Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2016 call for Board Governance Committee Volunteer and Advisory members

[Sam Klein]

Nataliia - I really appreciate this step!  I hope it serves the committee
well.   Sam

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> This letter is a public call for interested people to serve as Board
> Governance Committee (BGC) Volunteer and Advisory members. The BGC can have
> non-voting members participate in the Committee on an annual basis [1].
> This opportunity has never been used by the BGC before, so we decided to
> frame the process the same way that Audit Committee had in April [2].
>
> The BGC has identified our priorities for the next 12 months. The minutes
> of our first meeting are published here [3]. Please read the document and
> think if you can help / support to reach them (and what tasks exactly you
> would like to work on).
>
> We need people who are interested in results and constructive work, not in
> “one more hat to wear”, so you need to be seriously committed and be aware
> that if your participation does not add value, we shall remove you from
> this position.
>
> *To submit your candidacy, please send to me at this email address (ntymkiv
> at wikimedia.org   >) your resume, the top 3 reasons why you want to do
> this and the top 3 things you will add to the Board Governance Committee.
> Please also indicate the priorities you would like to work on and/or other
> things that (to your mind) we failed to include there.*
>
> The selection criteria:
>
> - 2+ years of being a board member (Wikimedia affiliates / other comparable
> organizations; experience in a large NGO would be a bonus)
>
> - Solid understanding of the mission of Wikimedia Foundation, general
> understanding of the Movement, and the Foundation's affiliates and partners
> and willingness to be a trusted advisor to the Board of Trustees
>
> - Capacity to commit an estimated 20-30 hours annually to attend both
> quarterly and other ad-hoc meetings, prepare or review required materials,
> and interact with committee, staff and/or board as required
>
> - Prior executive experience (CEO, Finance, HR, Operations roles etc) would
> be a bonus
>
> - Demonstrated track record of involvement with the Wikimedia movement
> outside one's own affiliate or community (would be a bonus)
>
> The timeline for the selection process (tight so as to have selected
> volunteers attend the next meeting):
>
> - Candidates submit their interest and the above information to me no later
> than July 21
> - The BGC will interview top candidates by July 31
> - The BGC will select the candidates by August 05
> - Selected candidates join the committee by August 15 and attend the next
> Committee meeting.
>
> Please forward this letter to any list you think is appropriate and
> directly to people who may be interested.
>
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> [1]
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approving_the_revised_Board_Governance_Committee_Charter
> [2]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-April/083638.html
>
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_07-08-2016
>
> This message is available on Meta-Wiki:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/2016_call_for_Board_Governance_Committee_Volunteer_and_Advisory_members
> <
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/2016_call_for_Board_Governance_Committee_Volunteer_and_Advisory_members
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)

[WereSpielChequers]

I use search to find typos and misused words, so I'm guilty of some of the
gibberish looking searches
.

If we are concerned that some common searches could have Privacy
implications, why not create it as a deleted page and announce its
(non)existence on the admins noticeboard?

WSC

On 15 July 2016 at 19:25,  wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of) (Dan Garry)
>2. Re: [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of) (James Heilman)
>3. Re: [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of) (James Heilman)
>4. Re: [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of) (Robert Fernandez)
>5. Re: [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of) (Nathan)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:05:54 -0700
> From: Dan Garry 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Cc: A public mailing list about Wikimedia Search and Discovery
> projects , Trey Jones
> 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)
> Message-ID:
> <
> caow03mhsgoww-gad6udjs_onva8zniuykccrp2evok1b+2d...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 15 July 2016 at 08:44, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the in depth discussion. So if the terms people are using that
> > result in "zero search results" are typically gibberish why do we care if
> > 30% of our searches result in "zero search results"? A big deal was made
> > about this a while ago.
> >
>
> Good question! I originally used to say that it was my aspiration that
> users should never get zero results when searching Wikipedia. As a result
> of Trey's analysis, I don't say that any more. ;-) There are many
> legitimate cases where users should get zero results. However, there are
> still tons of examples of where giving users zero results is incorrect;
> "jurrasic world" was a prominent example of that.
>
> It's still not quite right to say that *all* the terms that people use to
> get zero results are gibberish. There is an extremely long tail
>  of zero results queries that
> aren't gibberish, it's just that the top 100 are dominated by gibberish.
> This would mean we'd have to release many, many more than the top 100,
> which significantly increases the risk of releasing personal information.
>
>
> > If one was just to look at those search terms that more than 100 IPs
> > searched for would that not remove the concerns about anonymity? One
> could
> > also limit the length of the searches displaced to 50 characters. And
> just
> > provide the first 100 with an initial human review to make sure we are
> not
> > miss anything.
> >
>
> The problem with this is that there are still no guarantees. What if you
> saw the search query "DF198671E"? You might not think anything of it, but I
> would recognise it as an example of a national insurance number
> , the British
> equivalent of a social security number [1]. There's always going to be the
> potential that we accidentally release something sensitive when we release
> arbitrary user input, even if it's manually examined by humans.
>
> So, in summary:
>
>- The top 100 zero results queries are dominated by gibberish.
>- There's a long tail of zero results queries, meaning we'd have to
>reduce many more than the top 100.
>- Manually examining the top zero results queries is not a foolproof way
>of eliminating personal data since it's arbitrary user input.
>
> I'm happy to answer any questions. :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> [1]: Don't panic, this example national insurance number is actually
> invalid. ;-)
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:19:08 -0600
> From: James Heilman 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Cc: A public mailing list about Wikimedia Search and Discovery
> projects , Trey Jones
> 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)

[Nathan]

How hard would it be to ask for search feedback on search results, perhaps
piloting with some small subset of zero-result searches? For 1/1000 ZRRs,
prompt the user to provide some type of useful information about why there
should be results, or if there ought to be, or what category of information
the searcher was looking for, etc. You'd get junk and noise, but it might
be one way to filter out a lot of the gibberish. You could also ask people
to agree to make their failed search part of a publicly visible list,
although this could of course be gamed.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)

[Robert Fernandez]

> If I can get a
few hundred people to click on a link like this
,
I can get any message I want on that list. (Curious? Did you click?) The
message could be less anonymous and much more obnoxious, obviously

They could vandalize any one of over ten million pages on the English
Wikipedia and get the same result.  We should be conscious of the
dangers but we can easily route around them like we do with other
kinds of vandalism.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)

[James Heilman]

Forwarded at the request of Trey Jones

Hey James,

When we first started looking at zero results rate (ZRR), it was an easy
metric to calculate, and it was surprisingly high. We still look at ZRR
 because it is so
easy to measure, and anything that improves it is probably a net positive
(note the big dip when the new completion suggester was deployed!!), but we
have more complex metrics that we prefer. There's user engagement
/augmented
clickthroughs, which combines clicks and dwell time and other user
activity. We also use historical click data in a metric that improves when
we move clicked-on results higher in the results list, which we use with
the Relevance Forge

.

And I didn't mean to give the impression that *most* zero-results queries
are gibberish, though many, many are. And that was something we didn't
really know a year ago. There are also non-gibberish results that correctly
get zero results, like most DOI

and
many media player

queries.
We also see a lot of non-notable (not-yet-notable?) public figures (local
bands, online artists, youtube musicians), and sometimes just random names.

The discussion in response to Dan's original comment in Phab mentions some
approaches to reduce the risk of automatically releasing private info, but
I still take an absolute stand against unreviewed release. If I can get a
few hundred people to click on a link like this
,
I can get any message I want on that list. (Curious? Did you click?) The
message could be less anonymous and much more obnoxious, obviously.

50 character limits won't stop emails and phone numbers from making the
list (which invites spam and cranks). Those can be filtered, but not
perfectly.

I've only looked at these top lists by day in the past, but on that time
scale the top results are usually under 1000 count (and that includes IP
duplicates), so the list of queries with 100 IPs might also be very small.

As I said, I'm happy to do the data slogging to try this in a better
fashion if this task is prioritized, and I'd be happy to be wrong about the
quality of the results, but I'm still not hopeful.

—Trey

Trey Jones
Software Engineer, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation


On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> The "jurrasic world" example is a good one as it was "fixed" by User:Foxj
> adding a redirect
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jurrasic_world=history
>
> Agree we would need to be careful. The chance of many different IPs all
> searching for "DF198671E" is low but I agree not zero and we would need
> to have people run the results before they are displayed.
>
> I guess the question is how much work would it take to look at this sort
> of data for more examples like "jurrasic world"?
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Dan Garry  wrote:
>
>> On 15 July 2016 at 08:44, James Heilman  wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks for the in depth discussion. So if the terms people are using
>> that
>> > result in "zero search results" are typically gibberish why do we care
>> if
>> > 30% of our searches result in "zero search results"? A big deal was made
>> > about this a while ago.
>> >
>>
>> Good question! I originally used to say that it was my aspiration that
>> users should never get zero results when searching Wikipedia. As a result
>> of Trey's analysis, I don't say that any more. ;-) There are many
>> legitimate cases where users should get zero results. However, there are
>> still tons of examples of where giving users zero results is incorrect;
>> "jurrasic world" was a prominent example of that.
>>
>> It's still not quite right to say that *all* the terms that people use to
>> get zero results are gibberish. There is an extremely long tail
>>  of zero results queries that
>> aren't gibberish, it's just that the top 100 are dominated by gibberish.
>> This would mean we'd have to release many, many more than the top 100,
>> which significantly increases the risk of releasing personal information.
>>
>>
>> > If one was just to look at those search terms that more than 100 IPs
>> > searched for would that not remove the concerns about anonymity? One
>> could
>> > also limit the length of the searches displaced to 50 characters. And
>> just
>> > provide the first 100 with an initial human review to make sure we are
>> not
>> > miss anything.
>> >
>>
>> The problem with this is that there are 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)

[James Heilman]

The "jurrasic world" example is a good one as it was "fixed" by User:Foxj
adding a redirect
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jurrasic_world=history

Agree we would need to be careful. The chance of many different IPs all
searching for "DF198671E" is low but I agree not zero and we would need to
have people run the results before they are displayed.

I guess the question is how much work would it take to look at this sort of
data for more examples like "jurrasic world"?

James

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Dan Garry  wrote:

> On 15 July 2016 at 08:44, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the in depth discussion. So if the terms people are using that
> > result in "zero search results" are typically gibberish why do we care if
> > 30% of our searches result in "zero search results"? A big deal was made
> > about this a while ago.
> >
>
> Good question! I originally used to say that it was my aspiration that
> users should never get zero results when searching Wikipedia. As a result
> of Trey's analysis, I don't say that any more. ;-) There are many
> legitimate cases where users should get zero results. However, there are
> still tons of examples of where giving users zero results is incorrect;
> "jurrasic world" was a prominent example of that.
>
> It's still not quite right to say that *all* the terms that people use to
> get zero results are gibberish. There is an extremely long tail
>  of zero results queries that
> aren't gibberish, it's just that the top 100 are dominated by gibberish.
> This would mean we'd have to release many, many more than the top 100,
> which significantly increases the risk of releasing personal information.
>
>
> > If one was just to look at those search terms that more than 100 IPs
> > searched for would that not remove the concerns about anonymity? One
> could
> > also limit the length of the searches displaced to 50 characters. And
> just
> > provide the first 100 with an initial human review to make sure we are
> not
> > miss anything.
> >
>
> The problem with this is that there are still no guarantees. What if you
> saw the search query "DF198671E"? You might not think anything of it, but I
> would recognise it as an example of a national insurance number
> , the British
> equivalent of a social security number [1]. There's always going to be the
> potential that we accidentally release something sensitive when we release
> arbitrary user input, even if it's manually examined by humans.
>
> So, in summary:
>
>- The top 100 zero results queries are dominated by gibberish.
>- There's a long tail of zero results queries, meaning we'd have to
>reduce many more than the top 100.
>- Manually examining the top zero results queries is not a foolproof way
>of eliminating personal data since it's arbitrary user input.
>
> I'm happy to answer any questions. :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> [1]: Don't panic, this example national insurance number is actually
> invalid. ;-)
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)

[Dan Garry]

On 15 July 2016 at 08:44, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> Thanks for the in depth discussion. So if the terms people are using that
> result in "zero search results" are typically gibberish why do we care if
> 30% of our searches result in "zero search results"? A big deal was made
> about this a while ago.
>

Good question! I originally used to say that it was my aspiration that
users should never get zero results when searching Wikipedia. As a result
of Trey's analysis, I don't say that any more. ;-) There are many
legitimate cases where users should get zero results. However, there are
still tons of examples of where giving users zero results is incorrect;
"jurrasic world" was a prominent example of that.

It's still not quite right to say that *all* the terms that people use to
get zero results are gibberish. There is an extremely long tail
 of zero results queries that
aren't gibberish, it's just that the top 100 are dominated by gibberish.
This would mean we'd have to release many, many more than the top 100,
which significantly increases the risk of releasing personal information.


> If one was just to look at those search terms that more than 100 IPs
> searched for would that not remove the concerns about anonymity? One could
> also limit the length of the searches displaced to 50 characters. And just
> provide the first 100 with an initial human review to make sure we are not
> miss anything.
>

The problem with this is that there are still no guarantees. What if you
saw the search query "DF198671E"? You might not think anything of it, but I
would recognise it as an example of a national insurance number
, the British
equivalent of a social security number [1]. There's always going to be the
potential that we accidentally release something sensitive when we release
arbitrary user input, even if it's manually examined by humans.

So, in summary:

   - The top 100 zero results queries are dominated by gibberish.
   - There's a long tail of zero results queries, meaning we'd have to
   reduce many more than the top 100.
   - Manually examining the top zero results queries is not a foolproof way
   of eliminating personal data since it's arbitrary user input.

I'm happy to answer any questions. :-)

Thanks,
Dan

[1]: Don't panic, this example national insurance number is actually
invalid. ;-)

-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)

[James Heilman]

Hey Trey

Thanks for the in depth discussion. So if the terms people are using that
result in "zero search results" are typically gibberish why do we care if
30% of our searches result in "zero search results"? A big deal was made
about this a while ago.

If one was just to look at those search terms that more than 100 IPs
searched for would that not remove the concerns about anonymity? One could
also limit the length of the searches displaced to 50 characters. And just
provide the first 100 with an initial human review to make sure we are not
miss anything.

James

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Trey Jones  wrote:

> Pine, thanks for the forward. Regulars on the Discovery list may know me,
> but James probably does not. I've manually reviewed tens of thousands of
> generally poorly performing queries (fewer than 3 results) and skimmed
> hundreds of thousands more from many of the top 20 Wikipedias—and to a
> lesser extent other projects—over the year I've been at the WMF and in
> Discovery. You can see my list of write ups here
> .
>
> So I want to say that this is an awesome idea—which is why many people
> have thought of it. It was apparently one of the first ideas the Discovery
> department had when they formed (see Dan's notes linked below). It was also
> one of the first ideas I had when I joined Discovery a few months later.
>
> Dan Garry's notes on T8373
>  and the following
> discussion pretty much quash the idea of automated extraction and
> publication from a privacy perspective. People not only divulge their own
> personal information, they also divulge other people's personal
> information. One example: some guy outside the U.S. was methodically
> searching long lists of real addresses in Las Vegas. I will second Dan's
> comments in the T8373 discussion; all kinds of personal data end up in
> search queries. A dump of search queries *was* provided in September 2012
> ,
> but had to be withdrawn over privacy concerns.
>
> Another concern for auto-published data: never underestimate the power of
> random groups of bored people on the internet. 4chan decided to arrange
> Time Magazine poll results
> 
>  so
> the first letter spelled out a weird message. It would be easy for 4chan,
> Reddit, and other communities to get any message they want on that list if
> they happened to notice that it existed. See also Boaty McBoatface
>  and Mountain
> Dew "Diabeetus"
> 
> (which is not at all the worst thing on *that* list). We don't want to
> have to try to defend against that.
>
> In my experience, the quality of what's actually there isn't that great.
> One of my first tasks when I joined Discovery was to look at daily lists of
> top 100 zero-results queries that had been gathered automatically. I was
> excited by this same idea. The top 100 zero-results query list was a
> wasteland. (Minimal notes on some of what I found are here
> .)
> We could make it better by focusing on human-ish searchers, using basic
> bot-exclusion techniques
> ,
> ignoring duplicates from the same IP, and such, but I don't think it would
> help. And while Wikipedia is not for children, there could be an annoying
> amount of explicit adult material on the list, too. We would probably find
> some interesting spellings of Facebook and WhatsApp, though.
>
> If we're really excited about this, I could imagine using better
> techniques to pull zero-results queries and see if anything good is in
> there, but we'd have to commit to some sort of review before we publish it.
> For example, Discernatron  data, after
> consulting with legal, is reviewed independently by two people, who then
> have to reconcile any discrepancies, before being made public. So I think
> we'd need an ongoing commitment to have at least two people under NDA who
> would review any list before publication. 500-600 queries takes a couple
> hours per person (we’ve done that for the Discernatron), so the top 100
> would probably be less than an hour. I'd even be willing to help with the
> review (as I am for Discernatron) if we found there was something useful in
> there—but I'm not terribly hopeful. We'd also need more people to
> efficiently and effectively review queries for other languages if we wanted
> to extend this 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Improving search (sort of)

[Mardetanha]

excellent Idea, hopefully we can get the result in more languages

Mardetanha

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> Excellent idea.  Librarians use patron catalog searches to gauge what
> their patrons are looking for and supplement their collections
> accordingly, there's no reason we can't adopt this practice as well.
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:32 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> > A while ago I requested a list of the "most frequently searched for terms
> > for which no Wikipedia articles are returned". This would allow the
> > community to than create redirect or new pages as appropriate and help
> > address the "zero results rate" of about 30%.
> >
> > While we are still waiting for this data I have recently come across a
> list
> > of the most frequently clicked on redlinks on En WP produced by Andrew
> West
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks Many
> of
> > these can be reasonably addressed with a redirect as the issue is often
> > capitals.
> >
> > Do anyone know where things are at with respect to producing the list of
> > most search for terms that return nothing?
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] With my thanks to everyone ...

[phoebe ayers]

Geoff!

At some point in the past that feels like a million years ago (but
actually was about five years ago), I was at a party in Berlin
watching you have enthusiastic, lengthy discussions about copyright
over a beer with Wikipedians from many countries.

Afterwards, I told someone "you know, our new lawyer is going to be great."

And of course you were and are. Thanks for putting out a thousand
fires, some of which we didn't even realize were burning. Thanks for
bringing rigor to our board processes and managing our chaos. Thanks
for building a stable and respected and immensely talented legal team.
Thanks for helping us all think about policy, and bringing open
internet advocacy to the forefront as an important part of our
movement. Thanks for your endless, endless patience, commitment to
explaining things, and strong sense of morality.

We've been in some tough conversations over the years -- and some fun
joyous times too -- and I appreciated your being there in all of them.
I hope YouTube realizes what a fantastic hire they just made -- and I
hope that we turned you into a lifelong Wikimedian, and will see you
again from time to time. You will be so missed.

With all my best, and all my respect,
Phoebe



On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Geoff Brigham  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Over the past five years, I’ve been honored to serve as the General Counsel
> and Secretary of the Wikimedia Foundation. This job has been amazing, and
> I’m grateful to everyone who has made it so rewarding. It's now time for my
> next step, so, in the coming days, I will be leaving the Foundation to
> pursue a new career opportunity.
>
> I depart with such love for the mission, the Foundation, the Wikimedia
> communities, and my colleagues at work. I thank my past and present bosses
> as well as the Board for their support and guidance. I stand in awe of the
> volunteer writers, editors, and photographers who contribute every day to
> the Wikimedia projects. And I will hold special to my heart my past and
> current teams, including legal and community advocacy. :) You have taught,
> given, and enriched me so much.
>
> After my departure, Michelle Paulson will serve as interim head of Legal,
> and, subject to Board approval, Stephen LaPorte will serve as interim
> Secretary to the Board. I can happily report that they have the experience
> and expertise to ensure a smooth and professional transition.
>
> The future of the Foundation under Katherine's leadership is exciting.
> Having had the pleasure of working for her, I know Katherine will take the
> Foundation to its next level in promoting and defending the outstanding
> mission and values of the Wikimedia movement. Although I'm delighted about
> my next opportunity, I will miss this new chapter in the Foundation's
> story.
>
> My last day at the Foundation will be July 18th. After that, I will take a
> month off to recharge my batteries, and then I start my new gig at YouTube
> in the Bay Area. There, I will serve as Director of YouTube Trust & Safety,
> managing global teams for policy, legal, and anti-abuse operations. As with
> Wikimedia, I look forward to learning from those teams and tackling
> together a new set of exciting, novel challenges.
>
> For those who want to stay in touch, please do! My personal email is:
> geoffrey.r.brig...@gmail.com.
>
> With respect, admiration, and gratitude,
>
> Geoff
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
 gmail.com *

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

[Wikimedia-l] Initial eligibility for 2016-2017 Round 1 of the Annual Plan Grants / FDC process

[Delphine Ménard]

Dear Wikimedians,

We are pleased to announce initial eligibility of applicants submitting a
Letter of Intent for 2016-2017 Round 1 of the Annual Plan Grants / FDC
process. Only applicants confirmed as eligible by 15 September 2016 may
submit proposals to the Funds Dissemination Committee by the 1 October 2016
proposal deadline. We have published the initial eligibility checklist
here, so that applicants may review eligibility before it is confirmed on
15 September 2016:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Eligibility/2016-2017_round1.

Of the eleven organizations submitting a Letter of Intent, all are already
considered eligible provided they continue to meet eligibility requirements
throughout the duration of the FDC process. During the next two months, FDC
staff will work with all potential applicants to make sure eligibility
requirements are maintained.

Please expect another update once eligibility is finally confirmed on 15
September 2016, leading up to the 1 October 2016 proposal deadline.
Proposal forms will be available by 1 October 2016.

Here is a breakdown of upcoming milestones for 2016-2017 Round 1, which you
may also find here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar.

* Eligibility confirmed: 15 September 2016
* Proposals due: by 1 October 2016
* Community review: 1 October 2016 - 31 October 2016
* Staff assessments published: by 8 November 2016
* FDC deliberations: middle of November 2016
* FDC recommendation published: by 1 December 2016
* Board decision: by 1 January 2017
* Start of new grant terms: 1 January 2017 (for most grantees)

We welcome your questions or comments about the Annual Plan Grants / FDC
process at any time: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Comments.
Feel free also to reach out to us over email at fdcsupp...@wikimedia.org.
We would be happy to speak with any organization about specific questions
they may have about eligibility.

Best regards from FDC staff!

-- 
Delphine Ménard
Program Officer, Annual Plan Grants
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Improving search (sort of)

[Robert Fernandez]

Excellent idea.  Librarians use patron catalog searches to gauge what
their patrons are looking for and supplement their collections
accordingly, there's no reason we can't adopt this practice as well.

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:32 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> A while ago I requested a list of the "most frequently searched for terms
> for which no Wikipedia articles are returned". This would allow the
> community to than create redirect or new pages as appropriate and help
> address the "zero results rate" of about 30%.
>
> While we are still waiting for this data I have recently come across a list
> of the most frequently clicked on redlinks on En WP produced by Andrew West
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks Many of
> these can be reasonably addressed with a redirect as the issue is often
> capitals.
>
> Do anyone know where things are at with respect to producing the list of
> most search for terms that return nothing?
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Improving search (sort of)

[James Heilman]

A while ago I requested a list of the "most frequently searched for terms
for which no Wikipedia articles are returned". This would allow the
community to than create redirect or new pages as appropriate and help
address the "zero results rate" of about 30%.

While we are still waiting for this data I have recently come across a list
of the most frequently clicked on redlinks on En WP produced by Andrew West
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks Many of
these can be reasonably addressed with a redirect as the issue is often
capitals.

Do anyone know where things are at with respect to producing the list of
most search for terms that return nothing?

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,