Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Bod Notbod]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> I don't see the problem, myself. There's no product, service or
> commercial interest being advertised. It's for users who are logged
> in, not all readers. People who choose to participate actually receive
> money, which can then be donated to the IRC or Wikimedia. Yet other
> objections are based on privacy concerns (over being redirected to a
> third party website)... Such concerns are so overblown,

I haven't seen the banner and am not taking a position on it but some
of your "objections to the objections" seem rather odd.

1. You say "it's for users who are logged in, not all readers". I am
not going to take this to mean that you feel advertising McDonalds
would be fine if it were a) only to logged in users and/or b) only
displayed to some users. But it is possible to read it that way.

2. You say "users actually get money out of it" and, again, I will not
take this as you saying that McDonalds could place ads on Wikipedia if
they a) allowed users to click through activating a donation to
Wikipedia and/or b) were given a small sum of money if they clicked on
it... but, again, you rather leave yourself open to these
interpretations.

So, if you'd like to fight for the right for the banner to appear,
fine. But the way you're positioning yourself on the issue seems
rather flakey.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Nathan]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Bod Notbod  wrote:
>
> I haven't seen the banner and am not taking a position on it but some
> of your "objections to the objections" seem rather odd.
>
> 1. You say "it's for users who are logged in, not all readers". I am
> not going to take this to mean that you feel advertising McDonalds
> would be fine if it were a) only to logged in users and/or b) only
> displayed to some users. But it is possible to read it that way.
>
> 2. You say "users actually get money out of it" and, again, I will not
> take this as you saying that McDonalds could place ads on Wikipedia if
> they a) allowed users to click through activating a donation to
> Wikipedia and/or b) were given a small sum of money if they clicked on
> it... but, again, you rather leave yourself open to these
> interpretations.
>
> So, if you'd like to fight for the right for the banner to appear,
> fine. But the way you're positioning yourself on the issue seems
> rather flakey.
>


I don't accept your false equivalence between Harvard/Science Po and
McDonalds, nor do I believe you misunderstood my point: that
advertising is commonly rejected for its potential for various harms,
while even those who object to this banner have not rationally
presented any possible harm that could result.

For what it's worth, Beria Lima (as a meta administrator) switched the
banner off unilaterally.

Nathan

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Thomas Morton]

Some thoughts.

I don't see the problem, myself. There's no product, service or
> commercial interest being advertised. It's for users who are logged
> in, not all readers. People who choose to participate actually receive
> money, which can then be donated to the IRC or Wikimedia.


Advertisement doesn't need to be commercial. In fact the idea
of advertisement is as much about raising profile as it is about selling a
specific product.

Harvard (for example) is essentially a commercial entity, and having their
logo at the top of Wikipedia pages (even if it is just for logged in users)
is good advertising. As is the potential of being seen linked to Wikipedia.

There has also been suggestions that the Berkman Center has existing links
to the foundation - I've not picked up what those are but if it involved
funding that adds even more of a twist. (some hints on what
connection exists would be useful :)).

I think another concern is; why is this something WP wants to support? does
it help our goals? Does it advance anything?


> Yet other
> objections are based on privacy concerns (over being redirected to a
> third party website)... Such concerns are so overblown, I'm tempted to
> advise those who raise them to switch off their cellphones and
> disconnect their modems lest the Illuminati (or Fox News) use these
> signals to remote into their brains.


I do not think these concerns are initially unreasonable. Within the
community exposing someones identity, details or IP without consent
is strongly frowned upon. I don't think it is problematic to object to any
sort of link being made.

Obviously that issue has been assuaged, and it appears the researchers took
major steps to remove the IP link concern (praise to them for that).

The extension to this objection is that none of this is detailed *before*
clicking the link (or after it, really). So the access path could be
improved dramatically.


> If I'm honest, I think most
> people are just upset that someone didn't personally ask them first.
>

I'm not sure why you pitch this as an invalid problem :) It's certainly my
only concern, especially as the community objected in the first place with
advice to seek support from RCOM and the Foundation.

I realise in doing so we may have made our own bed to lie in... but I also
do not think it unreasonable to expect RCOM to come back and *inform* the
community of what is about to happen.

This is once again and example of the meta level organisation making
community level decisions without any input. Not a good collaborative
situation!

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Béria Lima]

If you want to see the banner:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&template=HSB_final_2

And I, Béria Lima (nice to meet you) disabled the banner upon a thread in
Internal-l where people asked for it.
_
*Béria Lima*
(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. *


On 9 December 2011 14:52, Bod Notbod  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > I don't see the problem, myself. There's no product, service or
> > commercial interest being advertised. It's for users who are logged
> > in, not all readers. People who choose to participate actually receive
> > money, which can then be donated to the IRC or Wikimedia. Yet other
> > objections are based on privacy concerns (over being redirected to a
> > third party website)... Such concerns are so overblown,
>
> I haven't seen the banner and am not taking a position on it but some
> of your "objections to the objections" seem rather odd.
>
> 1. You say "it's for users who are logged in, not all readers". I am
> not going to take this to mean that you feel advertising McDonalds
> would be fine if it were a) only to logged in users and/or b) only
> displayed to some users. But it is possible to read it that way.
>
> 2. You say "users actually get money out of it" and, again, I will not
> take this as you saying that McDonalds could place ads on Wikipedia if
> they a) allowed users to click through activating a donation to
> Wikipedia and/or b) were given a small sum of money if they clicked on
> it... but, again, you rather leave yourself open to these
> interpretations.
>
> So, if you'd like to fight for the right for the banner to appear,
> fine. But the way you're positioning yourself on the issue seems
> rather flakey.
>
> ___
> 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] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[David Gerard]

On 9 December 2011 14:58, Nathan  wrote:

> I don't accept your false equivalence between Harvard/Science Po and
> McDonalds, nor do I believe you misunderstood my point: that
> advertising is commonly rejected for its potential for various harms,
> while even those who object to this banner have not rationally
> presented any possible harm that could result.


It increases acceptance of advertising logos at the top of the page.

Getting your logo at the top of a top-5 website? That's *rather* valuable.

Note that this was one of the big objections to the Virgin Unite logo
in the fundraiser five years ago. Logo = advertising, however much
equivocation one applies to the point.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 09/12/2011 10:00 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> I think another concern is; why is this something WP wants to support? 
> does it help our goals? Does it advance anything?

We're an educational resource concerned with the diffusion of 
knowledge.  They are primary researchers that will publish their data 
and conclusion with an open license, thus adding to the "sum of all 
knowledge".  I think those objectives are eminently compatible.

If we think of ourselves as a college campus[1], then allowing 
researchers to post flyers for human test subjects in exchange for a 
small compensation (to the subjects) is downright /traditional/.

-- Coren / Marc

[1] I always thought that was a surprisingly apt analogy; think of the 
projects as departments/buildings, and the WMF as the administration 
everyone loves to whine about.  Somehow, that makes it less surprising 
when you note the protesters on the grass and the silly politics.  :-)


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Nathan]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:06 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 9 December 2011 14:58, Nathan  wrote:
>
>> I don't accept your false equivalence between Harvard/Science Po and
>> McDonalds, nor do I believe you misunderstood my point: that
>> advertising is commonly rejected for its potential for various harms,
>> while even those who object to this banner have not rationally
>> presented any possible harm that could result.
>
>
> It increases acceptance of advertising logos at the top of the page.
>
> Getting your logo at the top of a top-5 website? That's *rather* valuable.
>
> Note that this was one of the big objections to the Virgin Unite logo
> in the fundraiser five years ago. Logo = advertising, however much
> equivocation one applies to the point.
>
>
> - d.
>


Perhaps, although I hardly think that was part of the nefarious plan
on the part of Harvard and SciPo. They are both among the institutions
in the world with the best and most positive name penetration; the
connection benefits Wikipedia as much as it does them, and none of the
three are much in need of PR work with the small subset of Wikipedia
editors who saw the banner.

In reply to Tom Morton's point about privacy - the exposure is no more
(and as we now know, considerably less) than we experience every time
we visit any other site on the 'net. I suppose if there are some
people who use Wikipedia (or a very small number of other sites where
they can be familiar with disclosure policies) exclusively, and they
were somehow surprised that the banner took them to an external site
(despite the URL being available via float)... Then those people might
have a legitimate privacy complaint.

Nathan

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Thomas Morton]

>
> We're an educational resource concerned with the diffusion of
> knowledge.  They are primary researchers that will publish their data
> and conclusion with an open license, thus adding to the "sum of all
> knowledge".  I think those objectives are eminently compatible.
>

Which is a reasonable response; and I'd probably agree with you.

Although it does lead to another question; a lot of studies are conducted
around the world, many of them would benefit dramatically from publicity on
a "top-5" website. How far does supporting those that ask go?

What sort of precedent does it set?

Were Berkman given preference here for some as-yet-unknown reason (as is
being suggested).

The latter point could be fairly damaging to our credibility.

Again; issues that should really be worked out in advance?

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 09/12/2011 10:26 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Although it does lead to another question; a lot of studies are conducted
> around the world, many of them would benefit dramatically from publicity on
> a "top-5" website. How far does supporting those that ask go?

I think we should do our best to help.  Mind you, not that many studies 
would benefit that strongly from such exposure - we /are/ a pretty 
biased sample, and unless the study is actually interested in 
participants in a collaborative endeavor (as this once clearly was) they 
are unlikely to come to us for support.

I suppose if there ends up being many of them, we'd have to sit down and 
find some more streamlined system.  Perhaps a landing page where such 
projects are collected, and a pointer to /that/ instead.  Or something 
else we haven't thought of yet.

The point is, I think this is the first that wasn't done informally with 
talk page invitations or email; so they're breaking new ground.  Kinks 
and ruffled feathers are par for the course anytime you try something new.

-- Coren / Marc


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Theo10011]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> Perhaps, although I hardly think that was part of the nefarious plan
> on the part of Harvard and SciPo. They are both among the institutions
> in the world with the best and most positive name penetration; the
> connection benefits Wikipedia as much as it does them, and none of the
> three are much in need of PR work with the small subset of Wikipedia
> editors who saw the banner.


I'm sure that argument could be made for several hundred other institutions
and research project who would love to have the same visibility. Should it
matter if the conducting research institution happens to be the worlds best
or have the most positive name penetration?

I see it as the same, all or nothing approach. Either we choose to have
advertisement or we don't, we should not cherry-pick institutions, and
projects deemed worthy of a banner.

The timing is also a large aspect that is not being considered. The recent
fundraiser repeatedly used the same narrative of asking for donation for a
small non-profit so we won't have to turn to advertising, half way in, we
have a banner from Harvard and SciPro asking to take part in a survey that
apparently pays out respondents.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Thomas Morton]

>
> In reply to Tom Morton's point about privacy - the exposure is no more
> (and as we now know, considerably less) than we experience every time
> we visit any other site on the 'net.


No... because the banner sent your WP username as part of the link - if I
visit any other site in the world they get my IP. If I visited *that* link
they get my WP username as well.

I think the major objection there was that it was not clear that this is
what was happening till *after* you clicked the link.

As you say this is no longer a concern - but it was not explained before
hand. And till the point that it was it was a reasonable objection; the
takeaway being that "next time" it should be explained before to set
peoples minds at rest :)

people who use Wikipedia (or a very small number of other sites where
> they can be familiar with disclosure policies) exclusively, and they
> were somehow surprised that the banner took them to an external site
> (despite the URL being available via float)... Then those people might
> have a legitimate privacy complaint.


 This was not the issue raised; or at the very little trivialises the main
point of objection in favour of the obviously unproblematic.

I've been involved extensively in issues of privacy and subterfuge for
several years now, as a by product of my work. Although my own view is that
open=good (hence, my real name, location etc.) many many people are
confused by privacy and upset by the idea of certain things being tracked
or discovered. I think that we too much trivialise those concerns as
"uninformed" - without understanding that we simply add to the problem *by
not being informative ourselves.*

Or to put it another way; the correct response here is not to go "oh your
being silly, would you like a tin foil hat" but to give the rational
explanation that makes someone not-concerned :)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Bod Notbod]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> those who object to this banner have not rationally
> presented any possible harm that could result.

>From the opening email on this that you yourself presented you
reported the following objections:

1. It looks like spam (harming our reputation)
2. It raises questions due to Jimmy Wales connections to the group
(harming our reputation)
3. It looks symptomatic of malware (harming the user experience)
4. The community wasn't consulted (harming community relations with
the Foundation)

I take no position on any of those (especially as I have not seen the
banner) save to say they do not seem "irrational" arguments as you
suggest.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:00:41PM +, B?ria Lima wrote:
> If you want to see the banner:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&template=HSB_final_2
> 
> And I, B?ria Lima (nice to meet you) disabled the banner upon a thread in
> Internal-l where people asked for it.

Internal-l is the new IRC, I take it? :-) Strictly you're ok by accident, I
think :-)

...but... remember to always reference on-wiki discussions and consensus for 
on-wiki
actions. As you may recall, off-wiki discussions may be referenced for
information, but never for consensus. [1]

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

[1] For completeness: once upon a time, wikipedia-l was also acceptable as a 
source of consensus. No one has tried to use that for quite a while though. ;-)

-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Béria Lima]

Not IRC, the private mailing list with Chapters + staff, I'm sure you heard
of it before.

And Kim, as far as I know there are NO WAY to put a sumary in a Central
Notice action. And I'm not a en.wiki user, so I'm not forced to give any
reason to en.wiki community about a action I took in another wiki. As for
meta, there was a page (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Central_notice_requests) created AFTER
I disable the banner.

And again, that was not a "on-wiki consensus": That was an action who
started with a staff of WMF, discussed privately, put on air, discussed in
a private mailing list, and took off. When I need to do anything on en.wiki
I follow en.wiki, until there, don't try to imposse them to me.
_
*Béria Lima*
(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. *


On 9 December 2011 19:36, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:00:41PM +, B?ria Lima wrote:
> > If you want to see the banner:
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&template=HSB_final_2
> >
> > And I, B?ria Lima (nice to meet you) disabled the banner upon a thread in
> > Internal-l where people asked for it.
>
> Internal-l is the new IRC, I take it? :-) Strictly you're ok by accident, I
> think :-)
>
> ...but... remember to always reference on-wiki discussions and consensus
> for on-wiki
> actions. As you may recall, off-wiki discussions may be referenced for
> information, but never for consensus. [1]
>
> sincerely,
>Kim Bruning
>
> [1] For completeness: once upon a time, wikipedia-l was also acceptable as
> a source of consensus. No one has tried to use that for quite a while
> though. ;-)
>
> --
>
> ___
> 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] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:32:06PM +, B?ria Lima wrote:
> Not IRC, the private mailing list with Chapters + staff, I'm sure you heard
> of it before.

Indeed I have.

> And Kim, as far as I know there are NO WAY to put a sumary in a Central
> Notice action. And I'm not a en.wiki user, so I'm not forced to give any
> reason to en.wiki community about a action I took in another wiki. As for
> meta, there was a page (
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Central_notice_requests) created AFTER
> I disable the banner.

Just for an action on meta, I'm sure meta has the same rule.

> And again, that was not a "on-wiki consensus": That was an action who
> started with a staff of WMF, discussed privately, put on air, discussed in
> a private mailing list, and took off.

Right, none of which is valid for meta _or_ for en.wikipedia afaik.

>  When I need to do anything on en.wiki
> I follow en.wiki, until there, don't try to imposse them to me.

That said, your action did have consequences on-wiki on en.wikipedia, didn't it?

I don't really want to turn this into a bureaucratic fight; just a small note to
be careful. In the end you acted correctly according to consensus, albeit by
accident, as you now confirm.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

> And again, that was not a "on-wiki consensus": That was an action who
> started with a staff of WMF, discussed privately, put on air, discussed
in
> a private mailing list, and took off. When I need to do anything on
en.wiki
> I follow en.wiki, until there, don't try to imposse them to me.

We discussed that and approved it by RCOM in public. Our archives are
public. There is actually absolutely nothing that RCOM does and that is not
public. The archives of the mailing lists and the etherpad meetings are all
online.

Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Risker]

On 9 December 2011 15:32, Béria Lima  wrote:

> Not IRC, the private mailing list with Chapters + staff, I'm sure you heard
> of it before.
>
> And Kim, as far as I know there are NO WAY to put a sumary in a Central
> Notice action. And I'm not a en.wiki user, so I'm not forced to give any
> reason to en.wiki community about a action I took in another wiki. As for
> meta, there was a page (
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Central_notice_requests) created AFTER
> I disable the banner.
>
> And again, that was not a "on-wiki consensus": That was an action who
> started with a staff of WMF, discussed privately, put on air, discussed in
> a private mailing list, and took off. When I need to do anything on en.wiki
> I follow en.wiki, until there, don't try to imposse them to me.
> _
>


Unless I'm missing something critical here, I believe it was the Research
Committee, not the WMF staff, who approved the use of a central notice
banner.  Whether or not  that is within their scope is a separate issue
that should be discussed elsewhere.

I am pleased to see the creation of a page at Meta to discuss Central
Notice requests.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Nathan]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Risker  wrote:
> On 9 December 2011 15:32, Béria Lima  wrote:
>
>> Not IRC, the private mailing list with Chapters + staff, I'm sure you heard
>> of it before.
>>
>> And Kim, as far as I know there are NO WAY to put a sumary in a Central
>> Notice action. And I'm not a en.wiki user, so I'm not forced to give any
>> reason to en.wiki community about a action I took in another wiki. As for
>> meta, there was a page (
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Central_notice_requests) created AFTER
>> I disable the banner.
>>
>> And again, that was not a "on-wiki consensus": That was an action who
>> started with a staff of WMF, discussed privately, put on air, discussed in
>> a private mailing list, and took off. When I need to do anything on en.wiki
>> I follow en.wiki, until there, don't try to imposse them to me.
>> _
>>
>
>
> Unless I'm missing something critical here, I believe it was the Research
> Committee, not the WMF staff, who approved the use of a central notice
> banner.  Whether or not  that is within their scope is a separate issue
> that should be discussed elsewhere.
>
> I am pleased to see the creation of a page at Meta to discuss Central
> Notice requests.
>
> Risker/Anne
> ___


FWIW, the banner was switched on by Philippe (using his WMF account).

~Nathan

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[MZMcBride]

Why is the banner so visually unattractive? Is the English Wikipedia being
punished?

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 09/12/2011 5:53 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Why is the banner so visually unattractive? Is the English Wikipedia being
> punished?
>

In my field, we call this "programmer art".  I suspect research teams 
have a similar monicker.  :-)

-- Coren / Marc


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Nathan  wrote:

>
>
> FWIW, the banner was switched on by Philippe (using his WMF account).
>
> ~Nathan
>
>
Yep.  After an official request from the Research Committee through their
assigned staff liaison, Dario.  :)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Is a research banner "advertising" of the evil sort?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

It's a matter of perspective, as always: the universities see the 
addition of their logos as added value for Wikipedia/WMF. For instance, 
such a usage of logos is strictly prohibited by my university (unimi.it) 
and is authorised only if there's a partnership framework about some 
research and a specific approval of each campaign (and all its details) 
by the central governing bodies. In the last few years, only one such 
campaign has been approved without asking a fee.

Kim Bruning, 09/12/2011 21:01:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 08:32:06PM +, B?ria Lima wrote:
>> Not IRC, the private mailing list with Chapters + staff, I'm sure you heard
>> of it before.
>
> Indeed I have.
>
>> And Kim, as far as I know there are NO WAY to put a sumary in a Central
>> Notice action. And I'm not a en.wiki user, so I'm not forced to give any
>> reason to en.wiki community about a action I took in another wiki. As for
>> meta, there was a page (
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Central_notice_requests) created AFTER
>> I disable the banner.
>
> Just for an action on meta, I'm sure meta has the same rule.

As a Meta admin I can confirm it. ;-)
The banner was disabled almost at the same time by both Béria and 
Brion;[1] Brion used his sysadmin flag to get temporary sysop flag and 
didn't notice Béria's action; he correctly left a notification as 
expected from a Meta sysop.[2]

Nemo

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralNoticeLogs?log_type=campaignSettings&campaign=Harvard+Sciences+Po&limit=2
[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior&diff=prev&oldid=3137007

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