Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[James Salsman]

> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
> especially for categories, are often not defined

Absolutely correct, Yaroslav. Compare the original design plan from 2003:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categorization_requirements

and the current set of conventions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization

with bona-fide academic scholarship on subject categorization:

https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/8930/pdf

Wikipedians have a long way to go to achieve a reputable
classification scheme that cares more about the essential
characteristics of subjects including living people and doesn't
classify them by non-noteworthy incidentals like ethnicity.



On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>>It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>>instance is cited to best BLP standards?
>
> no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience,
> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
> especially for categories, are often not defined. For example, if we are
> talking about French jews - are we talking about observing religious jews,
> or anybody of Jewish origin, including those who are not religious or
> converted to other religions? The list is very clear that it is about the
> origin, the category does not say anything.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>> I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally
>> can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because
>> we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving
>> serious consideration.
>>
>> (As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's
>> the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our
>> ridiculously low DMCA rate.)
>>
>> It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>> instance is cited to best BLP standards?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>
>> > "Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too.
>> >
>> > Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it
>> > can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced,
>> > we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already
>> > publicly known--after all, our source already published the information!
>> >
>> > It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry
>> > about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or
>> Vatican
>> > City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US
>> > actually does have jurisdiction.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >
>> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello again,
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications
>> > > here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm
>> > > subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)
>> > >
>> > > ---
>> > > Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia
>> > > should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If
>> France
>> > > passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how
>> > would
>> > > we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth,
>> > date
>> > > of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United
>> States
>> > > banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?"
>> > > ---
>> > >
>> > > Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure
>> I
>> > > got it right. ^^ On the other hand, I didn't translate or interpret the
>> > law
>> > > in the context of current jurisprudence, so yes, maybe some more should
>> > be
>> > > said...
>> > >
>> > > It is  legal in France to write an article about a notable person and
>> > > mention their religious affiliation if they volunteer that information.
>> > > What is *not* legal is to extract that information about them and add
>> it
>> > to
>> > > a database which lists Catholics -- as was done during the Vichy regime
>> > > with punchcards.  How exactly were Jewish people rounded up and sent
>> off
>> > to
>> > > concentration camps? (How did prefects go about locating Freemasons
>> > during
>> > > the war?). While there was certainly some collaboration with the
>> National
>> > > Statistics Service (SNS) established during the Occupation, the most
>> > recent
>> > > research suggests that this collaboration was not as significant as was
>> > > once commonly 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Pine W]

Based on the limited information that I have, it seems to me that there are 
already numerous contribtors who are paid to engage in promotional activity on 
Wikipedia, whether declared or undeclared, and the community does not have 
adequate human resources to patrol and investigate all of these. I expect that 
the problem will continue to get worse unless WMF gets more energetic about 
investigating TOS violations involving undeclared COI and WMF becomes 
predictable about extracting financial penalties that are severe enough to 
deter most of the undeclared COI contributors. Unfortunately, as far as I know, 
WMF has been largely passive about the problem of undeclared COI and has not 
announced any plans to become more aggressive.
As nice as it would be if everyone could afford and was willing to work for 
free, this is not the case. If it was then we could safely eliminate the 
salaries of the entire WMF staff. However, I think that financial support makes 
sense for some paid staff to handle activities like network operations, 
interface design, legal defense, and responses to safety problems.
Some types of Wikimedia activities are better suited to volunteer work than 
others. I encourage volunteers to avoid burning themselves out; there are some 
activities that I did in the past that I would not do again as a volunteer. 
Better to be an occasional and long-term contributor than to get burned out.
I have some ideas about how to pay people to do certain types of work that, so 
far, WMF has not funded. Unfortunately these are merely ideas and not likely to 
become reality in the short term. Perhaps later this year or in the next few 
years I will have specific proposals with reasonable chances for sustainable 
success.
I share the concern that paid participants in the Wikiverse, like staff of WMF 
and affiliates, WMF grantees, and potentially like the paid contributors that I 
have in mind, may become so numerous that they can drown out the consensus of 
the volunteers. Unfortunately I do not have easy solutions for this issue. We 
could prohibit all paid contributors from participating in  RFCs and related 
decision processes, but we would be largely relying on people to self-disclose 
their paid status, which seems unlikely to be adequate.
Perhaps the issues that we are discussing in this conversation should be 
included in the Structures and Systems prong of the WMF strategy process. I am 
pinging Nicole to ask for her input about that idea. However, keep in mind that 
the strategy process is financially sponsored by WMF, and it is not free of 
potential conflicts with the interests of WMF.
I wish that I could be more optimistic. These are difficult topics.
Regards,
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
null
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

[James Salsman]

It's also important to point out that Wikidata can be used to
semi-automatically replace the wikipedias' manual category trees:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology/Classes

It looks like some of the Wikidata people discussing such solutions
are semi-active on this list. I'm sure the Foundation would prefer
that volunteers address this issue, but I wonder how much can happen
without concerted behavior between enwiki admins and legal.

Until we get a Foundation official clearly stating that ethnicity
isn't an essential characteristic of living people, relative to their
accomplishments and the events for which they are notable, I doubt
anyone is going to actually put in the effort.



On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:50 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
>> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
>> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
>> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
>> especially for categories, are often not defined
>
> Absolutely correct, Yaroslav. Compare the original design plan from 2003:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categorization_requirements
>
> and the current set of conventions:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization
>
> with bona-fide academic scholarship on subject categorization:
>
> https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/view/8930/pdf
>
> Wikipedians have a long way to go to achieve a reputable
> classification scheme that cares more about the essential
> characteristics of subjects including living people and doesn't
> classify them by non-noteworthy incidentals like ethnicity.
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>>>It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>>>instance is cited to best BLP standards?
>>
>> no, likely not (nobody has gone through the cat). In my experience,
>> categories and lists related to ethnicity, religious views, and sexual
>> orientation are often created and/or filled by POV pushers who usually do
>> not care much about sourcing. On top of this, the inclusion criteria,
>> especially for categories, are often not defined. For example, if we are
>> talking about French jews - are we talking about observing religious jews,
>> or anybody of Jewish origin, including those who are not religious or
>> converted to other religions? The list is very clear that it is about the
>> origin, the category does not say anything.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally
>>> can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because
>>> we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving
>>> serious consideration.
>>>
>>> (As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stuff because it's
>>> the right thing to do, not just because we're forced to - hence our
>>> ridiculously low DMCA rate.)
>>>
>>> It occurs to me: Has anyone gone through the cat and made sure every
>>> instance is cited to best BLP standards?
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 May 2018 at 00:33, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>>
>>> > "Privacy" is often censorship by another name. Seems so here too.
>>> >
>>> > Of course, if the information is not sourced, or is not well sourced, it
>>> > can and should be removed as a potential BLP issue. But if it is sourced,
>>> > we're not making anything available to the public that wasn't already
>>> > publicly known--after all, our source already published the information!
>>> >
>>> > It has nothing to do with "humble" or not. We don't, and shouldn't, worry
>>> > about the laws of countries with no jurisdiction. Be that France or
>>> Vatican
>>> > City, doesn't matter. We of course have to follow US law, because the US
>>> > actually does have jurisdiction.
>>> >
>>> > Todd
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 8:41 AM, sashi  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hello again,
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks for your input on this question!  I'll add a few clarifications
>>> > > here to respond to points raised in the discussion so far.  (As I'm
>>> > > subscribed in digest mode, I'll have to cut & paste.)
>>> > >
>>> > > ---
>>> > > Nathan commented:  "I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia
>>> > > should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If
>>> France
>>> > > passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how
>>> > would
>>> > > we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth,
>>> > date
>>> > > of birth or religious preference of public figures? If the United
>>> States
>>> > > banned publishing the name of individuals accused of mass murder?"
>>> > > ---
>>> > >
>>> > > Since I quoted it the law of 6 January 1978 in French, I'm pretty sure
>>> I
>>> > > got it right. ^

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Hey Yaroslav, thanks for sharing your view. I find very interesting what
you mention, and if you have experienced yourself it must be a real effect
on people. Five years ago, when I was awarded an IEG grant, I didn't feel
the same effect on me. In fact it was quite the opposite, I felt under
pressure to be worthy of it, and I made an additional effort to make sure
that all people I talked to felt listened. This is not easy, because it
requires the will to understand what the other person is trying to say, and
admit that they have a point.
Of course this is just limited to my experience, but if there was a
requirement to commit to listen empathically before receiving any kind of
fund, perhaps the effect of feeling "superior" or "entitled" could be
neutered.

One of the things that I appreciate most about our movement is the capacity
to look deeply into potential pitfalls and to put safeguards against them.
I see this here too. That something seems risky doesn't mean that it
shouldn't be done, but it is necessary to discuss it thoroughly and see
under which conditions it would be safe(r). And still, the experience is
invaluable and can show whether the fears were justified or not, and from
there, iterate and improve.

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be wonderful if the incentive of the
donation could be used as a way to ensure that the recipients are commited
to train themselves in a set of values? For instance you mentioned one that
is extremely important, the ability to listen, to make space for what the
other person is saying, and to incorporate their view into the
conversation. I think that there are more values that would be very welcome
in our community, like easing the pressure on one another, calming
arguments instead of fueling them, and in general ensuring that civility
and harmony have priority above anything else.
There must have been initiatives before to introduce these kind of values,
but I am unable to find them. Any pointer would be appreciated.

You also mentioned "paid contributors, who would be defending their output
just because they need it to report for their salary". As said before, I do
not envision donations to volunteers as a "salary", but more as a token of
appreciation from the community, while keeping the independence to act
according to their will. I do not know which kind of mechanisms should be
put in place for the community to make sure that only the right people
would receive this kind of gratitude, however I doubt that they would be
"reporting for their salary" (another kind of slavery), but instead
interacting with the community normally and making sure that they behave
excellently.

Thank you for digging deeper into this topic.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] GDPR and Wikimedia content?

[Todd Allen]

I'm not even aware that we'd be subject to GPDR.

We already allow removal of personal information in some cases (outing by
others, accidentally revealing one's IP address, etc.). If we were going to
allow it in any case that doesn't happen today, that would need to be
agreed to by the community, in which case the best thing to do would be an
on-wiki RfC.

Todd

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 3:32 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> I'm a big fan of the GDPR and why it had to be created. (I'm doing a lot of
> the bureaucratic work on the tech side at the day job and am getting very
> used to thinking of ways something could constitute Personally Identifying
> Information.)
>
> But I'm wondering how we'll approach it for the Wikimedia sites. Not just
> the log data - but the content.
>
> We already have problems with Right To Be Forgotten, and well-cited content
> being removed from the search engines.
>
> What do we have in place to deal with this when - not if - we get GDPR
> requests to remove information about a person from the site?
>
> I don't mean just the letter of the law, in the EU or the US - I mean also,
> how we can handle this *right*. Because there are multiple competing
> legitimate interests here, and the editing communities tend to take a lot
> more care than they're strictly required to by law, because we are here to
> get things right. (This is why our DMCA numbers are ridiculously low for a
> top 10 site, for example.)
>
> Is anyone keeping track of what the communities are doing, as well as WMF
> itself?
>
>
> - d.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] GDPR and Wikimedia content?

[geni]

On 27 May 2018 at 22:32, David Gerard  wrote:
> I'm a big fan of the GDPR and why it had to be created. (I'm doing a lot of
> the bureaucratic work on the tech side at the day job and am getting very
> used to thinking of ways something could constitute Personally Identifying
> Information.)
>
> But I'm wondering how we'll approach it for the Wikimedia sites. Not just
> the log data - but the content.
>

Wave around article 85 a lot.

> We already have problems with Right To Be Forgotten, and well-cited content
> being removed from the search engines.
>
> What do we have in place to deal with this when - not if - we get GDPR
> requests to remove information about a person from the site?

Wave around article 85 a lot. The content is a fairly minor problem.
Trying to cleanup after users who've inserted their personal
information into talk pages presents more of an issue.


> I don't mean just the letter of the law, in the EU or the US - I mean also,
> how we can handle this *right*. Because there are multiple competing
> legitimate interests here, and the editing communities tend to take a lot
> more care than they're strictly required to by law, because we are here to
> get things right. (This is why our DMCA numbers are ridiculously low for a
> top 10 site, for example.)

At the moment all we can really do is wait and see how it develops.
This is why you have sites trying to block the EU even if they are not
aware of any issues. 4% of turnover and no caselaw?

I'm not seeing a rush at OTRS yet but that is probably going to be
ground zero on working out what to do with this stuff.

-- 
geni

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Yaroslav Blanter]

I am actually fully with Gnangarra here. I am also an unpaid volunteer who
invested a lot of hours of my free time into various Wikimedia projects
(and mostly getting a lot of shit in reward, but this is not the point
now). I did have an experience of disagreements with people who were either
paid chapter functionaries, or semi-paid  - meaning they would have
functionary friends and would be the first in line to get all kind of
subsidies such as for example Wikimania travel scholarships. My experience
is that I would always at some point back out. In the end of the day, I am
pretty much professionally successful, I do not need to prove anything to
myself or to anybody else, and at some point I would ask myself - whether
this is really the best way to spend my free time by quarreling with people
who clearly are not willing to listen to me. On the other hand, they were
paid, and they were defending their point of view until the end just
because of that. As soon as there are not many of them they can be ignored,
or, if they become too harmful, they can be dealt with by the community. If
we start getting a considerable share of paid contributors, who would be
defending their output just because they need it to report for their salary
- it will become impossible to work in Wikipedia for independent
contributors.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:48 PM, David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community
> and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless
> hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been
> and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as
> me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged.
> You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without
> support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources
> does not mean that other people might not need them.
>
> Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs
> are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own
> devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In
> that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of
> what is common practice now.
> In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community
> (more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also
> should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.
>
> When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid
> giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place
> to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at
> this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real
> estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have
> been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of
> community.
>
> I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think
> that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect
> of what they do"?
>
> Regards,
> Micru
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does anyone know what wikimedia france are up to with the Request Network ?

[James Salsman]

Hi Nadine, thank you for this update.

Does the French Chapter have a position on replacing bitcoin mining
with foldingcoin (http://foldingcoin.net)? I hope that all Wikimedians
will oppose the wasteful consumption of electricity when useful
alternatives exist.

Best regards,
Jim

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 7:50 AM, Nadine Le Lirzin
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Update on the topic.
>
> Since Request Network were so slow and reluctant to change their delusive
> communication into a fair and clean information, Wikimédia France broke the
> agreement with them. Thus, this partnership is over.
>
> We deleted our blog post about it. And we keep on trying to obtain the same
> from Request Network (who are turning a deaf ear until now).
>
> Once again, sorry for the noise and thanks for alerting us,
>
> Nadine Le Lirzin
> *Secrétaire du conseil d'administration*
> *Wikimédia France*
>
> *Post-scriptum:* no other cryptocurrency donations project is planned ^^'
>
>
>
>
>
> 2018-04-28 17:12 GMT+02:00 Nadine Le Lirzin :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> First of all, thanks for reporting the issue. Impressive reactivity :)
>>
>> Then, sorry for the intempestive and unwelcome communication about this
>> local partnership. The agreement is quite clear, it has been established by
>> Wikimédia France (of course *not* in name of Wikimedia Foundation) and
>> our partners are obviously *not allowed* to use any of Wikimedia projects
>> marks.
>>
>> Today, Request Network updated their posts to clarify things and
>> suppressed Wikipedia logo from their communication messages :
>> — https://www.reddit.com/r/RequestNetwork/comments/8firkq/up
>> date_to_clarify_wikimedia_france_partnership/
>> — https://blog.request.network/request-network-project-
>> update-april-27th-2018-partnership-with-wikimedia-
>> woocommerce-plugin-c598372e9b58
>>
>> We updated our blog post as well, with an introductive warning :
>> — https://www.wikimedia.fr/2018/04/27/wikimedia-france-annon
>> ce-partenariat-fondation-request-network-accepter-donations-
>> crypto-monnaies/
>>
>> After the week-end and labor day (1 May), we are expecting that all
>> occurrences of this misunderstanding have disappeared.
>>
>>
>> Nadine Le Lirzin
>>
>> *Secretary of the Board*
>> *Wikimédia France *
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-04-27 16:23 GMT+02:00 Devouard (gmail) :
>>
>>> Definitly confusing.
>>>
>>> See also this : https://blog.request.network/r
>>> equest-network-project-update-april-27th-2018-partnership-wi
>>> th-wikimedia-woocommerce-plugin-c598372e9b58
>>>
>>>
>>> Florence
>>>
>>> Le 27/04/2018 à 15:49, geni a écrit :
>>>
 According to their twitter feed they have announced a partnership with
 something called the "Request Network‏" for cryptocurrency donations.
 Also this article here

 https://www.wikimedia.fr/2018/04/27/wikimedia-france-annonce
 -partenariat-fondation-request-network-accepter-donations-cr
 ypto-monnaies/

 Ok. I don't approve but I'm not french so not its not an area where I
 can reasonably expect anyone to pay any attention to my opinions.

 What concerns me is that they have retweeted something claiming the
 partnership is with the wikimedia foundation rather than just
 wikimedia france:

 https://twitter.com/wikimedia_fr?lang=en

 Is some form of clarification possible?


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Does anyone know what wikimedia france are up to with the Request Network ?

[Nadine Le Lirzin]

Hi all,

Update on the topic.

Since Request Network were so slow and reluctant to change their delusive
communication into a fair and clean information, Wikimédia France broke the
agreement with them. Thus, this partnership is over.

We deleted our blog post about it. And we keep on trying to obtain the same
from Request Network (who are turning a deaf ear until now).

Once again, sorry for the noise and thanks for alerting us,

Nadine Le Lirzin
*Secrétaire du conseil d'administration*
*Wikimédia France*

*Post-scriptum:* no other cryptocurrency donations project is planned ^^'





2018-04-28 17:12 GMT+02:00 Nadine Le Lirzin :

> Hi all,
>
> First of all, thanks for reporting the issue. Impressive reactivity :)
>
> Then, sorry for the intempestive and unwelcome communication about this
> local partnership. The agreement is quite clear, it has been established by
> Wikimédia France (of course *not* in name of Wikimedia Foundation) and
> our partners are obviously *not allowed* to use any of Wikimedia projects
> marks.
>
> Today, Request Network updated their posts to clarify things and
> suppressed Wikipedia logo from their communication messages :
> — https://www.reddit.com/r/RequestNetwork/comments/8firkq/up
> date_to_clarify_wikimedia_france_partnership/
> — https://blog.request.network/request-network-project-
> update-april-27th-2018-partnership-with-wikimedia-
> woocommerce-plugin-c598372e9b58
>
> We updated our blog post as well, with an introductive warning :
> — https://www.wikimedia.fr/2018/04/27/wikimedia-france-annon
> ce-partenariat-fondation-request-network-accepter-donations-
> crypto-monnaies/
>
> After the week-end and labor day (1 May), we are expecting that all
> occurrences of this misunderstanding have disappeared.
>
>
> Nadine Le Lirzin
>
> *Secretary of the Board*
> *Wikimédia France *
>
>
>
> 2018-04-27 16:23 GMT+02:00 Devouard (gmail) :
>
>> Definitly confusing.
>>
>> See also this : https://blog.request.network/r
>> equest-network-project-update-april-27th-2018-partnership-wi
>> th-wikimedia-woocommerce-plugin-c598372e9b58
>>
>>
>> Florence
>>
>> Le 27/04/2018 à 15:49, geni a écrit :
>>
>>> According to their twitter feed they have announced a partnership with
>>> something called the "Request Network‏" for cryptocurrency donations.
>>> Also this article here
>>>
>>> https://www.wikimedia.fr/2018/04/27/wikimedia-france-annonce
>>> -partenariat-fondation-request-network-accepter-donations-cr
>>> ypto-monnaies/
>>>
>>> Ok. I don't approve but I'm not french so not its not an area where I
>>> can reasonably expect anyone to pay any attention to my opinions.
>>>
>>> What concerns me is that they have retweeted something claiming the
>>> partnership is with the wikimedia foundation rather than just
>>> wikimedia france:
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/wikimedia_fr?lang=en
>>>
>>> Is some form of clarification possible?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

Gnangarra, you have been showing a lot of generosity towards the community
and that is laudable. As you, over the years I have also spent countless
hours in this community, and I do not regret it either, I feel it has been
and it still is a good investment of my time, and my dedication. You, as
me, are able to do all that because we are not financially disadvantaged.
You are not in need of any donation, you can do what you are doing without
support and that is great. However that you do not need those resources
does not mean that other people might not need them.

Every volunteer can work in this community as long as their material needs
are covered. If they cannot support themselves, we leave them to their own
devices. That is totally opposite to cultivating a sense of community. In
that regard I do not consider my comment disingenuous, but a reflection of
what is common practice now.
In my view if the community has resources, and a member of the community
(more specifically, a dedicated member) needs them, then the community also
should be generous with them, so that they don't have to leave.

When I imagine what would be my ideal case scenario, I would also avoid
giving disadvantaged volunteers money, I would give them food and a place
to stay instead, but since that is even harder to materialize (at least at
this point of time given the geographic dispersion and lack of real
estate), I feel that donating resources to volunteers (that in turn have
been donated, remember that) is a good idea to further the sense of
community.

I'm confused by your comment, can you please explain what makes you think
that by donating to volunteers "they stop being volunteers in that aspect
of what they do"?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[Gnangarra]

I think thats a little disingenuous to say that we dont take care of our
volunteers and that its a negative message to not give some financial
reward to admins.


We came here by choice, whether we are here for a long time or a short time we
chose to add to the sum of all knowledge for myriad of reasons.  Some of us
choose to accept additional functions to support what we are creating,
whether thats to clean up the projects or reach out to new contributors.
Over the last 13 years I've brought books to access sources, cameras to
provide photographs, I've spent 1000's of hours travelling at my own
expense to get photos, to talk to people, to encourage them to bring more
knowledge onto wikipedia.  Yes I've benefited along the way, I made
wonderful friends, I been to places I wouldnt have got the opportunity to
go to, I learnt a lot of amazing things and in my own way I'd like to think
I've made a lasting difference.  Actually I know that everyone else like me
has combined to make a difference, I've been privileged to see wikipedia in
use in class rooms helping students to learn, I've seen it used on social
media to answer questions and in real life to do the same thing.

I've seen how people with disabilities can be a part of a community where
those disabilities dont define that person, I've seen how oppressed
minorities have been lifted up just by seeing their culture included and
being able to add to that without fear or repercussions.

Every volunteer gets rewarded for what they do, when we shift to paying a
person they stop being volunteers in that aspect of what they do.   The
best reward the WMF could give is not cash, its helping more people
experience the in person connections and give them a greater sense of just
how magnificent this community really is through access to events,
scholarships, and other opportunities.

Never in all my time have I ever thought, or experienced anything that
remotely looks like the Wikimedia Community doesnt value what the
volunteers do, even when contributors push the envelope in negative ways.

On 28 May 2018 at 16:03, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> > My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning)
> > made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting
> > providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution
> > advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect.
>
> I do not know enough about the bill to comment on this. I can say that even
> if the Foundation was made legally responsible for the content, in general
> the level of care and attention to detail seems to be quite high in most
> Wikipedias.
>
> > The Foundation has frequently tried a number of paid editing trials,
>
> Can you please point to me where to find them?
> Has been tried before donating directly to volunteers with no strings
> attached?
>
> > and I think that's a good thing because donors are likely to stabilize
> > at paying enough to pay all the past, present, and future wikipedias a
> > very comfortable hourly rate, plus interest, still have a large and
> > swiftly endowment to figure out how to invest responsibly, and will be
> > able to outfit offline applications such as space hotels with a new
> > LCARS skin I am trying to get Mike Okuda to commission.
>
> Realistically the money is always tight, however even with a limited amount
> of money it is still possible to do nice things for volunteers or at least
> for some of them.
> The Star Trek aspect of this shouldn't be fancy ideas about the future, but
> realistic ones like enabling volunteers to follow their passion, freeing
> them from work whenever possible, supporting them in the mission, and
> joining efforts with other non-profit organizations to create a favorable
> social climate.
>
> > I think the Foundation employees...
>
> Here I was referring mainly to volunteers, specially those who take a heavy
> burden on their shoulders individually. It can be argued whether WMF
> employees are receiving enough generosity from the Foundation or not, what
> is clear is that employees already receive *some* generosity. On the other
> hand volunteers receive no direct generosity, unless they find other
> activities that qualify to apply for a grant. That in my opinion conveys
> the message that if you are a volunteer you don't deserve to be taken care
> of by the community just by doing what you are doing, which in my opinion
> is a very negative message that we are giving to volunteers, donors, and to
> society in general.
>
> Kind regards,
> Micru
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://inc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we losing out against bad editing?

[David Cuenca Tudela]

> My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning)
> made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting
> providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution
> advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect.

I do not know enough about the bill to comment on this. I can say that even
if the Foundation was made legally responsible for the content, in general
the level of care and attention to detail seems to be quite high in most
Wikipedias.

> The Foundation has frequently tried a number of paid editing trials,

Can you please point to me where to find them?
Has been tried before donating directly to volunteers with no strings
attached?

> and I think that's a good thing because donors are likely to stabilize
> at paying enough to pay all the past, present, and future wikipedias a
> very comfortable hourly rate, plus interest, still have a large and
> swiftly endowment to figure out how to invest responsibly, and will be
> able to outfit offline applications such as space hotels with a new
> LCARS skin I am trying to get Mike Okuda to commission.

Realistically the money is always tight, however even with a limited amount
of money it is still possible to do nice things for volunteers or at least
for some of them.
The Star Trek aspect of this shouldn't be fancy ideas about the future, but
realistic ones like enabling volunteers to follow their passion, freeing
them from work whenever possible, supporting them in the mission, and
joining efforts with other non-profit organizations to create a favorable
social climate.

> I think the Foundation employees...

Here I was referring mainly to volunteers, specially those who take a heavy
burden on their shoulders individually. It can be argued whether WMF
employees are receiving enough generosity from the Foundation or not, what
is clear is that employees already receive *some* generosity. On the other
hand volunteers receive no direct generosity, unless they find other
activities that qualify to apply for a grant. That in my opinion conveys
the message that if you are a volunteer you don't deserve to be taken care
of by the community just by doing what you are doing, which in my opinion
is a very negative message that we are giving to volunteers, donors, and to
society in general.

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