Re: [Wikimedia-l] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Florence I totally agree that proper internatonalisation, localisation is
key. What is key for me is that this already provides an easy and obvious
search function for mediafiles that have a link to a Wikidata item. Just to
stress the point, this is a wiki, we do not need a fully functional search
engine (for all the Commons files); that is what we aspire to that is what
we work towards.. That will take years. But with a proper search tool, a
tool that makes it EASY to use Commons, it may fool me into using Commons
for my blog.

To show you that it works, I just looked for "baisikeli
" and made a screenshot
[1]. The screenshot is with other files showing the evolution of this tool
in a Commons category [2]

Important to notice is that the tool DOES invite you to localise the labels
to French, Swahili et al for best results!!

A minor observation, there are all kinds of things that could change in the
user interface. Key is that this is a prototype. It is showing us how we
can make Commons work for us.
Thanks,
   GerardM

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Appelmoes3.png
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hay%27s_SDSEARCH

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 01:21, Florence Devouard  wrote:

>
> Le 24/05/2020 à 00:23, Erik Moeller a écrit :
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:10 AM Gerard Meijssen
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> Hay Kranen created a proof of concept where Commons is searched for
> >> pictures that (per standard) use a "depicts" statement.
> > This is a beautiful proof of concept; thank you for sharing it,
> > Gerard, and thank you, Hay, for developing it. It really illustrates
> > the power and importance of the Structured Data efforts.
> >
> > To pick a different example, imagine that you want to illustrate an
> > article about the importance of wheelchair accessibility at your
> > university. You might try a major search engine like Google Images.
> > Try replacing the word "wheelchair" with translations in other
> > languages. Note how the result sets are different, and how you may get
> > a much smaller set of results in languages with a smaller Internet
> > presence.
> >
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=wheelchair=isch (English)
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=kitimaguru=isch (Swahili, far less
> > relevant and smaller set)
> >
> > In contrast, the use of Wikidata items means that, as long as a label
> > exists for a given language, you can search in _any_ language and get
> > the same images:
> >
> > https://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q191931
> >
> > The fact that the UI of this tool is currently English is an
> > implementation detail; even with Hay's implementation, you can type in
> > "kitimaguru" and get the same results as in English.
>
>
> Sorry Erik, but I do not follow you here...
>
> For some reasons, it is true for "kitimaguru", but if I search for
> "lamp" (EN) versus "lampe" (FR), or "key" (English) versus "clé"
> (French), I really do not get the same results at all and of course, it
> does not proposes me the same Qs.
>
> I love that functionality, do not get me wrong, I am delighted to see it.
>
> But except for English speakers (and now Dutch speakers it seems), it
> can not be used.
>
> So wonderful proof of concept. But please... let's have all languages here
> !
>
> Florence
>
>
> >
> > It would be wonderful to see this functionality developed further, and
> > to ultimately make this kind of search functionality central to the
> > user experience for Wikimedia Commons, so that speakers of any
> > language are  given _meaningful_ access to freely reusable media.
> >
> > Warmly,
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
___
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] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

[Todd Allen]

Worked out great the last time WMF tried to pull something like this,
didn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram


Oh, wait. By "worked out great" I mean "was an unmitigated disaster." One
wonders if the folks at the WMF are capable of learning from mistakes, and
one is not encouraged by the apparent answer.

Todd

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:59 PM María Sefidari  wrote:

>  Hello everyone,
>
> Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees unanimously passed a
> resolution and published a statement[1] regarding the urgent need to make
> our movement more safe and inclusive by addressing harassment and
> incivility on Wikimedia projects. The statement builds on prior statements
> from 2016 and 2019,[2][3] affirms the forthcoming introduction of a
> universal code of conduct, and directs the Wikimedia Foundation to rapidly
> and substantively address these challenges in complement with existing
> community processes.
>
> This includes developing sustainable practices and tools that eliminate
> harassment, toxicity, and incivility, promote inclusivity, cultivate
> respectful discourse, reduce harms to participants, protect the projects
> from disinformation and bad actors, and promote trust in our projects.
>
> Over the past nearly twenty years, the movement has taken a number of
> unique and sometimes extraordinary steps to create an environment unlike
> anything else online: a place to share knowledge, to learn, and to
> collaborate together. In order for the movement to continue to thrive and
> make progress to our mission, it is essential to build a culture that is
> welcoming and inclusive.
>
> Research has consistently shown that members of our communities have been
> subject to hostility and toxic behavior in Wikimedia spaces.[4][5] The
> Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy recommendations have also identified the
> safety of our Wikimedia spaces as a core issue to address if we are to
> reach the 2030 goals, with concrete recommendations which include a
> universal code of conduct, pathways for users to privately report
> incidents, and a baseline of community responsibilities.[6]
>
> While the movement has made progress in addressing harassment and toxic
> behavior, we recognize there is still much more to do. The Board’s
> resolution and statement today is a step toward establishing clear,
> consistent guidelines around acceptable behavior on our projects, and
> guiding the Wikimedia Foundation in supporting the movement’s ability to
> ensure a healthy environment for those who participate in our projects.
>
> * Developing and introducing, in close consultation with volunteer
> contributor communities, a universal code of conduct that will be a binding
> minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects;
>
> * Taking actions to ban, sanction, or otherwise limit the access of
> Wikimedia movement participants who do not comply with these policies and
> the Terms of Use;
>
> * Working with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive
> review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those cases
> which pose legal or other severe risks; and
>
> * Significantly increasing support for and collaboration with community
> functionaries primarily enforcing such compliance in a way that prioritizes
> the personal safety of these functionaries.
>
> Together, we have made our movement what it is today. In this same way, we
> must all be responsible for building the positive community culture of the
> future, and accountable for stopping harassment and toxic behavior on our
> sites.
>
> We have also made this statement available on Meta-Wiki for translation and
> wider distribution.[1]
>
> On behalf of the Board,
> María, Board Chair
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
>
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/November_2016_-_Statement_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
>
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Archives/2019#Board_statement_posted_at_Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram
>
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Harassment_survey_2015
>
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights/2018_Report#Experience_of_harassment_has_not_declined_since_2017_and_appears_to_remain_steady
>
> [6]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Provide_for_Safety_and_Inclusion
>
> == Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces ==
>
> Harassment, toxic behavior, and incivility in the Wikimedia movement are
> contrary to our shared values and detrimental to our vision and mission.
> They negatively impact our ability to collect, share, and disseminate free
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

[Aron Demian]

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 04:25, AntiCompositeNumber <
anticompositenum...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would it be fair to say that:
>  - Enforcement of a universal code of conduct would happen though a
> fair, clearly-defined process without significant bias and with
> significant community oversight and input
> - Universal code of conduct enforcement actions would be appealable
> through a fair, clearly-defined process with significant community
> oversight that allowed statements from involved parties and uninvolved
> community members
> - To ensure proper community oversight, code of conduct enforcement
> actions and appeals would be made as public as possible as often as
> possible (excepting issues where public disclosure would harm privacy
> or safety)
>
> AntiComposite
>

Yes! These are fundamental requirements that need to be met by the process
that will be implemented in the second phase (Aug - end of 2020).
It seems there will be an opportunity to incorporate these requirements:

The second phase, outlining clear enforcement pathways, and
> *refined with** broad input from the Wikimedia communities*, will be
> presented to the Board
> for ratification by the end of 2020;


I'd add a few more points:
- To handle workload and different languages, local boards should be
selected as the first step of the process, with possible escalation to a
global board if necessary (eg. for conflict-of-interest reason).
- To minimize bias the boards should consist of people from different
areas. As long as the local DR processes remain operational (ANI and the
likes), there should be a clear separation of powers: CoC board members
should not be involved with local DR to avoid concentration of power. Being
an admin should not be a requirement, in fact adminship and dispute
resolution should be separate roles, as the latter requires specific
training or experience, which is not part of the requirements to be admin.
- There should be at least 2 independent global boards so one can review
the other's decisions and handle appeals. Cases should be evaluated by the
board that has more members unrelated to the involved parties.
- Functionaries and board members should be regularly reviewed and terms
limited to a few years.

About the DR process:
- Most of our communication is publicly visible on-wiki, therefore the
cases should be resolved in public. Transparency is crucial for community
review and a great learning opportunity about dispute resolution.
- Privately handled cases should only happen when all parties agree to
it, so one party can't use "privacy" as a means to avoid the burden of
proof. Non-public evidence should only be taken into account if there is a
very strong justification, proportional to the sanction that comes from it.
- Reports, however, should be created privately and published only when the
case opens. Before the case opens the reporter might seek advice and help
to create the report from people they trust. I've outlined a process draft
for this in the context of the User Reporting System

.
- Reports should be treated with respect, as the personal experience of a
person. Nobody should be sanctioned for what a report contains, whether the
boards, or the community finds that true or false, as that would be a
deterrent to reporting influential users, who made a mistake or lost their
way.
- The focus should be on dispute *resolution. *Disputes and the resulting
reports often start with disagreements, not bad intent towards each other.
Mediation is an effective approach to finding a mutually agreeable
resolution in these situations. Such resolutions create a more cooperative
environment and allow for personal growth, learning from mistakes.
Mediators should be hired and board members offered mediator training to
support this path.
- When necessary, only the minimal sanctions should be applied that prevent
the reported behaviour, to reduce the abuse potential of blocking. Partial
blocks was a great step in this direction: typical conduct issues should be
addressed early on with minor sanctions, not after years of misconduct,
when a ban becomes warranted. Bans and project-wide blocks should only be
used after numerous escalations and repeated sanctions, or in clear-cut
cases of extreme misconduct.

Dispute resolution is difficult and often requires effort from all parties.
The above approaches are unusual compared to the traditional handling of
disputes, which often results in one-sided sanctioning of the party with
less support from the community. However, adopting new ways of dispute
resolution is necessary to create an inclusive community, where editors are
treated equally and fairly, regardless of their status.

These are just superficial thoughts, which I'll detail in the second phase.

Thanks,
Aron (Demian)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

[Gnangarra]

I like the concept as it means the WMF can step up and address the dodgy
corporate players a lost more effectively across all platforms including
taking big stick tools to prevent them white washing articles or providing
paid for services

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:25, AntiCompositeNumber <
anticompositenum...@gmail.com> wrote:

> While I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the intention, that sounds a
> lot like "ban first and ask questions later".  As Pine noted, this is
> a topic where great care must be taken to communicate intentions
> clearly and diplomatically. This point was likely introduced to
> respond to concerns about unappealable Office Actions. The way it was
> phrased, however, diminishes the point it was trying to make and also
> implies that community input is only applicable after the fact, and
> only from functionaries.
>
> Would it be fair to say that:
>  - Enforcement of a universal code of conduct would happen though a
> fair, clearly-defined process without significant bias and with
> significant community oversight and input
> - Universal code of conduct enforcement actions would be appealable
> through a fair, clearly-defined process with significant community
> oversight that allowed statements from involved parties and uninvolved
> community members
> - To ensure proper community oversight, code of conduct enforcement
> actions and appeals would be made as public as possible as often as
> possible (excepting issues where public disclosure would harm privacy
> or safety)
>
> AntiComposite
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 7:52 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Dennis!
> >
> > Not at all. What it means is that this a not a process that goes into
> play
> > *before* a decision to act is made, but *after*. It should stand as an
> > option for those who want to ensure that actions taken are fair, as long
> as
> > the case does not relate to legal risks or other severe concerns.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> >
> > NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> > advance!
> >
> > On Sat, May 23, 2020, 01:58 Dennis During  wrote:
> >
> > >  "Work with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive
> > > review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those
> cases
> > > which pose legal or other severe risks "
> > >
> > > What does "retroactive review process" mean?
> > >
> > > I hope it doesn't mean applying standards that were not promulgated at
> the
> > > time to past actions and applying severe sanctions to the alleged
> > > perpetrators.
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 5:59 PM María Sefidari 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >  Hello everyone,
> > > >
> > > > Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees unanimously passed
> a
> > > > resolution and published a statement[1] regarding the urgent need to
> make
> > > > our movement more safe and inclusive by addressing harassment and
> > > > incivility on Wikimedia projects. The statement builds on prior
> > > statements
> > > > from 2016 and 2019,[2][3] affirms the forthcoming introduction of a
> > > > universal code of conduct, and directs the Wikimedia Foundation to
> > > rapidly
> > > > and substantively address these challenges in complement with
> existing
> > > > community processes.
> > > >
> > > > This includes developing sustainable practices and tools that
> eliminate
> > > > harassment, toxicity, and incivility, promote inclusivity, cultivate
> > > > respectful discourse, reduce harms to participants, protect the
> projects
> > > > from disinformation and bad actors, and promote trust in our
> projects.
> > > >
> > > > Over the past nearly twenty years, the movement has taken a number of
> > > > unique and sometimes extraordinary steps to create an environment
> unlike
> > > > anything else online: a place to share knowledge, to learn, and to
> > > > collaborate together. In order for the movement to continue to
> thrive and
> > > > make progress to our mission, it is essential to build a culture
> that is
> > > > welcoming and inclusive.
> > > >
> > > > Research has consistently shown that members of our communities have
> been
> > > > subject to hostility and toxic behavior in Wikimedia spaces.[4][5]
> The
> > > > Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy recommendations have also
> identified the
> > > > safety of our Wikimedia spaces as a core issue to address if we are
> to
> > > > reach the 2030 goals, with concrete recommendations which include a
> > > > universal code of conduct, pathways for users to privately report
> > > > incidents, and a baseline of community responsibilities.[6]
> > > >
> > > > While the movement has made progress in addressing harassment and
> toxic
> > > > behavior, we recognize there is still much more to do. The Board’s
> > > > resolution and statement today is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Trust and safety on Wikimedia projects

[AntiCompositeNumber]

While I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the intention, that sounds a
lot like "ban first and ask questions later".  As Pine noted, this is
a topic where great care must be taken to communicate intentions
clearly and diplomatically. This point was likely introduced to
respond to concerns about unappealable Office Actions. The way it was
phrased, however, diminishes the point it was trying to make and also
implies that community input is only applicable after the fact, and
only from functionaries.

Would it be fair to say that:
 - Enforcement of a universal code of conduct would happen though a
fair, clearly-defined process without significant bias and with
significant community oversight and input
- Universal code of conduct enforcement actions would be appealable
through a fair, clearly-defined process with significant community
oversight that allowed statements from involved parties and uninvolved
community members
- To ensure proper community oversight, code of conduct enforcement
actions and appeals would be made as public as possible as often as
possible (excepting issues where public disclosure would harm privacy
or safety)

AntiComposite

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 7:52 PM Nataliia Tymkiv  wrote:
>
> Hello, Dennis!
>
> Not at all. What it means is that this a not a process that goes into play
> *before* a decision to act is made, but *after*. It should stand as an
> option for those who want to ensure that actions taken are fair, as long as
> the case does not relate to legal risks or other severe concerns.
>
> Best regards,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
>
> NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020, 01:58 Dennis During  wrote:
>
> >  "Work with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive
> > review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those cases
> > which pose legal or other severe risks "
> >
> > What does "retroactive review process" mean?
> >
> > I hope it doesn't mean applying standards that were not promulgated at the
> > time to past actions and applying severe sanctions to the alleged
> > perpetrators.
> >
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 5:59 PM María Sefidari 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees unanimously passed a
> > > resolution and published a statement[1] regarding the urgent need to make
> > > our movement more safe and inclusive by addressing harassment and
> > > incivility on Wikimedia projects. The statement builds on prior
> > statements
> > > from 2016 and 2019,[2][3] affirms the forthcoming introduction of a
> > > universal code of conduct, and directs the Wikimedia Foundation to
> > rapidly
> > > and substantively address these challenges in complement with existing
> > > community processes.
> > >
> > > This includes developing sustainable practices and tools that eliminate
> > > harassment, toxicity, and incivility, promote inclusivity, cultivate
> > > respectful discourse, reduce harms to participants, protect the projects
> > > from disinformation and bad actors, and promote trust in our projects.
> > >
> > > Over the past nearly twenty years, the movement has taken a number of
> > > unique and sometimes extraordinary steps to create an environment unlike
> > > anything else online: a place to share knowledge, to learn, and to
> > > collaborate together. In order for the movement to continue to thrive and
> > > make progress to our mission, it is essential to build a culture that is
> > > welcoming and inclusive.
> > >
> > > Research has consistently shown that members of our communities have been
> > > subject to hostility and toxic behavior in Wikimedia spaces.[4][5] The
> > > Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy recommendations have also identified the
> > > safety of our Wikimedia spaces as a core issue to address if we are to
> > > reach the 2030 goals, with concrete recommendations which include a
> > > universal code of conduct, pathways for users to privately report
> > > incidents, and a baseline of community responsibilities.[6]
> > >
> > > While the movement has made progress in addressing harassment and toxic
> > > behavior, we recognize there is still much more to do. The Board’s
> > > resolution and statement today is a step toward establishing clear,
> > > consistent guidelines around acceptable behavior on our projects, and
> > > guiding the Wikimedia Foundation in supporting the movement’s ability to
> > > ensure a healthy environment for those who participate in our projects.
> > >
> > > * Developing and introducing, in close consultation with volunteer
> > > contributor communities, a universal code of conduct that will be a
> > binding
> > > minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects;
> > >
> > > * Taking actions to ban, sanction, or 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Erik Moeller]

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 4:20 PM Florence Devouard  wrote:

> For some reasons, it is true for "kitimaguru", but if I search for
> "lamp" (EN) versus "lampe" (FR), or "key" (English) versus "clé"
> (French), I really do not get the same results at all

I noticed that Hay just added a locale switcher, which as of this
writing allows you to switch into Dutch. As the list of locales
expands, you should get better results in each of those languages.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/sdsearch/

When the language is set to English, it will match against
labels/aliases in other languages, but will privilege matches against
English labels/aliases, and show the English description. It's
basically the equivalent of typing into the Wikidata search box, with
the Wikidata language set to English. Because there is no English
match for the Swahili word, that one works well even when the language
is set to English -- it'll rank the Swahili match as the first result.
But if you type "clé" into the Wikidata search box in English, the
first result is "Cleveland".

Warmly,

Erik

___
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] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Florence Devouard]

Le 24/05/2020 à 00:23, Erik Moeller a écrit :

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:10 AM Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:


Hay Kranen created a proof of concept where Commons is searched for
pictures that (per standard) use a "depicts" statement.

This is a beautiful proof of concept; thank you for sharing it,
Gerard, and thank you, Hay, for developing it. It really illustrates
the power and importance of the Structured Data efforts.

To pick a different example, imagine that you want to illustrate an
article about the importance of wheelchair accessibility at your
university. You might try a major search engine like Google Images.
Try replacing the word "wheelchair" with translations in other
languages. Note how the result sets are different, and how you may get
a much smaller set of results in languages with a smaller Internet
presence.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wheelchair=isch (English)
https://www.google.com/search?q=kitimaguru=isch (Swahili, far less
relevant and smaller set)

In contrast, the use of Wikidata items means that, as long as a label
exists for a given language, you can search in _any_ language and get
the same images:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q191931

The fact that the UI of this tool is currently English is an
implementation detail; even with Hay's implementation, you can type in
"kitimaguru" and get the same results as in English.



Sorry Erik, but I do not follow you here...

For some reasons, it is true for "kitimaguru", but if I search for 
"lamp" (EN) versus "lampe" (FR), or "key" (English) versus "clé" 
(French), I really do not get the same results at all and of course, it 
does not proposes me the same Qs.


I love that functionality, do not get me wrong, I am delighted to see it.

But except for English speakers (and now Dutch speakers it seems), it 
can not be used.


So wonderful proof of concept. But please... let's have all languages here !

Florence




It would be wonderful to see this functionality developed further, and
to ultimately make this kind of search functionality central to the
user experience for Wikimedia Commons, so that speakers of any
language are  given _meaningful_ access to freely reusable media.

Warmly,

Erik

___
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] Giving Commons a bigger public

[Erik Moeller]

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:10 AM Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:

> Hay Kranen created a proof of concept where Commons is searched for
> pictures that (per standard) use a "depicts" statement.

This is a beautiful proof of concept; thank you for sharing it,
Gerard, and thank you, Hay, for developing it. It really illustrates
the power and importance of the Structured Data efforts.

To pick a different example, imagine that you want to illustrate an
article about the importance of wheelchair accessibility at your
university. You might try a major search engine like Google Images.
Try replacing the word "wheelchair" with translations in other
languages. Note how the result sets are different, and how you may get
a much smaller set of results in languages with a smaller Internet
presence.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wheelchair=isch (English)
https://www.google.com/search?q=kitimaguru=isch (Swahili, far less
relevant and smaller set)

In contrast, the use of Wikidata items means that, as long as a label
exists for a given language, you can search in _any_ language and get
the same images:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/sdsearch/#q=haswbstatement:P180=Q191931

The fact that the UI of this tool is currently English is an
implementation detail; even with Hay's implementation, you can type in
"kitimaguru" and get the same results as in English.

It would be wonderful to see this functionality developed further, and
to ultimately make this kind of search functionality central to the
user experience for Wikimedia Commons, so that speakers of any
language are  given _meaningful_ access to freely reusable media.

Warmly,

Erik

___
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] Affiliations Committee/Candidates/June 2020

[Abhinav srivastava]

I completely agree with Paulo here. The selection process needs to be
changed.



On Saturday, 23 May 2020, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Hello Rosie,
>
> Why after all this time, and after all the convulsions that have happened,
> AffCom candidates are still being selected by AffCom itself, instead of by
> the community, or other more legitimate process?
>
> You wrote: " As a reflection of our commitment to openness, transparency,
> and bilateral engagement with the Wikimedia community, the 2020 member
> selection process
> will include a public review and comment period." -> how is this different
> from what has been happening in the other selections? There is a public
> review, and then AffCom recklessly ignores it and does whatever it pleases.
>
> The way it is, it's a game of marked cards, and extremely demotivating for
> candidates.
> It is also a continuous source of lack of legitimacy and low reputation to
> AffCom itself, as a body.
> Why don't you change the process? The way it is, it clearly serves no one.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
>
> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight  escreveu no dia
> sexta, 22/05/2020 à(s) 20:54:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) – the committee responsible for
> guiding
> > volunteers in establishing and sustaining Wikimedia chapters, thematic
> > organizations, and user groups – is seeking new members!
> >
> > The main role of the AffCom is to guide groups of volunteers that are
> > interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from
> new
> > groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia
> > affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance
> > with requirements and best practices, and update the Wikimedia Foundation
> > Board of Trustees as well as advise them on issues connected to chapters,
> > thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.
> >
> > The committee consists of five to fifteen members, selected at least once
> > every year, to serve two-year terms. As the committee must hold mid-year
> > elections to replenish its members at this time, those joining the
> > committee during the current process will serve a slightly extended term
> > from July 2020 through December 2022.
> >
> > AffCom continues to closely monitor the Wikimedia 2030 Strategy process
> > initiated in 2016. While the affiliation models continue to be discussed
> as
> > part of the broader strategy discussion, as no decisions have been made
> to
> > change the current affiliation models yet, AffCom continues to work in
> the
> > same manner with regard to affiliate recognitions and intervention
> support
> > for affiliates with issues of non-compliance in 2020. AffCom continues to
> > process applications for user group and chapter/thematic organization
> > creation, while we await the strategy next steps and begin to prepare
> for a
> > smooth transition of the committee and affiliates ecosystem to any
> changing
> > movement structures and systems in 2021.
> >
> >
> >
> > Being a part of the AffCom requires communication with volunteers all
> over
> > the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to
> > understand legal texts. We look for a mix of different skill sets in our
> > members.
> >
> >
> >
> > ==Responsibilities==
> >
> >
> >
> >1.
> >
> >   Availability of up to 5-8 hours per month
> >   2.
> >
> >   Participate in monthly one and two-hour voice/video meetings
> >   3.
> >
> >   Commitment to carry out assigned tasks in a given time.
> >   4.
> >
> >   Facilitate and support communications
> >   5.
> >
> >   Affiliate Support and growth
> >
> >
> >
> > == Required and Recommended Abilities, Skills, Knowledge for Affiliations
> > Committee Members ==
> >
> > Strong interpersonal relationship among members of the committee and also
> > with the Wikimedia community members. Across all committee members, there
> > are additional relevant skills as well as requirements which help to
> > support the committee and its sustainability which include both required
> > and relevant general skills
> >
> >
> >
> > ===Required===
> >
> > * Fluency in English
> >
> > * Availability of up to 5 hours per week, and the time to participate in
> a
> > monthly one and two-hour voice/video meetings.
> >
> > * Willingness to use one's real name in committee activities (including
> > contacts with current and potential affiliates) when appropriate.
> >
> > * Strong track record of effective collaboration
> >
> > *  International orientation
> >
> >
> >
> > ===Relevant for all members===
> >
> > * Public Communications (English writing and speaking skills)
> >
> > * Skills in other languages are a major plus.
> >
> > * Understanding of the structure and work of affiliates and the Wikimedia
> > Foundation.
> >
> > * Documentation practices
> >
> > * Interviewing experience
> >
> > * Experience with, or in, an active affiliate is a major plus.
> >
> > * 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliations Committee/Candidates/June 2020

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hello Rosie,

Why after all this time, and after all the convulsions that have happened,
AffCom candidates are still being selected by AffCom itself, instead of by
the community, or other more legitimate process?

You wrote: " As a reflection of our commitment to openness, transparency,
and bilateral engagement with the Wikimedia community, the 2020 member
selection process
will include a public review and comment period." -> how is this different
from what has been happening in the other selections? There is a public
review, and then AffCom recklessly ignores it and does whatever it pleases.

The way it is, it's a game of marked cards, and extremely demotivating for
candidates.
It is also a continuous source of lack of legitimacy and low reputation to
AffCom itself, as a body.
Why don't you change the process? The way it is, it clearly serves no one.

Best,
Paulo


Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight  escreveu no dia
sexta, 22/05/2020 à(s) 20:54:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) – the committee responsible for guiding
> volunteers in establishing and sustaining Wikimedia chapters, thematic
> organizations, and user groups – is seeking new members!
>
> The main role of the AffCom is to guide groups of volunteers that are
> interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from new
> groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia
> affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance
> with requirements and best practices, and update the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board of Trustees as well as advise them on issues connected to chapters,
> thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.
>
> The committee consists of five to fifteen members, selected at least once
> every year, to serve two-year terms. As the committee must hold mid-year
> elections to replenish its members at this time, those joining the
> committee during the current process will serve a slightly extended term
> from July 2020 through December 2022.
>
> AffCom continues to closely monitor the Wikimedia 2030 Strategy process
> initiated in 2016. While the affiliation models continue to be discussed as
> part of the broader strategy discussion, as no decisions have been made to
> change the current affiliation models yet, AffCom continues to work in the
> same manner with regard to affiliate recognitions and intervention support
> for affiliates with issues of non-compliance in 2020. AffCom continues to
> process applications for user group and chapter/thematic organization
> creation, while we await the strategy next steps and begin to prepare for a
> smooth transition of the committee and affiliates ecosystem to any changing
> movement structures and systems in 2021.
>
>
>
> Being a part of the AffCom requires communication with volunteers all over
> the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to
> understand legal texts. We look for a mix of different skill sets in our
> members.
>
>
>
> ==Responsibilities==
>
>
>
>1.
>
>   Availability of up to 5-8 hours per month
>   2.
>
>   Participate in monthly one and two-hour voice/video meetings
>   3.
>
>   Commitment to carry out assigned tasks in a given time.
>   4.
>
>   Facilitate and support communications
>   5.
>
>   Affiliate Support and growth
>
>
>
> == Required and Recommended Abilities, Skills, Knowledge for Affiliations
> Committee Members ==
>
> Strong interpersonal relationship among members of the committee and also
> with the Wikimedia community members. Across all committee members, there
> are additional relevant skills as well as requirements which help to
> support the committee and its sustainability which include both required
> and relevant general skills
>
>
>
> ===Required===
>
> * Fluency in English
>
> * Availability of up to 5 hours per week, and the time to participate in a
> monthly one and two-hour voice/video meetings.
>
> * Willingness to use one's real name in committee activities (including
> contacts with current and potential affiliates) when appropriate.
>
> * Strong track record of effective collaboration
>
> *  International orientation
>
>
>
> ===Relevant for all members===
>
> * Public Communications (English writing and speaking skills)
>
> * Skills in other languages are a major plus.
>
> * Understanding of the structure and work of affiliates and the Wikimedia
> Foundation.
>
> * Documentation practices
>
> * Interviewing experience
>
> * Experience with, or in, an active affiliate is a major plus.
>
> * Teamwork: Project and people management skills to coordinate and
> collaborate with different parties on a shared plan and see it through to
> completion.
>
> * Problem-Solving: Ability to evaluate various solutions, consider multiple
> interests and points of view,  revisit unresolved issues, seek compromise
> and work and communicate across languages and cultures.
>
>
>
> Given the expectations for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Preventing conflicts of interest in Wikimedia organizations' employment and financial relationships

[Fæ]

A valid question would be what has the Board Governance Committee been
working on in the last year?[1]

For all we know the sub-committee has already been actively addressing
COI reporting and the potential for kickbacks. The BGC is /required/
to have meetings at least twice a year, but appears to not publish any
reports or minutes for the wider community to see what progress has
been made.

It makes sense if anyone joining the board agrees that kickbacks
(including later sinecures) or non-financial rewards which could lead
to a conflict of loyalty, should be seen to be avoided for at least 12
or 24 months after being associated with the WMF Board, that this
should be in writing, and have legal weight so that the WMF could
claim damages against anyone acting so foolishly.

Perhaps this is a question one of the four BCG members, or one of
their four advisors, could respond to? Along with helping locate where
any non-confidential minutes or reports are published, such as process
improvement recommendations which by definition cannot contain
anything confidential?

Links
1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee

Fae

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 20:22, Pine W  wrote:
>
> Awhile back I saw a joke that when reading a newspaper someone had
> difficulty distinguishing between the business section and the crime
> section. These days, the politics section could cause similar
> confusion. Recently I have wondered about the extent to which WMF and
> the affiliates take steps to prevent conflicts of interest in
> financial decisions.
>
> I am not aware of any evidence of recent financial conflicts of
> interest, but I think that taking steps to prevent and detect any
> problems would be prudent.
>
> For example, is there any monitoring of the bank accounts of board
> members and executives to ensure that they are not receiving kickbacks
> from companies that have contracts with the organizations? Also, are
> there "cooling off periods" which contractually require that
> executives and board members of WMF and Wikimedia affiliates not
> become employees of companies that have had financial relationships
> with their organizations until at least a few years after their
> employment or board membership with the Wikimedia organization?
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> 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, 
> 
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Preventing conflicts of interest in Wikimedia organizations' employment and financial relationships

[Robert Myers]

Most countries would have privacy laws that prevent organisations (with 
exceptions for law and tax enforcement organisations) attaining and/or having 
access to an employee/board member’s bank account. 

Would be pointless anyway, since kickbacks don’t have to be paid into a bank 
account[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-16/nsw-premier-barry-ofarrell-to-resign-over-icac-grange-wine/5393478].
 

WMAU has an internal COI register for all committee (board) members. Any time a 
COI arises, it needs to be disclosed. During meetings, depending on the COI the 
person(s) need abstain from voting or leave the meeting. 

>> On 21 May 2020, at 5:23 am, Pine W  wrote:
> Awhile back I saw a joke that when reading a newspaper someone had
> difficulty distinguishing between the business section and the crime
> section. These days, the politics section could cause similar
> confusion. Recently I have wondered about the extent to which WMF and
> the affiliates take steps to prevent conflicts of interest in
> financial decisions.
> 
> I am not aware of any evidence of recent financial conflicts of
> interest, but I think that taking steps to prevent and detect any
> problems would be prudent.
> 
> For example, is there any monitoring of the bank accounts of board
> members and executives to ensure that they are not receiving kickbacks
> from companies that have contracts with the organizations? Also, are
> there "cooling off periods" which contractually require that
> executives and board members of WMF and Wikimedia affiliates not
> become employees of companies that have had financial relationships
> with their organizations until at least a few years after their
> employment or board membership with the Wikimedia organization?
> 
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> 
> ___
> 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,