages are more
affected than others (a study would be interesting here).
For improving outreach of Wikimedia outside of the Western world,
improving the page weight should be a priority.

What can be done?

Regards,

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

[Foundation-l] Fwd: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded on behalf of a non-list-member.

The question pertains to translation of trademarks within articles; to my
knowledge, there's nothing wrong with us doing so, and I think this is done
in many Wikipedias.  But I'll defer to the list on this question.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Amir sarabadani 
Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Subject: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org


Hello,
I'm one of Persian wikipedia users.for making pages same name of
trademarks (e.g. films ,games.etc.) we have several choices:
1-we use  same name and same alphabetical with trademark(e.g.
Google-->Google)
2-we same name but Persian Script(e.g. Call of duty-->کال آو دیوتی/KAL
AV DIUTI/)
3-we translate it(Prince of Persian-->شاهزاده ایرانی /SHAHZADE IRANI
means Prince of Persia)
Users of Persian wikipedia (with consequence) use third way usually
but I think change of trademarks is crime and maybe create legal
problem for the Foundation

Please tell us what we do or maybe i think wrong please tell me.
Thanks and best wishes
--
Amir
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] Visual impairment

[Ryan Lomonaco]

 Create an account is helpful, but it's a shame we make visually
impaired editors jump through another hoop.  I would be interested in
seeing an audio captcha option.  Does such a thing already exist in
open source form?

[Sorry if this is a top post - on my phone right now]

On 5/15/10, K. Peachey  wrote:
> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Aryeh Gregor
>  wrote:
>> In theory, yes.  Someone needs to provide the code, though.  For now,
>> people who want to sign up and can't solve a captcha can request that
>> an admin make an account for them, like people whose IP addresses are
>> blocked.  I think enwiki has a toolserver project dedicated to that.
>
> The en.wikipedia project for that resides at [[WP:ACC]](1), The
> toolserver system from memory is a request type system (although that
> may of changed since I last looked), where as the actual accounts are
> created on site using the [[Special:CreateAccount]](2) special page,
> there is a limit for that system so that a user may only create so
> many accounts per hour, but we do (or did) have a override for that
>
> (1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACC
> (2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin/signup
>
> -Peachey
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


-- 
[[User:Ral315]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Aphaia  wrote:

> Is there any option to tell them commons has its own mailing list
> instead of adding it to the foundation-l?
>

I think Austin touched upon this as well, but, yes, I would remind everyone
that discussions are occurring now on Meta, Commons and the English
Wikipedia, as well as their respective mailing lists.  Aspects of this
discussion specific to certain projects are probably better suited to those
projects.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:50 PM, K. Peachey  wrote:

> I do to, depending on how they are applied, for example I would much
> prefer on a case by case basis compared to everyone, since a few
> people are bring active and decent discussion where as some people are
> just trolling/omg censorship is bad type stuff.
>
> -Peachey
>

The issue hasn't come up yet, but I would approach things on a case-by-case
basis - for example, I wouldn't moderate a Wikimedia staff member who posted
more than 30 times because they were answering questions from other list
members.  Also, if someone is moderated for hitting the limit, I would
approve posts beyond their initial 30 posts if I think that the post is
useful, and adds to the discussion.

If anyone has any questions about the post limit, please feel free to talk
to either myself or Austin, on-list or privately.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Post limits (was: Flagged Protection update for April 29)

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> Can anyone remind me what the per day and per month post limits are,
> and confirm that someone is still keeping track?
>
> We've established in the past that a collegial atmosphere is desired
> by the people who post to and read this list. Some have never agreed,
> but that is why some have previously been moderated. Limits and
> moderation have been the only tools effective against those who can't
> find the energy to be nice; reason has never worked, though it has
> been deployed at each opportunity. Let's use the tools at hand, and
> avoid sidetracking useful discussion with meta problems.
>

30 posts per month.  No one has come close to hitting the limit in at least
a few months.

We didn't go with a per-day limit because there are times when posting 6 or
7 times in a day is fine - for example, when we've got a few constructive
threads going at once.  When it becomes problematic is when you're doing a
back-and-forth that's getting heated.  And I guess what I would say to that
is, if you're posting in a thread that's becoming a little heated,
particularly one that you've posted in already, maybe you should hold off on
sending your e-mail for a few hours.  Then, you can decide whether you
really want to send that e-mail - with the added benefit of giving others
time to cool down as well.  But I don't think you could set a per-day limit
that would be effective without being restrictive.

As for moderation, I think that we've tried to apply a light touch,
particularly given that the atmosphere has seemed to improve over the last
few months.  That said, if moderation is necessary, then we'll do so.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Productive output of English Wikiversity

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded on behalf of a non-list-member.

-Ryan

-- Forwarded message --
From: darklama 
Date: Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:45 PM
Subject: Productive output of English Wikiversity
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org,
wikiversit...@lists.wikimedia.org

Tue Apr 6 2010 at 9:37 PM, David Gerard wrote

> What useful projects have been produced by en.wv or are in an advanced
> state of production?
>
> That is, what has it to show for itself?
>
> - d.
>

What does Wikiversity have to show for itself? I think use of
Wikiversity by Universities, Colleges, and Schools is one way one to
judge what Wikiversity has to show for itself. Here are 15 that I just
quickly found:

* "Political Ideologies" - Northern Arizona University.
* "Computer Architecture Lab" - Vienna University of Technology
* "Social psychology" - University of Canberra
* "Christian Leadership" - Agape World Fellowship School
* "Environmental Ethics" - Northern Arizona University.
* "Woman in literature" - Borough of Manhattan Community College
* "Introduction to Computers" - Mount Royal College.
* "Vital Ideation" - Olin College of Engineering
* "Peak oil, energy and society" - The Meeting School.
* "Design for the Environment" - University of Toronto.
* "Introduction to Art History" - Westminster Schools.
* "Instructional Design" - Indiana University Bloomington.
* "Media literacy" - Temple University's School of Communication and
Theater.
* "Composing free and open online educational resources" - University of
Art and Design Helsink.
* "Going naked - Openism and freedom in academia" - University of Canberra.

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

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Living Person Task Force update: Policy writing

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded per request.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Keegan Paul 
Date: Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 4:45 PM
Subject: Living Person Task Force update: Policy writing
To: English Wikipedia ,
foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org


Hello, everyone!

The Living people task force is churning along.  The recommendations draft
is just about ready to move into finalized writing in a couple weeks <
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Recommendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft_2>.
 We're letting that rest for a bit for greater discussion, and moving on the
the policy drafting.  More information can be found here: <
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Task_force/Living_People#Moving_into_policy_writing_4302
>.

Participation is always welcome, there will be an informal discussion in the
#wikimedia-strategy room on the freenode IRC network on Monday, March 15, at
3:00 UTC.  This will be publically logged and the logs will be posted onto
the strategy page.

Thanks to those who have continued to express opinions and thoughts on this
process, and I look forward to your participation!

~Keegan
-- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion about proposal for multilingual Wikibooks

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded as per request.  -Ryan

-- Forwarded message --
From: darklama 
Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Subject: Discussion about proposal for multilingual Wikibooks
To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org


Pharos wrote:

> A multilingual Wikibooks would be valuable to the extent that it would
> focus on smaller languages which don't have their own language project
> yet.
>

 This makes perhaps more sense with Wikibooks than other projects
> because each "book" is relatively autonomous and of significant
> educational value in its own right, and even if someone were to donate
> a textbook in a rather obscure language I don't think that we should
> turn such a gift away.
>

 Thanks,
> Pharos
>

Exactly, we shouldn't turn people and textbooks away. I think this
project can help with that.

People willing to translate textbooks have been turned away at times
too. I think this project can help with that as well.

Some instruction manuals and how-to guides include multiple translations
as a single work. We shouldn't turn away people willing to provide free
alternatives here either. These books are autonomous too.

I know some people are concerned that Multilingual Wikibooks' focus
overlaps too much with existing projects. I think this can be managed
by turning away:

* Source text previously published by an author. Thats Wikisource.
* Translations of source text. Thats Old Wikisource
* Original writing that is within the scope of an existing Wikibooks
 project and it is not intended to become an autonomous work in two or
 more languages. This applies to finished translations as well.
* Research not previously published. Thats Wikiversity.

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

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Next IRC hours for the Living People Task Force

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded as per request.

-Ryan

-- Forwarded message --
From: Keegan Paul 
Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Subject: Next IRC hours for the Living People Task Force
To: English Wikipedia ,
foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org


Hello, all.

The next IRC hours will begin at 4:00 UTC, Monday, March 8.  The discussion
will be publicly logged and posted.

You can find the agenda here: <
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/IRC_Agendas>

If you haven't been paying attention to the task force, you can find more
information 
>.
 Everyone is invited and encouraged to participate in this effort to create
a functional strategy to dealing with living people on a global scale.  Hope
to see you all on the wiki!

~Keegan

-- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan



-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Living People Task Force is launching Monday

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded/cross-posted from WikiEN-l on behalf of Keegan, a non-member.

---

Hello, all.

The Living People task force begins work Monday with part one, board
recommendations and proposal.  This will run for two months, with the second
half beginning in April on community focus.

This is a global project, and we highly encourage active global
participation in discussion.

More information can be found here: <
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People>.

We hope to see you all there, and everyone have a good weekend.

~Keegan

-- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WikiMobile - use of Wikipedia name in commerce

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Gregory Kohs  wrote:

> Pardon me if this has been asked before, but I am curious to learn
> whether Bonfire Media paid any sort of licensing fee to the Wikimedia
> Foundation in order to use the Wikipedia brand name in commerce on its
> WikiMobile app?
>

Looking at their website, I see that they use the word Wikipedia to describe
the articles they have, but are careful not to phrase it as if they're
involved with us.  And while their logo is similar to Wikipedia's by design,
it's definitely different.  It wouldn't surprise me if they do have a
licensing agreement with the Foundation, but it's certainly possible that
they're merely using the content legally and skirting legal boundaries when
it comes to the trademarks.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] An update on localisation in MediaWiki (2009)

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded to the list on behalf of Siebrand Mazeland.



On 31 December 2007 and 1 January 2008 I sent an e-mail to which this is a
follow up[1,2].

First things first, because not everyone reads e-mails completely:
* MediaWiki localisation (that is the translation of English source messages
to other languages) depends on you! If you speak a language other than
English, care about your language in MediaWiki and Wikimedia and like
translating, go to http://translatewiki.net, register a user and start
contributing translations for MediaWiki and MediaWiki extensions. When your
localisation is complete, keep coming back regularly to re-complete it and
do quality control. Thank you in advance for all your contributions and
effort.
* The i18n and L10n area of MediaWiki requires continuous efforts. If this
area of FOSS has your interest: we need your help. Please offer your
development skills to further MediaWiki's i18n, L10n and translation
capabilities[3,4].

All statistics are based on MediaWiki 1.16 alpha, SVN version r60527 (31
December 2009). Comparisons are to MediaWiki 1.14 alpha, SVN version r45277
(1 January 2009).

See http://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki_2009 for a wiki version of this
message.

==Introduction==
* Localisation or L10n - the process of adapting the software to be as
familiar as possible to a specific locale (topic of this message)
* Internationalisation or i18n - the process of ensuring that an application
is capable of adapting to local requirements (out of scope of this message)

MediaWiki has a user interface definition for 362 languages (up from 348).
Of those languages at least 39 language codes are duplicates and/or serve a
purpose for usability[5]. Reporting on them, however, is not relevant. So
MediaWiki in its current state supports 323 languages (up from 322).
MediaWiki has 346 core language files (up from 326), of which 27 are
redirects from the duplicates/usability group or just empty[6]. So MediaWiki
has an active in-product localisation for 308 languages (up from 299).

The MediaWiki core product has several areas that can be localised:
* regular messages that can and should be localised (2,369 - up 9% from
2,168)
* optional messages that can be localised, which is mostly used for
languages not using a Latin script (187 - up 8% from 173)
* ignored messages that should not be localised (152 - up 2% from 149)
* namespace names and namespace aliases (17 - no change)
* magic words (142 - up 8% from 132)
* special page names (88 - up 2% from 86)
* other (directionality, date formats, separators, book store lists, link
trail, and others)

Localisation of MediaWiki revolves around all of the above. Reporting is
done on the regular messages only.

MediaWiki is more than just the core product. On
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:All_extensions 1500 extensions (up
25% from 1200) have some kind of documentation. This analysis only takes the
code currently present in svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/trunk into
account. The source code repository contains give or take 445 extensions (up
25% from 370). Most extensions in the MediaWiki Subversion repository now
use the reference implementation for i18n. Currently 8,200 messages for
MediaWiki extensions can be localised in a consistent way (up 37% from
6,000).

==MediaWiki localisation in practice==
MediaWiki localisation has moved further to a centralised collaborative
process in translatewiki.net in the past year. Where in 2008 some wikis were
still translating in their own MediaWiki: namespace, the introduction of the
LocalisationUpdate extension[7], especially in the Wikimedia Foundation
wikis, has taken away the last hurdle for local translation against
centralised translation: instant gratification. Translations that are
committed to Subversion can be added to wikis without requiring software
updates, as often as desirable.

Little to no translations are submitted through the Bugzilla ticketing
system or directly by SVN committers. Exceptions are the localisations of
Hebrew, Cantonese, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Classical
Chinese and Persian, that are still actively maintained in SVN, next to
regular contributors from the centralised system.

==The past, the present and the future==
MediaWiki localisation has always been a volunteer effort, and expect that
it will remain so. 2009 brought a successful Google Summer of Code project,
executed by Niklas Laxstrom [8,9] and the Wikimedia Foundation is supporting
the localisation that takes place at translatewiki.net[10]. Not only
MediaWiki, but all Open Source projects that are supported there[11] benefit
from these developments. We want to keep using the Translate extension
technology and expand on it, as well as nourish our translator base of
nearly 2,000 translators by providing them with better tooling and more
projects in 2010. Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland[12], the Dutch Wikimedia
Chapter has granted 2,000 Euro to Stichting Open Progress[13] for the
t

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Kwan Ting Chan  wrote:

> Local celebrities for next time. "Simon Cowell says: Donate to
>> Wikipedia or I'll put out *two* X-Factor singles for Christmas. I warn
>> you."
>>
>
>
> There has been two X-factor singles. One from the winner, and one from all
> the finalist earlier for charity. ;-)
>

Apparently someone out there didn't donate, and Simon's angry.  I don't know
who it was, but if you're reading this, on behalf of the rest of the world,
look what you've done!  Look what we have to put up with, thanks to you!

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Geni's referring to a fundraiser sitenotice with a picture of Craig Newmark,
and the text "Craig of Craigslist urges you to support Wikipedia.  Why?"

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> care to give some context to your question?
>
> [[witty lama]]
>
> wittylama.com/blog
> Peace, love & metadata
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM, geni  wrote:
>
> > I see we have taken to advertising craigslist. Would anyone care to
> explain
> > why?
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Housekeeping: One user on moderation today

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Michael Snow wrote:

> Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde  >wrote:
> >
> >> Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies
> >> to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
> >>
> > That's something that I think might have merit, although it's one of
> those
> > things that's tough to set as a hard-and-fast rule because of time zone
> > differences.
> >
> I think the better approach is what the moderators have occasionally
> done in the past, which is to kill a specific thread. And the rest of us
> can call out those threads as being worthless, as several people have
> done, or ignore them (Thomas Dalton is right about that at least). But I
> expect throttling threads would be counterproductive. The beneficial
> effect of the current moderation is that it creates space for a more
> inclusive discussion, by restraining "post-early-and-often" behavior. A
> per-thread throttle would create an incentive to encourage that
> behavior, by privileging those who are quickest to respond.
>
> --Michael Snow
>

My reading of it was X replies per person per day in each thread.  I agree
with you that there should not be a set limit per thread as a whole.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Housekeeping: One user on moderation today

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:

> I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the
> list mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies,
> I have scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent and prioritized based
> on discussion. Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies
> to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
>

That's something that I think might have merit, although it's one of those
things that's tough to set as a hard-and-fast rule because of time zone
differences.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Housekeeping: One user on moderation today

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Per the new posting limits <
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056032.html>,
each user is limited to 30 posts per month, after which they are put on
moderation.  Anthony has reached 30 posts.  He has been placed on moderation
for about the next 19 hours or so (until about Midnight UTC, or whenever one
of us happens to be at a computer around that time).

Continued input on these policies, either publicly or privately, is always
welcome.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> Laura,
>
> It seems unlikely if only based on "We have no notability requirement."
> Essentially, you've forked, chosen an incompatible core policy.
>

I don't see how that would be an issue.  Notability is not a foundation
policy, it's a community guideline that was enacted by editors of the
English Wikipedia.  Other projects within the WMF family would not
necessarily be subject to the same standards, in the same way that the
Spanish Wikipedia does not allow fair use images while the English Wikipedia
does.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted...

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:41 AM,  wrote:

> But George you miss part of my point.
> IF editors know their way around somewhat, they *could* fight an undeserved
>  block or reprimand or whatever.
>
> But what you're saying here is exactly what I'm pointing out that we do not
>  want.
> Encyclopedists are not necessarily expert game players, but we're requiring
>  them to learn how.
> We shouldn't be.  That was my point.
>
> We should not be requiring every 95 pound weakling who shows up and runs
> afoul of the 400 pound gorilla to try to learn how to fight it.  Even to
>  try
> to find their way to AN/I, which is not an obvious thing at all in my
>  mind.
>

I fail to see how this is a Foundation issue.  This seems to be more of a
community issue, and an English Wikipedia issue.  WikiEN-l would seem to be
a more appropriate discussion venue.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Everything okay?

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Dennis During  wrote:

> I'm guessing that the habit has been broken. It will probably come back.
>

I think you're right, particularly given that foundation-l was closed for
nearly a week.  Participants have been posting to other lists, or keeping
discussion on Meta or Wikipedia instead.

That said, I would hope that no one is "scared" of posting here, and if you
are, I hope you'll contact either myself or Austin and tell us why.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l open for business, with changes

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Bod Notbod  wrote:

>
> Good idea. Is the number of posts from any one contributor easy to
> keep track of?
>

Erik Zachte has some stats here that seem to update fairly regularly:

http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html

You can also see all messages, sorted by user, here:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/author.html

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Foundation-l open for business, with changes

[Ryan Lomonaco]

After reviewing the comments of foundation-l participants over the last few
days, we've come up with a few changes that we hope will ultimately improve
the tenor and scope of discussions.

To start, we're placing two participants on temporary moderation:  Thomas
Dalton and WJhonson.  The conversations that have been most problematic
recently were those that involved one or both users.  We do not intend to
place them or any other users on permanent moderation at this time, however.

When appropriate, we will be using moderation more often, for short periods
of time when we feel doing so will allow cooler heads to prevail.  The idea
behind moderation has never been punitive, but it's often been treated as
such by many, and as a result, we have not used it as often as we could
have.  Going forward, our intent is that being placed on moderation should
not be viewed as a slight, or as a punishment, but as a way to retain
civility within a discussion.

Second, we're adding a "soft post limit" that, for the time being, will kick
in at 30 posts per month.  At that point, we will, at our discretion, place
members on moderation for the remainder of the month, and will approve posts
only where we feel they are useful and add significantly to the discussion.

With these changes, our goal is not to stifle anyone, but to avoid the
situation where a few voices dominate the conversation, and the arguments,
often off-topic, that have inhibited important discussions recently.  We do
not feel, for example, that specific users need to be permanently moderated;
however, all users, including prolific posters, should bear in mind that
should their posts become off-topic, overly argumentative, or uncivil, they
may be moderated temporarily.

We leave open the possibility that other changes may be useful in the
future, so ideas for improvement going forward are always welcome, either at
the Meta page <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l> or via
e-mail, at foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org.

As of this post, the list is now unmoderated.  We welcome your thoughts on
this issue.

Sincerely,

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

[Foundation-l] List moderation - update

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Right now the list remains on moderation, and will remain so for the time
being.  Our goal is to reach a consensus on what changes to make over the
next few days.

Since the list was put on moderation this weekend, we've heard from members
of the community regarding various issues with the list, who have given
various potential solutions.  From those, we have posted a straw poll on the
Meta discussion page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l#Moving_forward

Among the options we're considering, based on suggestions from community
members, include:
- Imposing a monthly, weekly and/or daily post limit.
- Establishing rules and consistently enforcing them.
- Moderating the most prolific and most problematic posters.
- Replacing the list with a web forum or newsgroup
- Creating a new "announcements" list and keeping foundation-l as-is.

These options have both positives and negatives

Previous efforts to make changes to the list have not been taken seriously
by all, and have not received much discussion.  We want to make it clear
that in order for this list to be useful to many members of the community
yet again, changes must be made, and they must be made immediately.  We
welcome any comments that may be fruitful in this regard.

Discussion on this topic should not be posted to foundation-l; all comments
should be directed to the Meta discussion page, or, if preferred, privately
to us at foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org.

We do not intend to unmoderate the list only for topics to devolve into the
same inane arguments that have at times occurred.  Our hope is that we can
find a good solution that addresses the issues in a complete and fair
manner.

Sincerely,

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

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this Systemic Secretive Checkuser Abuse yet? If so, how?

[Ryan Lomonaco]

Forwarded to the list per request.

The message pertains to her initial inquiry of November 2008:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/047414.html

-- Ral315

-- Forwarded message --
From: dee dee 
Date: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Have you dealt with this Systemic Secretive Checkuser Abuse
yet? If so, how?
To: Ryan Lomonaco 
Cc: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org

Ryan,

It is 2 simple but important issues: the supportive details are all included
in this email.

Here is the current and past practice in a nutshell as expressed by one of
the former Regular contributors:
"* The vast majority of checkuser requests are, and always have been,
performed quietly and without a request at RFCU. Frivolous requests are
routinely rejected through these back-channels, and no more information is
given than would be given at RFCU. Why is this a problem? [[User
Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([[User:JzG/help|Help!]]) 18:14, 1
December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=175094292&oldid=175081431

Issue 1: The official and public description of CheckUser lays out a
transparent process for justifying when and how it may be used. In practice,
it is often used in secret  and quick "back door" process. First issue is
the misrepresentation to the public and all contributors as to how and when
 Checkuser may be used.

Issue 2: Whether it is ethical or democratic to be using this "back channel"
process.

I suppose another issue is why it has been so difficult to get the
Foundation to address the matter.

Dee Dee
** <http://www.flickr.com/gift/>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

[Ryan Lomonaco]

If there's a legitimate agreement as to what should be done to improve the
list, I'd be more than happy to try it out, and I think Austin would be
willing to as well.  I don't see any agreement on what to do at the moment.

There are four potential problems cited on that page.  The first three were
added by Austin when he started the page, based on some of the complaints
that we've heard.  The last was added by someone else.  Looking at them:

Overall volume is too high for many to keep up; people simply give up and
> unsubscribe, removing their voice from the debate.


I'm not sure this is a valid point.  From January through September 2009,
we've averaged 781 posts per month - the lowest yearly average since 2005.
(We averaged 1250 posts a month in 2006, 845 per month in 2007, and 960 per
month in 2008).  If there is a complaint, perhaps it goes to the content of
the posts, not the number itself.

 A minority of posters dominate the discussion, giving disproportionate
> attention to their points of view (and substantially increasing traffic).


The two most prolific posters through the first nine months of 2009 combined
for 970 posts (13.8% of total list traffic).  The top ten posters combined
for 2,644 posts (37.6% of traffic).  I'm open to suggestions as to what to
do about this; however, I'm not sure a flat limit is a good idea, because
what might be considered "too many posts" varies wildly depending on what's
going on in Wikimedia.

For example, in January 2009, there was a lot of traffic for a variety of
reasons, most notably discussion over the then-proposed transition to
Creative Commons, and the fundraiser.  In that month, nine posters sent at
least 30 messages (the proposed maximum on Meta).  Most notably, Mike Godwin
made 35 posts in January - more than he has throughout the rest of the year
combined - because the conversations involved his expertise.  In April 2009,
meanwhile, the top poster only had 22 posts.

I will suggest, as an aside, that posters in general focus on quality, not
quantity.  There is absolutely no need to reply to every other e-mail in a
conversation.

Another minority argues for the sake of arguing, again inflating the overall
> volume of the list while contributing little to the debate.
>

It's tough to judge when someone is "arguing for the sake or arguing", and
when someone has a legitimate concern.  Just because a poster is critical
(even if they're critical most of the time) doesn't mean that their posts
aren't valid.  That said, maybe a "beating a dead horse" guideline would be
worth considering - when a lone voice continues to argue a point that
everyone else agrees is not valid, then the discussion should be ended.

 The mailing list's purpose is clouded by allowing far too much off-topic
> discussion. Foundation-l is for discussion of topics directly related to the
> Foundation - not anything you may wish other people are interested in.


I'll be honest - I don't see that much "off-topic" discussion, looking
through recent conversations.  There are cases where the conversation has
little to do with the original post, or where the poster may not be trying
to contribute positively to the discussion, but for the most part, they do
relate to Wikimedia.

If, however, discussion does go off-topic, I would suggest that everyone, as
list members, consider doing the following:

- Not replying to off-topic discussion.  If one person strays off-topic and
no one else does, it's not nearly as big of a deal.
- If discussion continues to go off-topic, make an on-topic post, or make a
friendly note that the discussion seems to be going off-topic.
- If you see a discussion that's straying off-topic, send a direct e-mail to
either Austin or myself.  Honestly, sometimes I don't notice whether a
conversation's going off-topic right away, and letting us know that it is
never hurts.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM,  wrote:

> Jimmy Wales himself has stated, and I've quoted him in one of my articles
> that when he ran his own discussion group he allowed people to talk
> themselves
> out.  There will always be people who unsubscribe, there will always be
> new subscribers.  There is no fix which will address that issue.
>

In general, my opinion has been similar.


> There will always be people complaining that something is broken, there
> will always be people saying nothing is broken.
>

True.  That said, this should not be taken to mean that there may not be
legitimate issues that could potentially be made better.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

[Ryan Lomonaco]

I have no opinion on whether the rule should exist, but it is something that
deserves to be looked at.  There are valid reasons for requiring a minimum
recent edit count, of course, but perhaps there are better ways to handle
it.

The rules did disenfranchise me, for example.  It doesn't bother me that I
can't vote, but that said, I would've liked to vote if eligible.  I am not
active on Wikipedia, but I do follow the mailing lists, and have followed
the election process.  If I really wanted to, I could've racked up 50 edits
to get a vote, but that almost seems "dirty", I guess, to make edits just to
regain eligibility for the election.

My thought is that there may be other ways to enfranchise users who are
clearly community members, but who for some reason or another are inactive
on the projects themselves.  What those ways are, I don't know.

One thought:  If the only, or at least the major reason that we're doing
this is to avoid fraud, users with "committed identities" - encrypted
messages on their user page as a way to verify their identity in case an
account is stolen - could be re-enfranchised on a case-by-case basis if they
can provide the passphrase.

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Brian wrote:
> > The second sentence should read: There is no information in the current
> > heuristic that indicates that editors who are allowed to vote are more or
> > less familiar with the candidates than those who are not.
>
> Who says there needs to be?
>
> The recent edits criteria reduces the incentive to crack or otherwise
> collect old unused but qualified accounts. For example, I could setup
> a free watchlist aggregation service and users would give me their
> passwords. Over time I could obtain many and then wait for accounts to
> naturally become inactive, then I could vote with them.
>
> It also makes it harder to otherwise obtain votes from accounts whos
> owners have lost interest in the project and might be willing to part
> with theirs easily.  Recent editing activity also provides more
> information for analysis in the event that some kind of vote fraud is
> suspected.
>
> A recent edits criteria is justifiable on this kind of process basis alone.
>
> 50 edits can easily be made in a couple of hours, even if you're not
> making trivial changes.  If you're not putting that level of effort it
> seems somewhat doubtful that you're going to read the >0.5 MBytes of
> text or so needed to completely and carefully review the provided
> candidate material from scratch.  Like all stereotypes it won't hold
> true for everyone but if it's true on average then it will produce an
> average improvement, we just need to be careful not to disenfranchise
> too many.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Site Notices Phase 2 - Annual Fundraiser 2008

[Ryan Lomonaco]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Aphaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Rand said:
> >Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time
> needed by our >volunteer translators and the tech team.
>
> Besides all the discussion on possible rephrasing, Phase 2 notices
> seem not go live yet. Postponed? Or did I miss something?
>

I interpreted Rand's comment to mean that it would happen sometime this week
(i.e. between now and December 7).

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l