Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access by Wikimedia volunteers to WMF records about them

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

I'd worry about that only after a rejection. :-) However, while I don't
know about UK, in Italy I see several degrees of administrative recourse
at the data protection authority. Here's a list:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/bodies/authorities/eu/index_en.htm

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[Dan Garry]

On 24 August 2014 21:36, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> Filed as 69967 on Bugzilla.


Great, thanks! I suspect this is a problem with MobileFrontend, so I've
moved the bug into that product so that people will see it. I'll keep my
eye on the bug, either way.

I'm glad you clarified that; to be quite
> honest, the timing here (starting about a couple weeks ago) looked to me to
> be yet another "You'll use it and you'll LIKE IT!", especially given the
> lack of response at the documentation page. Sorry if I jumped to a
> conclusion.
>

The Mobile Apps team typically receives messages from volunteers through
the Village Pumps (in which case the Community Liaisons know to ping me) or
by email directly into mobile-l. I personally never would've thought to
check that talk page for comments and questions. I suspect the same is true
of the Mobile Web team.

I'll update the header on that talk page to point to [[WP:VPT]] so that
people leave their comments in the right place.

Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote:
>> I have
>> heard people say "don't force an interface change on me that I don't think
>> is an improvement."
>
> I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't
> accompanied with, at the very least, some method of opting out.  Did I
> miss one?

Did you try opting out of MediaViewer on the mobile version?

I think the response that I received confirmed it wasnt possible.

Per-user opt-out aside, the WMF was still forcing an interface change
onto the community at large.  With VE, the WMF needed the community to
add TemplateData to all templates to help the newbies who were using
VE; with MV, the WMF needed the community to 'tag' images which
shouldnt be shown in the MV, and there is an ongoing need for the
community to 'fix' the image page syntax in order for the information
to display correctly to the end users in MV.

In both cases, significant amounts of volunteer time is required to
avoid a bad user experience.
WMF needs 'buy-in' for that, if it wants volunteers to be happy
volunteers while doing mundane work to make the new software suck
less.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[Todd Allen]

Dan,

Filed as 69967 on Bugzilla. I'm glad you clarified that; to be quite
honest, the timing here (starting about a couple weeks ago) looked to me to
be yet another "You'll use it and you'll LIKE IT!", especially given the
lack of response at the documentation page. Sorry if I jumped to a
conclusion.

Todd


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Dan Garry  wrote:

> That sounds like a bug to me. Have you filed a bug in Bugzilla to be sure
> that the Mobile Web team is aware?
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 24 August 2014 21:13, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > I've found one very recently, actually, or at least if there is an
> opt-out
> > it's very opaque.
> >
> > I use the desktop interface on my mobile. I've no intention of ever
> > changing that. There used to be an option that permanently disabled
> mobile
> > interface for a given browser (I presume via a persistent cookie, as it
> > worked even when I wasn't logged in), but now I have to switch back to
> > desktop every day or so. There are several requests at
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Mobile_access#Turn_mobile_access_off
> > for a way to disable the mobile interface, but no answers as to how to do
> > that or if that's even supported anymore.
> >
> > I'm sure I could hack around it by changing useragents or the like, but I
> > shouldn't -have- to use some hacky solution to it. If I don't ever want
> to
> > use the mobile interface, provide a way for me to say that and leave the
> > change permanent (at least until I decide otherwise).
> >
> > So either I'm missing something (and I'm not the only one), or yeah, you
> > missed one.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote:
> > > > I have
> > > > heard people say "don't force an interface change on me that I don't
> > > think
> > > > is an improvement."
> > >
> > > I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't
> > > accompanied with, at the very least, some method of opting out.  Did I
> > > miss one?
> > >
> > > -- Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[Dan Garry]

That sounds like a bug to me. Have you filed a bug in Bugzilla to be sure
that the Mobile Web team is aware?

Dan


On 24 August 2014 21:13, Todd Allen  wrote:

> I've found one very recently, actually, or at least if there is an opt-out
> it's very opaque.
>
> I use the desktop interface on my mobile. I've no intention of ever
> changing that. There used to be an option that permanently disabled mobile
> interface for a given browser (I presume via a persistent cookie, as it
> worked even when I wasn't logged in), but now I have to switch back to
> desktop every day or so. There are several requests at
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Mobile_access#Turn_mobile_access_off
> for a way to disable the mobile interface, but no answers as to how to do
> that or if that's even supported anymore.
>
> I'm sure I could hack around it by changing useragents or the like, but I
> shouldn't -have- to use some hacky solution to it. If I don't ever want to
> use the mobile interface, provide a way for me to say that and leave the
> change permanent (at least until I decide otherwise).
>
> So either I'm missing something (and I'm not the only one), or yeah, you
> missed one.
>
> Todd
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
>
> > On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote:
> > > I have
> > > heard people say "don't force an interface change on me that I don't
> > think
> > > is an improvement."
> >
> > I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't
> > accompanied with, at the very least, some method of opting out.  Did I
> > miss one?
> >
> > -- Marc
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[Todd Allen]

I've found one very recently, actually, or at least if there is an opt-out
it's very opaque.

I use the desktop interface on my mobile. I've no intention of ever
changing that. There used to be an option that permanently disabled mobile
interface for a given browser (I presume via a persistent cookie, as it
worked even when I wasn't logged in), but now I have to switch back to
desktop every day or so. There are several requests at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Mobile_access#Turn_mobile_access_off
for a way to disable the mobile interface, but no answers as to how to do
that or if that's even supported anymore.

I'm sure I could hack around it by changing useragents or the like, but I
shouldn't -have- to use some hacky solution to it. If I don't ever want to
use the mobile interface, provide a way for me to say that and leave the
change permanent (at least until I decide otherwise).

So either I'm missing something (and I'm not the only one), or yeah, you
missed one.

Todd


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
wrote:

> On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote:
> > I have
> > heard people say "don't force an interface change on me that I don't
> think
> > is an improvement."
>
> I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't
> accompanied with, at the very least, some method of opting out.  Did I
> miss one?
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote:
> I have
> heard people say "don't force an interface change on me that I don't think
> is an improvement."

I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't
accompanied with, at the very least, some method of opting out.  Did I
miss one?

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[Pine W]

I have heard very few people say "don't ever change the interface." I have
heard people say "don't force an interface change on me that I don't think
is an improvement."

VE was a good example. The sentiment of the community wasn't that VE''s
concept is wrong, it's that the implementation and rollout had major
deficiencies.

The MV issue is larger than than the usual editor-focused interface change
because it impacts readers as well as editors, and there were issues with
the display of licenses to readers. Personally I feel that the MV issues
are fixable but the rollout should have been handled differently, and I am
glad that the community and WMF both want to avoid repeating rollout
problems again and again.

Pine


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> In the metrics meeting, a presentation was given that showed that mobile
> editing is really starting to happen. It is happening to the extend where
> new editors are predominantly mobile editors.
>
> When I asked my question "do we need to keep you happy" I specifically
> targeted the vitriolic parts of our community. In my experience it it the
> part that is conservative, not willing to listen, not open to change and
> not willing to consider what is important to others.At Wikimania one of the
> presenters indicated that he was willing to contribute to Wikidata. This
> was not accepted because "someone in the community is really involved in
> this subject and he had to have a say". This was one major person probably
> walking away for ever who is hugely important in science and open data. The
> user interface for selecting fonts is abysmal because the "community"
> decided that what was implemented looked cluttered. Only seven percent of
> the world population is dyslexic and they do NOT find Wikipedia easier to
> read as a result.
>
> Really, what is important to some people in the "community" is not
> necessarily beneficial at all. The lack of conversation the ease of making
> demands and not appreciating that our aim is to "share in the sum of all
> knowledge" means that many retarded points of view abound.
>
> Erik indicated that he is willing to talk and come to a workable
> compromise. However, we do need change and we need it badly. When this is
> not understood, I am sorry to say, those who fail to understand this are a
> problem, a problem that is increasingly cancelling out their future value.
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
>
> On 24 August 2014 12:49, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Now what do we aim to achieve? Keeping you happy or making sure we
> have a
> > > public ???
> > >
> >
> > simply put: both. We need readers just as much as we need the free labor
> of
> > editors/volunteers.
> >
> > I don't think it makes any sense to have a discussion about the "wasted
> > millions". First, in software development there is always some inevitable
> > waste, just because of the nature of this endeavor. Second, many projects
> > which start with mixed reception are getting better (and I have high hope
> > that the visual editor is one of them!). Third, for an IT organization of
> > this caliber and traffic, as well as the budget, there are impressive
> > results in many areas (including, but not limited to, mobile website - at
> > least for viewers, as editing is a different story).
> >
> > The real problem here, in my view, is creating an organizational
> framework
> > that will allow to incorporate the community much more into planning,
> early
> > development, alpha and beta testing, and finally implementation of all
> new
> > features and tools (in a way which does not rely on IT schedules only,
> but
> > also on feedback from the communities). It is up to WMF to create and
> > provide such framework, as our community as a whole does not have any
> > institutionalized representation or voice (which is part of the issue;
> one
> > the one hand it is easy to discard whatever people from the community
> say,
> > as they are random individuals, and on the other it must be deeply
> > frustrating to never be sure what the community reaction will be). Some
> > people are suggesting stewards as the good group to start with - I'm
> afraid
> > stewards are not the best ones to go to. Stewards act mainly as highly
> > trusted, experienced individuals. They do not represent their local
> > communities in any way. Also, they do not necessarily have the best
> skills
> > for the task, and they do not form a cooperating team, in general.
> >
> > One of the unbearable signs of bureaucracy is setting up committees, but
> > here a volunteer-driven, democratic task force could actually make some
> > sense, perhaps. Look at it this way - we elect admins, crats, checkusers,
> > oversighters, stewards. All these roles are only technical. Perhaps at
> some
> > point we should think of community representation as well (and n

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Jeevan Jose]

>
> I don't know, it seems to me that deploying new software ASAP before it has
> been exhaustively tested by the end user base has caused a few headaches
> lately ;-).
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

Just disable the "Download as PDF" and  "Create a book" options till
testing is over. Even CC 4.0 licenses require any license violation must be
fixed within 30 days. :)

Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Craig Franklin]

On 25 August 2014 03:57, Mark  wrote:

> On 8/24/14, 7:03 PM, Jeevan Jose wrote:
>
>> Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah
>>
>> Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.
>>
>> It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
>> License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth
>>
>> This is very wrong as license is not fetched  and photographer is only
>> Fir;
>> not all people edited that "file" page.
>>
>> I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN too
>> by Stefan:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_
>> Wikipedia#For_legal_team_review
>>
>
> Fwiw, a new PDF exporter is being tested, and looks like it'll be deployed
> soon: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/PDF_rendering
>
> It might be worth checking (I have not) what attribution is done in the
> new exporter. If it's better, then the right fix would be to just deploy
> the new exporter ASAP.
>
> Best,
> Mark


I don't know, it seems to me that deploying new software ASAP before it has
been exhaustively tested by the end user base has caused a few headaches
lately ;-).

Cheers,
Craig
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reader, who doesn't exist

[Pine W]

Yes, we could look at Google's infoboxes as doing us a favor because they
decrease the load on our servers. We would need to account for those views
in some way if we are interested in quantifying success in the sense of
total views of our content regardless of where it is reproduced.

However, I think Analytics said in a WMF Metrics Meeting presentation that
the number of Google search referrals was not going down enough to explain
the drop in pageviews. I'm copying this email to Analytics in the hope that
they'll comment about the probable causes of the pageview decreases.

Pine


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:06 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Risker wrote:
> >Given the mission is sharing information, I'd suggest that if we have a
> >95% drop in readership, we're failing the mission.  Donations are only a
> >means to an end.
>
> I think this assumes a direct correlation between pageviews and sharing
> information and I'm not sure such a direct correlation exists.
>
> When you do a Google search for "abraham lincoln", there's now an infobox
> on the search results page with content from Wikipedia. This could easily
> result in a drop in the number of Wikipedia pageviews, but does that mean
> that Wikipedia is failing its mission? The goal is a world in which we
> freely share in the sum of all human knowledge. If third parties are
> picking up and re-using our free content (and they are), I think we're
> certainly not losing. We may even be winning(!).
>
> We offer bulk-download options for our content, as well as the ability to
> directly query for article content on-demand via the MediaWIki API. Both
> of these access methods very likely result in 0 pageviews being
> registered (XML dump downloads and api.php hits aren't considered
> pageviews, as far as I'm aware), but we're directly sharing content.
>
> As a metric, pageviews are probably not very meaningful. One way we can
> observe whether we're fulfilling our mission is to see how ubiquitous
> our content has become. An even better metric might be the quality of the
> articles we have. Anecdotal evidence suggests that higher article quality
> is not really tied to the readership rate, though perhaps article size is.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Jeevan Jose]

Thanks Mark for pointing me to the new PDF exporter; hope it will improve
the accuracy of data gathering from file pages.

BTW, I improved the file page [1], and now contributor is attributing
properly [2]. But it still failed to fetch the license. So my understanding
is that the current script is trying to fetch information from author and
license fields. If that attempt fails, it simply lists the editors of the
file page which is wrong.

As Mark mentioned above, this is not a GFDL issue. We need to improve our
software in both sides; at the Commons page where data is collected, and at
tools which gather the data available there. Hope developers at both side
([3], [4]) will consider this.

1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg&action=history
2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Cheetah
(export pdf)
3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/PDF_rendering
4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data

Regards,
Jee


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Jean-Frédéric 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is definitely a loop worth closing
>
>
> This is mentionned in the Talk page discussion, but for the benefits of all
> list readers who might not check it out :):
> please see
> <
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Fred
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] editor retention initiatives

[Steven Walling]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Is there a list somewhere of all currently active Foundation
> initiatives for attracting and retaining active editors?  I am only
> aware of the one project, "Task Recommendations," to try to encourage
> editors who have made a few edits to make more, described starting at
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JbZ1uWoKEg&t=60m20s
>

Task recommendations is one nascent initiative that my team is working
on.[1] We're still in the very early prototyping and testing stages. (BTW,
the whole video segment starts two minutes earlier at about the 58:00
mark.)

Task recommendations is far from the only thing we're doing to attract and
retain active editors. Pretty much the entirety of the features development
roadmap for desktop and mobile is focused on this problem. VisualEditor,
Flow, mobile web and apps work, and more all address this problem from
different angles. You can keep up with what the Foundation is doing by
checking out the monthly engineering reports.[2]


> Is there any evidence at all that anyone in the Foundation is
> interested in any kind of change which would make non-editors more
> inclined to edit, or empower editors with social factors which might
> provide more time, economic power, or other means to enable them to
> edit more?
>

We practically can't and don't take on initiatives that directly try to
provide more free time or money to editors. We can, however, help people do
more with the free time they have, and ask new people to become
contributors. Both of those are things we're tackling. A central goal of
improving the usability of the core editing experience across devices is to
save people time and energy. My team's also trying other things to attract
new community members, such as actually inviting people to sign up.[3]

1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Task_recommendations
2. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/latest
3.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Anonymous_editor_acquisition#Invite_users_to_sign_up
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reader, who doesn't exist

[MZMcBride]

Risker wrote:
>Given the mission is sharing information, I'd suggest that if we have a
>95% drop in readership, we're failing the mission.  Donations are only a
>means to an end.

I think this assumes a direct correlation between pageviews and sharing
information and I'm not sure such a direct correlation exists.

When you do a Google search for "abraham lincoln", there's now an infobox
on the search results page with content from Wikipedia. This could easily
result in a drop in the number of Wikipedia pageviews, but does that mean
that Wikipedia is failing its mission? The goal is a world in which we
freely share in the sum of all human knowledge. If third parties are
picking up and re-using our free content (and they are), I think we're
certainly not losing. We may even be winning(!).

We offer bulk-download options for our content, as well as the ability to
directly query for article content on-demand via the MediaWIki API. Both
of these access methods very likely result in 0 pageviews being
registered (XML dump downloads and api.php hits aren't considered
pageviews, as far as I'm aware), but we're directly sharing content.

As a metric, pageviews are probably not very meaningful. One way we can
observe whether we're fulfilling our mission is to see how ubiquitous
our content has become. An even better metric might be the quality of the
articles we have. Anecdotal evidence suggests that higher article quality
is not really tied to the readership rate, though perhaps article size is.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reader, who doesn't exist

[Risker]

Given the mission is sharing information, I'd suggest that if we have a 95%
drop in readership, we're failing the mission.  Donations are only a means
to an end.

Risker/Anne


On 24 August 2014 22:57, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> >First, let's make one thing clear: the reader doesn't exist; it's just a
> >rhetorical trick, and a very dangerous one. For more:
> >https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stupidity_of_the_reader
>
> This essay looks fascinating. I hope to read it soon.
>
> >Page views, however brute a concept, exist; and I think they're telling
> >us we do have a readership problem. For it.wiki, in the last year I see
> >a suspiciously similar decrease in desktop pageviews and editing
> >activity (possibly around –20 %). It would *seem* that every user
> >converted to the mobile site is a step towards extinction of the wiki.
> >Long story:
> >
> >   The page above is just a collection of pointers that I probably
> won't
> >be able to pursue in the coming months, to study an unprecedented
> >collapse of editing activity and active editors on it.wiki. However,
> >there /are/ several things worth looking into and we do have a huge
> >problem (or several).
>
> I don't know enough about the Italian Wikipedia to comment on it
> specifically. But generally I think it's important to re-emphasize that
> correlation and causation are distinct, as are readership and editorship
> rates. The two items of each set can be interrelated or connected
> sometimes, of course, but we need to make sure we're drawing accurate and
> appropriate conclusions.
>
> At  Jared
> Zimmerman writes, "We have a reader decline, its backed by hard numbers,
> any creative solution for bringing more readers and contributors into the
> project should be seriously discussed without being dismissed out of
> hand." There's substantial discussion in the subsequent comments.
>
> Let's temporarily accept the premise that pageviews suddenly drop from 20
> billion per month to 1 billion per month. The easy argument is that we'd
> save a lot of money on hosting. But unlike most of the Internet, Wikipedia
> doesn't rely on advertising. Why does it matter how popular we are? Does it
> affect donation rates? Does it affect editorship rates? I'm not sure how
> much of this we know. It's increasingly clear that much of the rest of the
> Internet _is_ different: it doesn't require much thought of participants,
> it's user-focused, and it's built on the idea of selling (to) people. This
> difference in how we want to treat users, as collaborators and colleagues,
> rather than as clients or customers, will permeate the site design and
> user experience and that's okay.
>
> If the number of pageviews suddenly drops, for whatever reason, what
> happens next? The most likely "worst case" scenario seems to be a
> reduction in annual donations, which results in a smaller staff size
> (sometimes referred to as "trimming the fat" or "optimizing"). There's a
> lot of talk lately about the imperiled future, but we could end up with a
> smaller, more decentralized Wikimedia Foundation staff in what some would
> consider one of the least desirable outcomes. Eh.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Jean-Frédéric]

Hi,

This is definitely a loop worth closing


This is mentionned in the Talk page discussion, but for the benefits of all
list readers who might not check it out :):
please see
<
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
>

-- 
Jean-Fred
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reader, who doesn't exist

[MZMcBride]

Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>First, let's make one thing clear: the reader doesn't exist; it's just a
>rhetorical trick, and a very dangerous one. For more:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stupidity_of_the_reader

This essay looks fascinating. I hope to read it soon.

>Page views, however brute a concept, exist; and I think they're telling
>us we do have a readership problem. For it.wiki, in the last year I see
>a suspiciously similar decrease in desktop pageviews and editing
>activity (possibly around –20 %). It would *seem* that every user
>converted to the mobile site is a step towards extinction of the wiki.
>Long story:
>
>   The page above is just a collection of pointers that I probably won't
>be able to pursue in the coming months, to study an unprecedented
>collapse of editing activity and active editors on it.wiki. However,
>there /are/ several things worth looking into and we do have a huge
>problem (or several).

I don't know enough about the Italian Wikipedia to comment on it
specifically. But generally I think it's important to re-emphasize that
correlation and causation are distinct, as are readership and editorship
rates. The two items of each set can be interrelated or connected
sometimes, of course, but we need to make sure we're drawing accurate and
appropriate conclusions.

At  Jared
Zimmerman writes, "We have a reader decline, its backed by hard numbers,
any creative solution for bringing more readers and contributors into the
project should be seriously discussed without being dismissed out of
hand." There's substantial discussion in the subsequent comments.

Let's temporarily accept the premise that pageviews suddenly drop from 20
billion per month to 1 billion per month. The easy argument is that we'd
save a lot of money on hosting. But unlike most of the Internet, Wikipedia
doesn't rely on advertising. Why does it matter how popular we are? Does it
affect donation rates? Does it affect editorship rates? I'm not sure how
much of this we know. It's increasingly clear that much of the rest of the
Internet _is_ different: it doesn't require much thought of participants,
it's user-focused, and it's built on the idea of selling (to) people. This
difference in how we want to treat users, as collaborators and colleagues,
rather than as clients or customers, will permeate the site design and
user experience and that's okay.

If the number of pageviews suddenly drops, for whatever reason, what
happens next? The most likely "worst case" scenario seems to be a
reduction in annual donations, which results in a smaller staff size
(sometimes referred to as "trimming the fat" or "optimizing"). There's a
lot of talk lately about the imperiled future, but we could end up with a
smaller, more decentralized Wikimedia Foundation staff in what some would
consider one of the least desirable outcomes. Eh.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Mark]

On 8/24/14, 9:34 PM, Michael Peel wrote:

I can kinda understand why the software doesn't deal with messed-up situations 
like this - it shouldn't need to do so in the first place. I hope that we as a 
community can fix this by sensible licensing choices, rather than blaming the 
software.


I don't think the GFDL question and the software question are really the 
same. The software should attribute people better than it does, and IMO 
it still does not do it properly with the new image you swapped in. All 
the (current) PDF-generator does is append a list of the usernames of 
people who've edited the image's description page. This is not really 
good attribution: 1) it does not actually mention the license; 2) it 
fails to actually identify the author of the image (vs. people who've 
done other things like added a category link to the image's description 
page); and 3) it does not attribute photographers with their real name, 
even when known.


Absent non-cc-licensed GFDL images, doing that may not be *legally* 
required, but I think it's good practice and friendlier to do so.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Michael Peel]

Hey Pete,

Thanks for pointing me towards that discussion - I hadn't spotted it, and I've 
replied (and apologised for not noticing it) accordingly.

This is definitely a loop worth closing, as it's a right pain to deal with when 
working with derivative images of Wikipedia page screenshots. For a practical 
example, see:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Multimedia_Project_-_Wikimedia_Foundation

I can kinda understand why the software doesn't deal with messed-up situations 
like this - it shouldn't need to do so in the first place. I hope that we as a 
community can fix this by sensible licensing choices, rather than blaming the 
software.

Thanks,
Mike

On 24 Aug 2014, at 20:21, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Mike --
> 
> Did you see the recent discussion about this at [[Talk:Cheetah]]?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheetah#Lead_photo_license
> 
> Although Erik Moeller recommended in 2008 (with the move to Creative
> Commons licenses) that we stop permitting new uploads of files on the basis
> of a GFDL license, as far as I can tell, that recommendation was never
> adopted in any policy, so it's still possible to upload GFDL files. (The
> fact that this file happens to also have a CC B
> Y-NC-SA license is not the basis of any WM decision -- it just happens the
> photographer also permits that license.) I've confirmed by private email
> correspondence that this photographer is clear about the licenses he does
> and doesn't want to use.
> 
> Seems like a loophole worth closing.
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:
> 
>> I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial
>> reuse. Problem solved?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>> 
>> On 24 Aug 2014, at 19:55, Michael Peel  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative
>> Commons license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad
>> licensing, rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting
>> -NC licenses?!).
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> On 24 Aug 2014, at 18:03, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
>>> 
 Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah
 
 Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.
 
 It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
 License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth
 
 This is very wrong as license is not fetched  and photographer is only
>> Fir;
 not all people edited that "file" page.
 
 I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN
>> too
 by Stefan:
 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_legal_team_review
 
 I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention.
 
 Regards,
 Jee
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access by Wikimedia volunteers to WMF records about them

[Richard Farmbrough]

But if the entity refuses to answer, one has limited recourse, especially
if that entity is American, or trans-Atlantic.


On 24 August 2014 16:50, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:

> If you don't know of a policy which gives you the right to ask
> something, why ask that something?
> Instead, ask something you know you have the right to ask; for instance,
> EU citizens have the right, by privacy law, to ask what PII an entity
> has about them.
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Landline (UK) 01780 757 250
Mobile (UK) 0798 1995 792
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Pete Forsyth]

I don't mean to divert this thread into a discussion of the GFDL loophole,
though -- Jeevan's original question about PDF output is a good one, it's
important that all WM software honor attribution requirements (and,
ideally, non legally-binding wishes) appropriately.

Pete


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

> Mike --
>
> Did you see the recent discussion about this at [[Talk:Cheetah]]?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheetah#Lead_photo_license
>
> Although Erik Moeller recommended in 2008 (with the move to Creative
> Commons licenses) that we stop permitting new uploads of files on the basis
> of a GFDL license, as far as I can tell, that recommendation was never
> adopted in any policy, so it's still possible to upload GFDL files. (The
> fact that this file happens to also have a CC B
> Y-NC-SA license is not the basis of any WM decision -- it just happens the
> photographer also permits that license.) I've confirmed by private email
> correspondence that this photographer is clear about the licenses he does
> and doesn't want to use.
>
> Seems like a loophole worth closing.
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:
>
>> I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial
>> reuse. Problem solved?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>>
>> On 24 Aug 2014, at 19:55, Michael Peel  wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative
>> Commons license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad
>> licensing, rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting
>> -NC licenses?!).
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > On 24 Aug 2014, at 18:03, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah
>> >>
>> >> Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.
>> >>
>> >> It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
>> >> License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth
>> >>
>> >> This is very wrong as license is not fetched  and photographer is only
>> Fir;
>> >> not all people edited that "file" page.
>> >>
>> >> I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN
>> too
>> >> by Stefan:
>> >>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_legal_team_review
>> >>
>> >> I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Jee
>> >> ___
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Pete Forsyth]

Mike --

Did you see the recent discussion about this at [[Talk:Cheetah]]?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheetah#Lead_photo_license

Although Erik Moeller recommended in 2008 (with the move to Creative
Commons licenses) that we stop permitting new uploads of files on the basis
of a GFDL license, as far as I can tell, that recommendation was never
adopted in any policy, so it's still possible to upload GFDL files. (The
fact that this file happens to also have a CC B
Y-NC-SA license is not the basis of any WM decision -- it just happens the
photographer also permits that license.) I've confirmed by private email
correspondence that this photographer is clear about the licenses he does
and doesn't want to use.

Seems like a loophole worth closing.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Michael Peel  wrote:

> I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial
> reuse. Problem solved?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 24 Aug 2014, at 19:55, Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> > Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative
> Commons license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad
> licensing, rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting
> -NC licenses?!).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > On 24 Aug 2014, at 18:03, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
> >
> >> Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah
> >>
> >> Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.
> >>
> >> It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
> >> License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth
> >>
> >> This is very wrong as license is not fetched  and photographer is only
> Fir;
> >> not all people edited that "file" page.
> >>
> >> I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN
> too
> >> by Stefan:
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_legal_team_review
> >>
> >> I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jee
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Michael Peel]

I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial reuse. 
Problem solved?

Thanks,
Mike

On 24 Aug 2014, at 19:55, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative Commons 
> license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad licensing, 
> rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting -NC 
> licenses?!).
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> On 24 Aug 2014, at 18:03, Jeevan Jose  wrote:
> 
>> Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah
>> 
>> Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.
>> 
>> It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
>> License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth
>> 
>> This is very wrong as license is not fetched  and photographer is only Fir;
>> not all people edited that "file" page.
>> 
>> I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN too
>> by Stefan:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_legal_team_review
>> 
>> I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jee
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Michael Peel]

Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative Commons 
license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad licensing, 
rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting -NC licenses?!).

Thanks,
Mike

On 24 Aug 2014, at 18:03, Jeevan Jose  wrote:

> Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah
> 
> Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.
> 
> It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
> License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth
> 
> This is very wrong as license is not fetched  and photographer is only Fir;
> not all people edited that "file" page.
> 
> I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN too
> by Stefan:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_legal_team_review
> 
> I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention.
> 
> Regards,
> Jee
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Mark]

On 8/24/14, 7:03 PM, Jeevan Jose wrote:

Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah

Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.

It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth

This is very wrong as license is not fetched  and photographer is only Fir;
not all people edited that "file" page.

I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN too
by Stefan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_legal_team_review


Fwiw, a new PDF exporter is being tested, and looks like it'll be 
deployed soon: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/PDF_rendering


It might be worth checking (I have not) what attribution is done in the 
new exporter. If it's better, then the right fix would be to just deploy 
the new exporter ASAP.


Best,
Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

[Jeevan Jose]

Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah

Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.

It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth

This is very wrong as license is not fetched  and photographer is only Fir;
not all people edited that "file" page.

I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN too
by Stefan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_legal_team_review

I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention.

Regards,
Jee
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access by Wikimedia volunteers to WMF records about them

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

If you don't know of a policy which gives you the right to ask
something, why ask that something?
Instead, ask something you know you have the right to ask; for instance,
EU citizens have the right, by privacy law, to ask what PII an entity
has about them.

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In the metrics meeting, a presentation was given that showed that mobile
editing is really starting to happen. It is happening to the extend where
new editors are predominantly mobile editors.

When I asked my question "do we need to keep you happy" I specifically
targeted the vitriolic parts of our community. In my experience it it the
part that is conservative, not willing to listen, not open to change and
not willing to consider what is important to others.At Wikimania one of the
presenters indicated that he was willing to contribute to Wikidata. This
was not accepted because "someone in the community is really involved in
this subject and he had to have a say". This was one major person probably
walking away for ever who is hugely important in science and open data. The
user interface for selecting fonts is abysmal because the "community"
decided that what was implemented looked cluttered. Only seven percent of
the world population is dyslexic and they do NOT find Wikipedia easier to
read as a result.

Really, what is important to some people in the "community" is not
necessarily beneficial at all. The lack of conversation the ease of making
demands and not appreciating that our aim is to "share in the sum of all
knowledge" means that many retarded points of view abound.

Erik indicated that he is willing to talk and come to a workable
compromise. However, we do need change and we need it badly. When this is
not understood, I am sorry to say, those who fail to understand this are a
problem, a problem that is increasingly cancelling out their future value.
Thanks,
Gerard


On 24 August 2014 12:49, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> hi,
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > Now what do we aim to achieve? Keeping you happy or making sure we have a
> > public ???
> >
>
> simply put: both. We need readers just as much as we need the free labor of
> editors/volunteers.
>
> I don't think it makes any sense to have a discussion about the "wasted
> millions". First, in software development there is always some inevitable
> waste, just because of the nature of this endeavor. Second, many projects
> which start with mixed reception are getting better (and I have high hope
> that the visual editor is one of them!). Third, for an IT organization of
> this caliber and traffic, as well as the budget, there are impressive
> results in many areas (including, but not limited to, mobile website - at
> least for viewers, as editing is a different story).
>
> The real problem here, in my view, is creating an organizational framework
> that will allow to incorporate the community much more into planning, early
> development, alpha and beta testing, and finally implementation of all new
> features and tools (in a way which does not rely on IT schedules only, but
> also on feedback from the communities). It is up to WMF to create and
> provide such framework, as our community as a whole does not have any
> institutionalized representation or voice (which is part of the issue; one
> the one hand it is easy to discard whatever people from the community say,
> as they are random individuals, and on the other it must be deeply
> frustrating to never be sure what the community reaction will be). Some
> people are suggesting stewards as the good group to start with - I'm afraid
> stewards are not the best ones to go to. Stewards act mainly as highly
> trusted, experienced individuals. They do not represent their local
> communities in any way. Also, they do not necessarily have the best skills
> for the task, and they do not form a cooperating team, in general.
>
> One of the unbearable signs of bureaucracy is setting up committees, but
> here a volunteer-driven, democratic task force could actually make some
> sense, perhaps. Look at it this way - we elect admins, crats, checkusers,
> oversighters, stewards. All these roles are only technical. Perhaps at some
> point we should think of community representation as well (and not in the
> sense of leadership, but in the sense of liaisons, testers, people
> responsible for smoother communication).
>
> My experience within the FDC has shown that volunteer-driven bodies are
> quite effective at such tasks, when provided with necessary organizational
> support.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
>
>
>
> --
>
> __
> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> i centrum badawczego CROW
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>
> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[David Cuenca]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 4:38 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Pi zero at 
> writes, "The non-Wikipedian sisters are the growth sector of the
> wikimedian movement, and the WMF by dissing them is strangling the
> wikimedian movement's best chance of having a vigorous future, with
> Wikipedia embedded in a thriving ecosystem of wikimedian sisters
> augmenting each other's strengths."
>

Thanks MZMcBride for bringing attention to Pi Zero's insightful comment,
which actually correspond with how big companies devise strategies to be
successful. They do not promote only one brand, they promote several with
the hopes that, if one dies, they will have another one (or several) to
take up its place. If you look at companies that failed in the past, most
of the ones that could have avoided their fate didn't or couldn't, because
they had over-commited to a single product, and when that failed they had
no back-up plan with products better adapted to the new conditions, and
someone else had occupied that market slot. It is always wise to have
several baskets where to put eggs.

The biggest asset of the Wikimedia stream is not that its community can
materialize around a digital encyclopedia, but that it can do so around
many other projects that are also aligned with the mission of sharing and
opening knowledge. And those opportunities have *increased* over time.

There are people who are concerned about public spending, others that are
concerned about creating reliable medical information, others about
adapting information for schoolchildren, others about collaborative and
open science, etc. if you look at the past proposed projects or adoption
requests the list goes on and on, and of those many only one was adopted.
It is never sure which one is going to be succesful, but if several are not
tried, then for sure they will fail because they lack leverage.

I think the biggest fear in the past was to stretch too much, or to not be
able to re-integrate the generated information into a central space (like
Wikipedia), but that is now less so. Wikidata is starting to become the
central information backbone, and what in the past looked disperse, now can
be put back together with little effort, no matter where one contributed.

One of the ideas I liked the most in Wikimania is that we could have
several projects adapted to the interest of each person or community, with
a fresh start, without so many rules, with new tools deployed there, and
generating information that can be merged back into a central space if
wished so. What is stopping us of having medical.wikipedia.org? Or
education.wikipedia.org?

I think the recent drama around MV shows that you can't teach an old dog
new tricks, or at least not as fast as the changing situation requires. If
the existing strategy is not working, and if after these years the editor
decline couldn't be stopped. Why not to try something different?

Thanks
Micru
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi,

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

>
> Now what do we aim to achieve? Keeping you happy or making sure we have a
> public ???
>

simply put: both. We need readers just as much as we need the free labor of
editors/volunteers.

I don't think it makes any sense to have a discussion about the "wasted
millions". First, in software development there is always some inevitable
waste, just because of the nature of this endeavor. Second, many projects
which start with mixed reception are getting better (and I have high hope
that the visual editor is one of them!). Third, for an IT organization of
this caliber and traffic, as well as the budget, there are impressive
results in many areas (including, but not limited to, mobile website - at
least for viewers, as editing is a different story).

The real problem here, in my view, is creating an organizational framework
that will allow to incorporate the community much more into planning, early
development, alpha and beta testing, and finally implementation of all new
features and tools (in a way which does not rely on IT schedules only, but
also on feedback from the communities). It is up to WMF to create and
provide such framework, as our community as a whole does not have any
institutionalized representation or voice (which is part of the issue; one
the one hand it is easy to discard whatever people from the community say,
as they are random individuals, and on the other it must be deeply
frustrating to never be sure what the community reaction will be). Some
people are suggesting stewards as the good group to start with - I'm afraid
stewards are not the best ones to go to. Stewards act mainly as highly
trusted, experienced individuals. They do not represent their local
communities in any way. Also, they do not necessarily have the best skills
for the task, and they do not form a cooperating team, in general.

One of the unbearable signs of bureaucracy is setting up committees, but
here a volunteer-driven, democratic task force could actually make some
sense, perhaps. Look at it this way - we elect admins, crats, checkusers,
oversighters, stewards. All these roles are only technical. Perhaps at some
point we should think of community representation as well (and not in the
sense of leadership, but in the sense of liaisons, testers, people
responsible for smoother communication).

My experience within the FDC has shown that volunteer-driven bodies are
quite effective at such tasks, when provided with necessary organizational
support.

best,

dariusz "pundit"



-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

I am very grateful for Gerards remarks.

Sometimes I see a lot of black/white-thinking in the Wikimedia
movement, with statements such as "this is all bad" (and,
occasionally, "this is all good"). I am more comfortable with shades
of grey, they don't have to be fifty, but at least 5 or 10. On a scale
to five, the Visual Editor might have been "2" in 2013, now it looks
to me like "3" or "4". Not good enough? :-)

Some people in the movement and especially in the communities have
found their way of doing things and are happy with it, they don't want
to have anything changed and don't see the need for it. That is a
legitimate feeling and attitude, but other people allow themselves to
point out the downsides. Some find it very difficult to tolerate that,
because they don't want their world to change.

Software is not the solution for everything, but sometimes it helps to
make some things better. Wikipedia editing will always remain a hobby
for a very small part of the general population. But those people who
want to edit should at least not find technology a treshold. There are
other tresholds, such as the often lack of civility in the
communities, but that is no reason not to tackle the technological
one. (People in my classes wonder why Wikipedia editing is so
antiquated, it reminds them of Word Perfect in the 90s.)

The real question to me seems to be: who exactly should decide on what
software is implemented, what would be a practicable solution that
keeps things going and includes the stakeholders.

Kind regards
Ziko













2014-08-24 11:07 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> I am so happy that you know so well that all the millions have been wasted.
> As so often, an opinion is just that. When you want to learn about the
> effect of the development done, it may be useful to look a bit further
> afield. Mobile is one area where the development proves really effective.
> Without it our numbers of readers would be down. It is also where the
> number of new editors are happening.
>
> When your idea of editing Wikipedia is business as usual, you have lost
> many people because the experience is awful.
>
> So when I am to accept your argument that the framework is wrong. I will
> agree with you when it means that we migrate from the awful framework we
> have used for too long. It is exactly the Visual Editor and the Media
> Viewer that make sense to our users. Commons as it is is so bad as an
> experience that people like me who are committed to WMF do not use it.
>
> Now what do we aim to achieve? Keeping you happy or making sure we have a
> public ???
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
>
> On 22 August 2014 13:05, Henning Schlottmann  wrote:
>
>> On 22.08.2014 09:22, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> >
>> > - The MediaViewer rollout was very smooth until the deployments to
>> > German Wikipedia, English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. There could
>> > be many reasons for that -- but it's a fact nonetheless. I do see
>> > little evidence that users in other communities are especially unhappy
>> > about the feature (leaving aside the politics of it now). I would be
>> > very curious what reason people do attribute that difference to,
>> > however (understanding that Commons is very different from the
>> > Wikipedia use case).
>>
>> This may or may not correlate with a deep commitment to a) the licenses,
>> b) quality.
>>
>> > - The criticism isn't just about that -- it's about a large number of
>> > mostly individually small issues. Generally, the idea that we
>> > effectively "munge" some of the metadata by displaying a
>> > machine-readable subset below the fold is viewed very negatively,
>> > because 1) it doesn't reflect all the available information, 2) it
>> > makes it harder for users to discover the File: page, and potentially
>> > edit it.
>>
>> If it does not reflect the license information it is broken.
>>
>> The license is paramount. We can not accept any kind of software that
>> hands out "reuse information" that does not display the photographer's
>> name and the license (with link to the license text).
>>
>> We do not want a default setting, that does not show extensive
>> descriptions, map legends, image annotations and the like. All that is
>> content we created for the readers. You must not block our readers from
>> this content.
>>
>> MV is broken. It is not ready to be deployed. Not by far. Take it back
>> and fix it.
>>
>> In theory I can see a working MV. I can even imagine a working Visual
>> Editor, but am very skeptical about it. I can not imagine Flow to work,
>> ever. This one needs to be abandoned now.
>>
>> Eric, your department has an abysmal record. You have wasted millions on
>> software that started with the wrong framework and is not working after
>> years and years of development. Please think about yourself, not about
>> the communities if you want to understand about the conflicts at hand.
>>
>> Henning
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am so happy that you know so well that all the millions have been wasted.
As so often, an opinion is just that. When you want to learn about the
effect of the development done, it may be useful to look a bit further
afield. Mobile is one area where the development proves really effective.
Without it our numbers of readers would be down. It is also where the
number of new editors are happening.

When your idea of editing Wikipedia is business as usual, you have lost
many people because the experience is awful.

So when I am to accept your argument that the framework is wrong. I will
agree with you when it means that we migrate from the awful framework we
have used for too long. It is exactly the Visual Editor and the Media
Viewer that make sense to our users. Commons as it is is so bad as an
experience that people like me who are committed to WMF do not use it.

Now what do we aim to achieve? Keeping you happy or making sure we have a
public ???
Thanks,
   GerardM


On 22 August 2014 13:05, Henning Schlottmann  wrote:

> On 22.08.2014 09:22, Erik Moeller wrote:
> >
> > - The MediaViewer rollout was very smooth until the deployments to
> > German Wikipedia, English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. There could
> > be many reasons for that -- but it's a fact nonetheless. I do see
> > little evidence that users in other communities are especially unhappy
> > about the feature (leaving aside the politics of it now). I would be
> > very curious what reason people do attribute that difference to,
> > however (understanding that Commons is very different from the
> > Wikipedia use case).
>
> This may or may not correlate with a deep commitment to a) the licenses,
> b) quality.
>
> > - The criticism isn't just about that -- it's about a large number of
> > mostly individually small issues. Generally, the idea that we
> > effectively "munge" some of the metadata by displaying a
> > machine-readable subset below the fold is viewed very negatively,
> > because 1) it doesn't reflect all the available information, 2) it
> > makes it harder for users to discover the File: page, and potentially
> > edit it.
>
> If it does not reflect the license information it is broken.
>
> The license is paramount. We can not accept any kind of software that
> hands out "reuse information" that does not display the photographer's
> name and the license (with link to the license text).
>
> We do not want a default setting, that does not show extensive
> descriptions, map legends, image annotations and the like. All that is
> content we created for the readers. You must not block our readers from
> this content.
>
> MV is broken. It is not ready to be deployed. Not by far. Take it back
> and fix it.
>
> In theory I can see a working MV. I can even imagine a working Visual
> Editor, but am very skeptical about it. I can not imagine Flow to work,
> ever. This one needs to be abandoned now.
>
> Eric, your department has an abysmal record. You have wasted millions on
> software that started with the wrong framework and is not working after
> years and years of development. Please think about yourself, not about
> the communities if you want to understand about the conflicts at hand.
>
> Henning
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] editor retention initiatives

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi.
I had a look at the youtube video. Really important in this context is the
presentation by Dario. In it he shows how editing is taking of from mobile
users using tablets. This is a recent shift but the implication as I see it
that working on better tooling for mobile / tablet editors will get us more
results.

If anything, it shows that the work done to get people to edit from mobiles
take its time to have an effect.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 24 August 2014 03:55, James Salsman  wrote:

> Is there a list somewhere of all currently active Foundation
> initiatives for attracting and retaining active editors?  I am only
> aware of the one project, "Task Recommendations," to try to encourage
> editors who have made a few edits to make more, described starting at
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JbZ1uWoKEg&t=60m20s
>
> I am not worried about pageviews at all, given that the trend is as
> constant as it has ever been when mobile users are added in to the
> total. Sadly, the greater number of mobile users appears to be harming
> active editor numbers beyond their already dismal trend, so it would
> be nice to have an idea of exactly how much effort the Foundation is
> applying to its only strategic goal which it is not achieved, and has
> not ever achieved. I am amazed that so much more effort continues to
> be applied to the other goals, all of which have always been met
> through to the present. What does this state of affairs say about the
> Foundation leadership's ability to prioritize?
>
> Is there any evidence at all that anyone in the Foundation is
> interested in any kind of change which would make non-editors more
> inclined to edit, or empower editors with social factors which might
> provide more time, economic power, or other means to enable them to
> edit more?
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,