Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Gnangarra]

The WMF has spent the last 4 years developing a strategy to take us to 2030
everything was on the table.   OTRS is the one chink in that process that
needs to address community concerns I'm all for improving every system we
use.

I think it would be good if someone stepped up to hold some discussions and
walk through on how the system works, and what we as agents deal with.
 It's best that the community is informed on the processes so that they can
get an understanding and help address concerns being raised as well as
collaborate on finding solutions where the system is falling over.

The starting point must be who, where within the WMF structures is there
oversight of OTRS given its agents are speaking for the WMF as well.


On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 07:03, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 23:29, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > Tomasz notes, correctly, that OTRS agents on *general
> > info queues* (which he distinguished from permission queues) just answer
> > questions, they don't exercise authority. Andy's reply is both
> > argumentative and inaccurate.
>
> Mea culpa. In the initial discussion on Wikidata, and in the
> discussion on the OTRS noticeboard on Commons, we were told, more than
> once, by OTRS agents, that the images had been sent to "OTRS
> photo-submissions". I assumed that a "photo-submissions" queue was a
> form of "general info queue", since it is distinct from a permissions
> queue.
>
> For that, my apologies to Tomasz.
>
> > Tomasz could easily be on-side for genuine
> > reform. He's an insider at OTRS who acknowledges room for improvement.
> But
> > it wouldn't surprise me if this response converts him to an opponent.
>
> I'd like to think I know Tomasz well enough - having met him several
> times, including being his guest in Warsaw - to know he's not that
> fickle.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 23:29, Nathan  wrote:
>
> Tomasz notes, correctly, that OTRS agents on *general
> info queues* (which he distinguished from permission queues) just answer
> questions, they don't exercise authority. Andy's reply is both
> argumentative and inaccurate.

Mea culpa. In the initial discussion on Wikidata, and in the
discussion on the OTRS noticeboard on Commons, we were told, more than
once, by OTRS agents, that the images had been sent to "OTRS
photo-submissions". I assumed that a "photo-submissions" queue was a
form of "general info queue", since it is distinct from a permissions
queue.

For that, my apologies to Tomasz.

> Tomasz could easily be on-side for genuine
> reform. He's an insider at OTRS who acknowledges room for improvement. But
> it wouldn't surprise me if this response converts him to an opponent.

I'd like to think I know Tomasz well enough - having met him several
times, including being his guest in Warsaw - to know he's not that
fickle.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Nathan]

Perfect encapsulation of what's gone wrong here in this debate. Andy makes
some really solid points; OTRS is a black hole, has a history of being
clubby, etc. That history has a lot of smudge marks on it going all the way
back to wiki-en IRC channels and the overlap between IRC admins and OTRS
admins and how it all fed into toxicity and secrecy.

The end goal - transparency in OTRS - is therefore a no brainer, but the
strategy being deployed to make progress is ineffective.

Below is an example of why: Tomasz notes, correctly, that OTRS agents
on *general
info queues* (which he distinguished from permission queues) just answer
questions, they don't exercise authority. Andy's reply is both
argumentative and inaccurate. Tomasz could easily be on-side for genuine
reform. He's an insider at OTRS who acknowledges room for improvement. But
it wouldn't surprise me if this response converts him to an opponent.

This is a common dynamic on Wikipedia itself, and a big part of why people
burnout and stuff doesn't get done. No one is inspired to collaborate from
what reads as angry, argumentative accusations liberally applied to all
participants.

Whether you agree with the ultimate objective or not, it's easier to just
disengage.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:36 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:01, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>
>
> > In fact - OTRS agents answering questions for general info queues have no
> > special power - I mean they do not make any "secretive" decisions
>
> But they do; and we know that they do. The specific case to which you
> refer above occurred when an OS agen declined to accept multiple
> in-scope photographs, from multiple correspondents, sent at the
> request of Wikidata editors, to OTRS by non-Wikimdians. This only came
> to light because the person who had organised the campaign noticed,
> and brought it to the attention of Wikidata editors, on Wikidata.
>
> Nonetheless, that specific case led to general questions. about how
> ORS operates across our movement.
>
> And note that not one of the ten questions I referred to at the top of
> this thread mentones any specific case.
___
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] NEW: Lists of technical resources and recommendations for smaller language wikis!

[Srishti Sethi]

Hello everyone,

As part of the Small wiki toolkits
 initiative, a Starter
kit  has
been developed for smaller language Wikimedia wikis! This Starter kit lists
resources, tools, and recommendations in technical areas (e.g., templates,
bots, gadgets, etc.) relevant to smaller wikis that are just getting
started. Small wiki contributors can use it to make their community's
workflow easier. You can now use and promote the Starter kit in your wiki
community, and start translating the landing page and its subpages in a
language you want.

If you have any questions, ideas for venues where it should be shared or
wiki pages where it should be linked, or any other suggestions for
improving it further, please share on this talk page
.

If you are interested in helping with the Small Wiki Toolkits initiative
and can offer help with running workshops, developing toolkits, or
exchanging problems and challenges in smaller wiki communities, add
yourself as a member here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits#Members

Cheers,
Srishti

*Srishti Sethi*
Developer Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation 
___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[ZI Jony]

All points has been raised here are valid points. We should raise a
discussion on wiki (maybe OTRS talk or Wikimedia Forum). As Amir said all
CU and OS policies are available locally, then why OTRS policies should not
be there.


Regards,
ZI Jony

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 12:47 PM Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> pon., 6 lip 2020 o 19:52 Jonatan Svensson Glad 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
> >
> > 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.  Any and all
> > information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private
> > workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter
> > representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly
> > confidential.
> >
> >
> Well, please do not create conspiracy theories... Actually, as far as I
> understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there are no any special rules
> for OTRS except some technical, civility aspects and confidentiality of
> mailing with individuals - as OTRS volunteers generally should simply
> follow local wiki policies when answering questions, and in case of
> permission cases - general copyright policies of Commons and local wikis.
> WIth copyright policies on Commons - there is a problem of its complexity -
> and there are cases when there is no easy answer. Anyway - copyright
> related decisions of OTRS volunteers on Commons are screened from time to
> time by Commons admins having access to OTRS.
>
> Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman
> Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related
> to OTRS.
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> ___
> 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia

[Victoria Coleman]

Denny,

This is extraordinarily good news! I am thrilled that the Foundation and the 
Community has taken it on board. I think it is a truly seminal, pivotal project 
for promulgating free knowledge to all corners of humanity. I just could not be 
happier to know that you will be shepherding the work! Warmest congratulations!

Victoria 

> On Jul 2, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
> 
> Katherine, thank you for the warm welcome and your kind words!
> 
> I am very happy to be given the opportunity to start this new project, and
> deeply honored by the trust and confidence of the Board and the Foundation.
> 
> Thanks to the many who have listened to me talking about this project in
> the last few years, read my papers and plans, commented on them,
> scrutinized them, and offered encouragement, criticism, and advice. Thanks
> to everyone who expressed their support and raised their concerns on the
> proposal page on Meta [1]. It is thanks to you that the Board was confident
> enough to make this decision.
> 
> There is a lot of work in front of us, and I will continue to rely on your
> guidance and collective wisdom. We will need to foster a new community.
> Just as with Wikidata, I hope that some of you will become active in the
> new community, and I also want to make sure that we will be welcoming to
> new contributors. We want to extend and grow the Wikimedia movement not
> only with new functionalities, but also with new people.
> 
> Settling in this new position will take quite a bit of my attention in the
> next few weeks, so please forgive me if I may be slow with answering your
> questions between now and then. One of the first things we’ll do is to set
> up new communication channels. We will continue discussing the project and
> planning on Meta [2] for now and also welcome you to the new, dedicated
> mailing list [3].
> 
> One of our first tasks together will be to find a name for the project. A
> first set of proposals have already been made [4], and I invite you all to
> come up with more ideas. We will start that off in July or August. Did I
> mention that you can join us on Meta [2] to discuss proposals for names,
> the project itself, and much more?
> 
> Again, thank you all! I am super excited about figuring this thing out with
> you, and am looking forward to coming back to Wikimedia full-time.
> 
> Stay safe,
> Denny
> 
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_Wikipedia
> [3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Name
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:24 AM Brion Vibber  wrote:
> 
>> I'm extremely excited about this project!
>> 
>> Not only will this be directly useful on its own (and a fascinating project
>> in its own right!), but it will help our volunteer editors to ramp up good
>> base material to work with on the "prose" Wikipedias we already know and
>> love.
>> 
>> The idea is really to make the structured data we've all been putting into
>> Wikidata available in a human-readable form at a big scale, that's still
>> able to be shaped and made into something real and readable by human
>> editors. By moving around where in the chain the data gets expressed as
>> human language, we hope to make something that's just as editable but much
>> more maintainable in the future and across multiple languages.
>> 
>> -- brion
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:04 AM Katherine Maher 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> (A translatable version of this announcement can be found on Meta [1])
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> It is my honor to introduce Abstract Wikipedia [1], a new project that
>> has
>>> been unanimously approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
>>> Abstract Wikipedia proposes a new way to generate baseline encyclopedic
>>> content in a multilingual fashion, allowing more contributors and more
>>> readers to share more knowledge in more languages. It is an approach that
>>> aims to make cross-lingual cooperation easier on our projects, increase
>> the
>>> sustainability of our movement through expanding access to participation,
>>> improve the user experience for readers of all languages, and innovate in
>>> free knowledge by connecting some of the strengths of our movement to
>>> create something new.
>>> 
>>> This is our first new project in over seven years. Abstract Wikipedia was
>>> submitted as a project proposal by Denny Vrandečić in May of 2020 [2]
>> after
>>> years of preparation and research, leading to a detailed plan and lively
>>> discussions in the Wikimedia communities. We know that the energy and the
>>> creativity of the community often runs up against language barriers, and
>>> information that is available in one language may not make it to other
>>> language Wikipedias. Abstract Wikipedia intends to look and feel like a
>>> Wikipedia, but build on the powerful, language-independent 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[Victoria Coleman]

+1 Kunal! The WMF Cloud Services team can totally provide the needed support. 
The Foundation would have to invest them to build up the team which is over 
stretched but that should easily pay for itself as revenue starts flowing in 
from the paid API.

Victoria

> On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Kunal Mehta  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2020-07-09 13:15, Dan Garry (Deskana) wrote:
>> Which cloud provider would you recommend? 
> 
> Wikimedia Cloud Services, which incidentally, has the fastest network
> connection to Wikimedia sites by virtue of it being hosted *inside* the
> cluster.
> 
> -- Legoktm
> 
> ___
> 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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Kalman Hajdu]

This is a brava step to the end of the whole wikipedia project. More and
more mystery less and less truthfulness more and more disillusioned
editor.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 6:20 PM Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 4:17 AM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 02:47, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
> > > We would be better off if
> > > there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
>
> Glad we agree on this central point! I think if we can stick to mapping out
> a path that would get us to this, we can have. aproductive discussion.
>
> >
> > > I think Andy wants to hold somebody responsible for the
> > > absence of those things
> >
> > You are mistaken; and I have complained previously in this thread and
> > in the on-wiki discussion about other people attempting to ascribe to
> > me motives or intentions that are not mine.
> >
> > I am unsure why this happens, why people are so bad at it, or what
> > purpose it is supposed to achieve.
> >
> > Please do not do so.
> >
>
> My apologies. I will be more careful about it going forward. Since it seems
> that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder
> whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point
> more clearly.
>
>
> >
> > > But I would very much support an effort to draft, review, and publish
> > > policies and procedures going forward.
> >
> > This is the wrong order; we /first/ need OTRS (or whoever oversees
> > OTRS, though five months after asking, we still don't know who that
> > is, if anyone) to publish its existing policies etc; then we can
> > review them; then we can, if necessary, draft and propose changes or
> > additions. And report any instances where OTRS agents are not acting
> > within them.
> >
>
> I don't disagree -- the order you describe would be optimal. But it's not
> in your control, it's not in my control, and I haven't seen anybody who has
> access to that information commit to taking the first steps. So, it seems
> worthwhile to discuss alternate ways to get to a goal that (I think)
> everybody would support. Even if they're a little messy or less than
> optimal. To me, the outcome is far more important than a perfect process.
>
> >
> > > For what it's worth, I was an OTRS agent for several years; but,
> > precisely
> > > because of the absence of policies
> >
> > This was presumably historical, because we have been told that there
> > are (now) polices, but they are (partly, perhaps mostly) on a
> > non-public wiki.
> >
>
> Let me clarify -- I didn't say there were no policies at all, but that the
> absence of certain policies made it specifically challenging for me. If
> memory serves, there were a few policy pages on the OTRS wiki, but not as
> much detail as I would have liked to see, and there were transparency and
> trust issues within the OTRS world (between agents and OTRS admins) as
> well, which made internal discussion there challenging too.
>
> -Pete
> --
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> 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] How many users really need to have access to readers' IP addresses? Zero.

[James Salsman]

Speaking of privacy policies, there are still way more than a hundred
accounts which have access to readers' IP addresses:

https://github.com/wikimedia/puppet/blob/be74f7d1e9fd5ad234c1049a66ddb8c36b3a8d48/modules/admin/data/data.yaml#L254

Given that the European Court of Justice found that the EU-US Privacy
Shield agreement fails to protect Europeans' rights to data privacy, can we
please stop logging readers' IP addresses?

Best regards,
Jim
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia

[James Salsman]

Anyone object to using loglan as an interlingua?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loglan

On Saturday, July 4, 2020, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> Thanks Denny! I appreciate this, and your thoughtfulness as always.
>
> Thanks for starting an explicit discussion. I think our field (meaning,
> computer science & internet projects broadly) often assumes that these
> questions will just arise in context, or get solved as we go, but they
> rarely do. So making ethics a focus from the start is crucial. There may
> not be good "solutions"! But inviting lots of people in to talk about
> scenarios etc I think will make a much stronger and innovative project in
> the end.
>
> all best,
> Phoebe
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 7:54 PM Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Phoebe for the congratulations, and thank you for the
> > considerations, and I agree with them.
> >
> > On wiki, Denis Barthel and Ryan Kaldari already raised a number of the
> > concerns - although not all - that you are raising here.
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia#
> Kaldari's_concerns
> >
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia#
> Revisiting_and_twisting_a_Kaldari_concern
> >
> > And I tried to answer some of them there. But I do agree that this is not
> > sufficient, and I would love to be able to ensure that the ethical
> concerns
> > you raise do not get lost, and are sufficiently represented when we do
> the
> > project.
> >
> > Alas, I am also a bit at a loss about how to ensure that. Yes, for some
> of
> > them, we have a pretty good, albeit developing understanding of how to
> > cover them, particularly around ethics and AI and about bias and ethical
> > data. Also I think doing several best / worst case scenario exercises at
> > relevant points is a great idea. The one thing that troubles me most,
> > though, is how to ensure that in the new communities that we will foster
> > the representation among contributors is indeed more representative of
> the
> > diversity in the world. To the best of my knowledge, we have no answers
> for
> > that - and I would very much want to learn about this.
> >
> > So, here's what I can promise - among the many topics that we need to
> > discuss while we are ramping up the project, I will also start an
> explicit
> > discussion on how to make sure that ethical considerations are
> sufficiently
> > represented during the development of the project. I obviously cannot
> > promise that we will successfully avoid all ethical pitfalls - but I can
> > promise that I will do my best to do so.
> >
> > It is, in the end, ethical concerns that motivated me, and some of them
> > are discussed and described here:
> >
> > https://wikipedia20.pubpub.org/pub/vyf7ksah/release/6
> >
> > It is this motivation of allowing more people to share in more knowledge
> > in more languages which drives me.
> >
> > I hope you'll join us on the new list and keep an eye on what we're
> doing.
> > Your voice would be very appreciated.
> >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
> >
> > Thank you!
> > Denny
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 11:07 AM phoebe ayers 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Congratulations to everyone, this is exciting.
> >>
> >> It is also very exciting that we have an almost-unprecedented
> opportunity
> >> to build a new project that is fully informed by both lessons from own
> past
> >> projects, as well as from the rapidly developing field of ethics in
> >> computer science and AI. From our own past projects, we have learned
> (among
> >> other things) that pitfalls could include contributor recruitment;
> >> continued maintenance; transparency and accessibility of the UI; unclear
> >> provenance of data; that many communities want a say in how they are
> >> represented online, but often don't have one; and that the biases and
> >> systemic biases of the world are reflected in who contributes, what
> sources
> >> they use, and what areas of focus are. We have also learned that our
> >> relationship with reusers, particularly around structured data that is
> >> highly valued by commercial entities, is poorly defined and tenuous.
> From
> >> the movement to build more ethical AI systems, we've learned (among
> other
> >> things) that flawed model assumptions can result in unpredictable and
> often
> >> deeply harmful downstream outcomes; that most sources of data are not
> >> transparent in their limitations or provenance; and that incorporating
> the
> >> concerns of people affected by systems can result in less biased data
> and
> >> outcomes.
> >>
> >> These are hard problems, and they are not problems that have obvious,
> >> one-size-fits-all solutions. But we do have an obligation I think to
> >> consider these issues front and center in this new project that we are
> >> building. It concerns me that, at least in the high-level project
> proposals
> >> I've seen (I haven't been tracking this closely, and haven't read the
> >> academic 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

[Juergen Fenn]

Am 12.07.20 um 10:40 Uhr schrieb Ziko van Dijk:
> So the problem of the NC module remains that many who apply it are not
> always conscious about undesired consequences,  while some who apply it use
> the module very consciously for a specific reason - e.g. in a hybrid model,
> to distribute content but not to share it, to reserve commercial use
> exclusively for oneself. I do not want to judge about this intention, but I
> imagine that it can become problematic when your goal is to build a
> knowledge *commons*.


As far as I remember, CC was not about building a Commons in the first
place. Rather, it was about hacking copyright law so as to make it
easier to share materials online and to prevent users from breaking the
law when doing something related to copyright. I remember a talk by
Lawrence Lessig a long time ago when he said a copyright law a
15-year-old does not understand is bad copyright law. His aim was to
change something about this.

I would say CC licences have failed for a different reason. Most users
still do not understand how to licence an item properly, viz., how to
use to attribution clause correctly with the copyright holder's name BY,
the work's title and the correct license according to the rules. This is
still too difficult for most people.

And, secondly, we have not become a nation of remixers because the most
important case or reusing materials is retweeting etc. on social
networks which, as we all know, will not do with free licences altogether.

And, thirdly, still no system has been established the really creative
people publishing under CC can make a living if everyone is free to use
and re-use their works. So the social question deems on the horizon,
stil, after so many years. Think about this when talking about the NC
clause.

Regards,
Jürgen.

___
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] Freedom and speech.. broaching the subject of our Wikimedia bias

[Gerard Meijssen]

I have documenten my Wiki related activities for fifteen years on my blog
[1]. I write argued opinions centred around my experiences. I always invite
people to consider the arguments and argue their point.

At this point I find the Wikimedia Foundation increasingly intolerant of
considered opinions. I made the case for other projects, considered
remedies like bonuses for senior management for growth in other projects,
and I do consider it a bias when everything is centred around Wikipedia and
the English Wikipedia at that.
I find that I am censured when I want to post to this Facebook group and I
am censured when I post on Wikimedia-l. Read what I write, my arguments are
to make our movement a better place. Look up what I do and have done, with
2,770,630 edits I have been deeply involved in our projects. I am censured
because it is not ok for me to speak freely and say that our approach is
one of bias, a bias that is detrimental to our mission.
Thanks,
GerardM

PS it will be a relief when I find this posted on the mailinglist and when
my latest blogpost gets attention on Facebook

[1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/
___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
How can OTRS be part of Wikipedia, it is there for any and all projects.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Aron Manning
> Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
>
>
> I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
>
> > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> boomerang*.
> >
> > Yours sincerely, ...
>
> The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> thought about contacting OTRS since then.
>
>
> Aron
> ___
> 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing a new Wikimedia project: Abstract Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
HAPPY NEWS :)

We will learn a lot, experience many challenges and it does have the
potential to provide more of the information that is available to us.
Particularly in languages other than English the impact can be huge.

At a Wikidata conference in Berlin we had someone from PanLex present [1],
with the new project this is a collaboration that will make a big
difference.

Happy to see many parts of the puzzle find a place.
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1] https://mobile.wikidatacon.org/#_session-SE-14

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 18:04, Katherine Maher  wrote:

> (A translatable version of this announcement can be found on Meta [1])
>
> Hi all,
>
> It is my honor to introduce Abstract Wikipedia [1], a new project that has
> been unanimously approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
> Abstract Wikipedia proposes a new way to generate baseline encyclopedic
> content in a multilingual fashion, allowing more contributors and more
> readers to share more knowledge in more languages. It is an approach that
> aims to make cross-lingual cooperation easier on our projects, increase the
> sustainability of our movement through expanding access to participation,
> improve the user experience for readers of all languages, and innovate in
> free knowledge by connecting some of the strengths of our movement to
> create something new.
>
> This is our first new project in over seven years. Abstract Wikipedia was
> submitted as a project proposal by Denny Vrandečić in May of 2020 [2] after
> years of preparation and research, leading to a detailed plan and lively
> discussions in the Wikimedia communities. We know that the energy and the
> creativity of the community often runs up against language barriers, and
> information that is available in one language may not make it to other
> language Wikipedias. Abstract Wikipedia intends to look and feel like a
> Wikipedia, but build on the powerful, language-independent conceptual
> models of Wikidata, with the goal of letting volunteers create and maintain
> Wikipedia articles across our polyglot Wikimedia world.
>
> The project will allow volunteers to assemble the fundamentals of an
> article using words and entities from Wikidata. Because Wikidata uses
> conceptual models that are meant to be universal across languages, it
> should be possible to use and extend these building blocks of knowledge to
> create models for articles that also have universal value. Using code,
> volunteers will be able to translate these abstract “articles” into their
> own languages. If successful, this could eventually allow everyone to read
> about any topic in Wikidata in their own language.
>
> As you can imagine, this work will require a lot of software development,
> and a lot of cooperation among Wikimedians. In order to make this effort
> possible, Denny will join the Foundation as a staff member in July and lead
> this initiative. You may know Denny as the creator of Wikidata, a long-time
> community member, a former staff member at Wikimedia Deutschland, and a
> former Trustee at the Wikimedia Foundation[3]. We are very excited that
> Denny will bring his skills and expertise to work on this project alongside
> the Foundation’s product, technology, and community liaison teams.
>
> It is important to acknowledge that this is an experimental project and
> that every Wikipedia community has different needs. This project may offer
> some communities great advantages. Other communities may engage less. Every
> language Wikipedia community will be free to choose and moderate whether or
> how they would use content from this project.
>
> We are excited that this new wiki-project has the possibility to advance
> knowledge equity through increased access to knowledge. It also invites us
> to consider and engage with critical questions about how and by whom
> knowledge is constructed. We look forward to working in cooperation with
> the communities to think through these important questions.
>
> There is much to do as we begin designing a plan for Abstract Wikipedia in
> close collaboration with our communities. I encourage you to get involved
> by going to the project page and joining the new mailing list[4]. We
> recognize that Abstract Wikipedia is ambitious, but we also recognize its
> potential. We invite you all to join us on a new, unexplored path.
>
> Yours,
> Katherine Maher
>
> Executive Director,
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract
> Wikipedia/June 2020 announcement
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Abstract_Wikipedia
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Denny
> [4] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
> --
>
> Katherine Maher (she/her)
>
> Executive Director
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elena Sanz passed away last night

[Tse Michael]

RIP Elena Sanz. Her contribution to Wikimedia community was indeed remarkable 
and invaluable. May I express our deepest condolences to the friends and family 
of Elena, and all of our dear colleagues at Wikimedia España. 

Michael

--
Michael Tse (he/him/his)
Board Member
Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong

寄件者: Wikimedia-l  代表 Santiago Navarro 

寄件日期: 2020年7月6日 23:55
收件者: Wikimedia-l 
主旨: [Wikimedia-l] Elena Sanz passed away last night 
 
Hello. I have bad news, the kind of news we never want to have. Our 
friend and colleage Elena Sanz (user ElsaBornFree) passed away last 
night.

Elena Sanz was a strong, intelligent and brilliant woman. She joined 
Wikimedia movement in 2014 and after two years she because secretary of 
Wikimedia España, possition she had till now.

Many of you met her in many conferences and events, such as Wikimedia 
Conferences, Wikimanias or Iberoconfs, but also meeting for advocacy in 
the EU, the Wikipedia+education conference in Donostia, next to her home 
town. A very active person, this has been a huge shock for all of us.

If you want to leave your condolences, you can write in a page created 
for that on Spanish Wikipedia.[1] We wrote also a blog post dedicated to 
her memory.[2]

As a president of Wikimedia España and a friend of her, I want to 
express our condolences on behalf of Wikimedia España to his family and 
friends. We will always remember her.

[1] 
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedistas_fallecidos/ElsaBornFree
[2] https://www.wikimedia.es/2020/07/06/hasta-siempre-elena/

-- 
Santiago Navarro Sanz
Presidente
Wikimedia España
www.wikimedia.es

___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Dennis During]

I think he's looking for openness. That doesn't require one to
psychoanalyze him; just a straightforward reading of what he has said,
especially in the context of wikidom. If there is some reason why OTRS
isn't important enough to merit policies, supervision, and transparency,
that should be easy to explain. If there is some other reason why we
shouldn't trouble our little heads about it, it should be possible to try
to explain that.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 18:01 effe iets anders 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I rather have
> > > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> > opportunity
> > > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> > I have not made explicit.
> >
> > Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
> >
> > > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
> assumed
> >
> > No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
> >
> > > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
> Andy
> > > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
> >
> > It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> > ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> > comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> > know?
> >
> > > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> > on
> > > the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
> >
> > I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
> > said they are.
> >
> > As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
> > clear about my wish to see them.
> >
> > > This is why I
> > > noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
> all
> > > kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
> >
> > It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
> > on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
> >
> > > There are actually a few policies
> > > linked at [[m:OTRS ]], that are
> > > simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
> >
> > That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
> > which I have already referred.
> >
> > > There is some stuff about
> > > privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
> nothing
> > > that exciting.
> >
> > Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
> > should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
> > discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
> > then... Nothing.
> >
> > > OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
> > try
> > > to analyze that with overly broad questions.
> >
> > I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
> >
> >5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> >
> >7 what is the process for the community to remove an
> >   individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold
> >   or abide by policy?
> >
> >9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent,
> >   or remove their permissions?
> >
> >10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
> >
> > are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their
> > focus?
> >
> >
> First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm
> not going to waste further energy on that.
>
> Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying
> issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikidata] NEW: Lists of technical resources and recommendations for smaller language wikis!

[Tito Dutta]

This is an amazing resource. Excellent initiative. In addition to importing
etc localisation is also pretty important according to a project's need.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 11:48 PM Srishti Sethi  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> As part of the Small wiki toolkits
>  initiative, a Starter
> kit  has
> been developed for smaller language Wikimedia wikis! This Starter kit lists
> resources, tools, and recommendations in technical areas (e.g., templates,
> bots, gadgets, etc.) relevant to smaller wikis that are just getting
> started. Small wiki contributors can use it to make their community's
> workflow easier. You can now use and promote the Starter kit in your wiki
> community, and start translating the landing page and its subpages in a
> language you want.
>
> If you have any questions, ideas for venues where it should be shared or
> wiki pages where it should be linked, or any other suggestions for
> improving it further, please share on this talk page
> .
>
> If you are interested in helping with the Small Wiki Toolkits initiative
> and can offer help with running workshops, developing toolkits, or
> exchanging problems and challenges in smaller wiki communities, add
> yourself as a member here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_toolkits#Members
>
> Cheers,
> Srishti
>
> *Srishti Sethi*
> Developer Advocate
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 05:04, Gnangarra  wrote:

> This page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS answers some the questions
> including a list of OTRS administrators

I don't think it fully answers any of the ten questions discussed in
this thread.

For example, while it has a list of OTRS administrators it does not -
unlike say, the pages about amins on en.Wikipedia or Commons - say
what the role of those admins is, or what limits are placed on their
actions, It does not say who appoints them (or who can un-appoint
them), or to what policies they must adhere. And it does not tell us
who else might have access to the same or higher (c/f 'crats) levels
of admin permissions that they have.

Thanks for your other comments.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:01, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> I guess - Andy's main concern is about permission queues on Commons, as the
> trigger for his question was a case on Commons.

I have already stated that this assumption is false, when someone else
made it in this very thread.

> In fact - OTRS agents answering questions for general info queues have no
> special power - I mean they do not make any "secretive" decisions

But they do; and we know that they do. The specific case to which you
refer above occurred when an OS agen declined to accept multiple
in-scope photographs, from multiple correspondents, sent at the
request of Wikidata editors, to OTRS by non-Wikimdians. This only came
to light because the person who had organised the campaign noticed,
and brought it to the attention of Wikidata editors, on Wikidata.

Nonetheless, that specific case led to general questions. about how
ORS operates across our movement.

And note that not one of the ten questions I referred to at the top of
this thread mentones any specific case.

> Add to this that
> there is a constant shortage of the active OTRS agents

Perhaps one of the reasons for this is the lack of transparency about
how OTRS operates?

> If you want to be
> an OTRS agent - just put your name on OTRS page on meta - ask some of your
> friends on your local wiki to endorse you and one of the OTRS admins simply
> checks if your edit history is OK (not too short and with no signs that you
> have a tendency to be in constant conflict with your fellow Wikipedians)
> and that's it... It really does not need any extra  regulations, as it
> works as it is now.

You say "one of the OTRS admins simply checks if your edit history is
OK...", but nowhere is that documented publicly as the process that is
followed.

Furthermore, anecdotal evidence also suggests that that is not all
that there is to the process.

One of the other questions that remains unanswered is how the people
who conduct this process are themselves appointed and overseen.

> How it is practically screened has been already answered
> several times, but it is true that the process is not written down clearly

If it is not written down "clearly", show us what is written down in outline.

Why is this so difficult?

> So, maybe - I say maybe - this system needs some sort of reform to make it
> more transparent and public - but do not expect that anyone can write rules
> that may cover every possible case

This is a straw man; no-one is asking for "rules that may cover every
possible case"; and no one is asking for any new rules to be written;
we are asking to see the rules and policies *that already exist*.

> And the system will never be 100% transparent - as
> its idea is to answers E-mails under general WMF privacy policy umbrella.

...and no-one is asking to see anything that falls under the general
WMF privacy policy umbrella; indeed, I have explicitly excluded such
material when describing what I want to see.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Change of translation for "attribution" in CC licenses

[Strainu]

Hi folks,

Sorry for cross-posting, not sure which list is the best venue for my problem.

I have an issue with regards to the translation of the word
"attribution" in "Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike". For
reasons (explained in [1]) which are not interesting for Wikimedia,
the CC-sanctioned Romanian translation has changed from "distribuire"
to "partajare" in the translation for version 4.0 *only*.

This becomes a problem for multilingual wikis (mw, m, c), which use
meta-templates and MediaWiki messages to translate the {{cc-by-sa-*}}
templates. What would be the easiest way to solve the problem without
affecting other languages?

Thanks,
   Strainu


[1] (in Romanian)
https://www.cyberculture.ro/2020/07/20/licente-creative-commons-versiunea-4-romana/

___
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] Introducing Diff – a blog by and for the Wikimedia volunteer community

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 12:23, Quim Gil  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:54 PM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > What consultation was carried out with contributors, and the
> > > > > > wider the Wikimedia community, to inform this change?
> >
> > Although you quoted it, you seem to have overlooked this question.
>
>
> I aimed to address this question with this answer:
>
> > When we announced Next steps for Wikimedia Space [1] we said that the
> Space blog
> > would continue in a new home

> > [1] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/next-steps-on-wikimedia-space/3184
>
> This is when we informed about this plan (February 18), also on this list.

Yes; you made an announcement. I asked about *consultation*.

> We didn't consult any further

In future, please consult - meaningfully - before making such
significant changes.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Introducing Diff – a blog by and for the Wikimedia volunteer community

[Quim Gil]

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:54 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> > > > > What consultation was carried out with contributors, and the
> > > > > wider the Wikimedia community, to inform this change?
>
> Although you quoted it, you seem to have overlooked this question.


I aimed to address this question with this answer:

> When we announced Next steps for Wikimedia Space [1] we said that the
Space blog
> would continue in a new home, and this is exactly what we have done.
(...)
> [1] https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/next-steps-on-wikimedia-space/3184

This is when we informed about this plan (February 18), also on this list.
The feedback we received was about the Wikimedia Space announcement in
general and there was some discussion about the Discuss part, but nothing
in a way or another about the blog. We didn't consult any further, and we
focused on proceeding with the migration.

Offering the previous blog archives as part of the new blog is logical. The
Space Blog aimed to be a continuation of the Wikimedia Blog, but it was a
prototype. Diff aims to be a continuation of the Wikimedia Blog and the
Space blog, and it is a project officially supported, in production
servers. Hence the consolidation of community news archives.

-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
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] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Tomasz Ganicz]

I guess - Andy's main concern is about permission queues on Commons, as the
trigger for his question was a case on Commons.

In fact - OTRS agents answering questions for general info queues have no
special power - I mean they do not make any "secretive" decisions - they
just inform about rules, customs, help newbies with technical issues and
sometimes try to help or solve the problem to satisfy both - a plaintiff
and the local wiki rules. Basically this was the idea of OTRS when it was
created - so the feeling was that strict rules for just answering the
questions and helping newbies are not very much needed. Add to this that
there is a constant shortage of the active OTRS agents - as this work tends
to be boring, repetitive and not rewarding at all - so you may understand
why entry barrier for agents is kept as low as possible. If you want to be
an OTRS agent - just put your name on OTRS page on meta - ask some of your
friends on your local wiki to endorse you and one of the OTRS admins simply
checks if your edit history is OK (not too short and with no signs that you
have a tendency to be in constant conflict with your fellow Wikipedians)
and that's it... It really does not need any extra  regulations, as it
works as it is now.

However, for permission queues is the other issue - because acceptance or
refusal of copyright agreement/claim is usually final, so it is quite a
power, so I understand Andy's concern that there are no strict rules which
are public. How it is practically screened has been already answered
several times, but it is true that the process is not written down clearly
- it was just developed naturally over time and consist of
a) general copyright rules on Commons - which are already very complex and
unclear - sometimes even contradictory with eachself and also they change
over time, mainly in to direction to be more and more strict which is
sometimes called "copyright paranoia"
b) local copyright laws - which are also very complex and unclear in many
jurisdictions and moreover one needs to know local language and local legal
system to properly understand it and apply
c) some practical customs, habits and technical rules related strictly to
handling agreements via OTRS - the later is partially made public - I have
already sent the links to the relevant pages but it was ignored - and
partially made non-public.

So, maybe - I say maybe - this system needs some sort of reform to make it
more transparent and public - but do not expect that anyone can write rules
that may cover every possible case - as they tend to be sometimes very
complex and individual. And the system will never be 100% transparent - as
its idea is to answers E-mails under general WMF privacy policy umbrella.


pon., 20 lip 2020 o 09:03 effe iets anders 
napisał(a):

> The problem I indicated is that 'OTRS' is a diffuse system of queues. There
> are very few policies that govern 'OTRS', and even practices will differ
> across queues. I'm for example a member of the teams that handle info-nl,
> permissions-nl and wlx. All those behave very differently.
> If you replace 'OTRS' with 'xyz queue on OTRS', someone from that queue may
> be able to give you a coherent answer. If you're asking at the OTRS-level,
> I don't think there's much policies/practices beyond the ones that I
> mentioned.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alessandro Marchetti 
> wrote:
>
> > I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions
> > about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too
> generic
> > for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?
> >
> > ok if it helps, here are some of them
> > 1. are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with
> instruction
> > with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of
> > legal issues, mail about copyright etc
> > 2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review process? is it
> > regularly done?
> > 3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal constant activity on
> > content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag?
> > 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator?
> > 5. is there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal
> > information related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of
> > arrival and maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?)
> > 6. is there a open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got
> > the flag, a link to the request and how many queue they are handling?
> >
> > I think it's enough for now.
> >
> > Alex
> > Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders <
> > effeietsand...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders <
> effeietsand...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I rather have
> > > > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> > > opportunity

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[effe iets anders]

The problem I indicated is that 'OTRS' is a diffuse system of queues. There
are very few policies that govern 'OTRS', and even practices will differ
across queues. I'm for example a member of the teams that handle info-nl,
permissions-nl and wlx. All those behave very differently.
If you replace 'OTRS' with 'xyz queue on OTRS', someone from that queue may
be able to give you a coherent answer. If you're asking at the OTRS-level,
I don't think there's much policies/practices beyond the ones that I
mentioned.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alessandro Marchetti 
wrote:

> I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions
> about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too generic
> for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?
>
> ok if it helps, here are some of them
> 1. are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with instruction
> with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of
> legal issues, mail about copyright etc
> 2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review process? is it
> regularly done?
> 3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal constant activity on
> content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag?
> 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator?
> 5. is there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal
> information related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of
> arrival and maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?)
> 6. is there a open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got
> the flag, a link to the request and how many queue they are handling?
>
> I think it's enough for now.
>
> Alex
> Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders <
> effeietsand...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I rather have
> > > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> > opportunity
> > > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> > I have not made explicit.
> >
> > Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
> >
> > > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
> assumed
> >
> > No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
> >
> > > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
> Andy
> > > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
> >
> > It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> > ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> > comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> > know?
> >
> > > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> > on
> > > the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
> >
> > I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
> > said they are.
> >
> > As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
> > clear about my wish to see them.
> >
> > > This is why I
> > > noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
> all
> > > kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
> >
> > It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
> > on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
> >
> > > There are actually a few policies
> > > linked at [[m:OTRS ]], that are
> > > simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
> >
> > That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
> > which I have already referred.
> >
> > > There is some stuff about
> > > privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
> nothing
> > > that exciting.
> >
> > Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
> > should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
> > discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
> > then... Nothing.
> >
> > > OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
> > try
> > > to analyze that with overly broad questions.
> >
> > I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
> >
> >5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> >
> >7 what is the process for the community to remove an
> >  individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold
> >  or abide by policy?
> >
> >9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent,
> >  or remove their permissions?
> >
> >10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
> >
> > are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their
> > focus?
> >
> >
> First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm
> not