[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Samuel Klein]

Luis writes:
> For what it is worth, I think the current mobile app is pretty good and I
regularly finding pleasant surprises

Yea, the mobile app is sweet, editing and all.

Responding to two specific earlier comments:

1. *Galder* - "It is 2021 and we still can't edit by mobile phone."

-->  Safe to say this is not true :)  But you could say that about your
later comment on the ability to "*write simultaneously ... upload videos
...** autosave*", each of which are common in online collaborative spaces,
and which we do need to make standard for our wikis.  But the bottlenecks
aren't primarily design, but rather coordinated vision and focus -- or at
least unblocking and supporting one another as we design and implement
prototypes.  We need new social norms and clear community use cases
for simultaneous
editing  (resolving
attribution and revision history for multiparty edits), video uploading
 (how to note
the original upload if we only save a transcode), and drafts
 (rallying support behind a
specific client-side use case to realize).

2.* Jonathan* -
   "[In my new sw company] we have the autonomy to make the changes in the
first place, see what happens, and then build from there..."
   "WMF product teams work in an environment where [...] one set of end
users (editors) has a great deal of both *soft* and *hard* power to block
changes, even when those changes are intended for--and indeed, primarily
affect--a different set of end users (readers)."

--> These comments highlight a common misframing, about autonomy and
curation of the reading experience, worth addressing.  (Likely deserves its
own thread!)

Much of the friction and tension in our movement stems from different
understandings of autonomy; and the impedance mismatch

of a step function between the norms (of communication, delegation, and
planning) of a) broad community wikiocracies and b) narrow staff
hierarchies. Our community has thousands of designers; the staff has
scores, who may feel constrained to work on only their particular projects.
There is abundant talent.

Most active editors and curators are not "end users" of the site, any more
than developers are -- they are involved before the end, up and down the
design and implementation stack, building bridges, interfaces,
translations.  They are project stewards, schedulers, templaters,
designers, and maintainers.  So when interface designers deploying a new
language-selector design are talking with layout designers maintaining
article flair like geo-coordinates

and article status indicators
, they should
feel they are on the same team: improving the site skin together.

This is a solved problem in some corners, but the solutions are not evenly
distributed.  Within Wikimedia, and within the WMF, there are groups and
projects of all sizes that have developed without this sort of contention.
But we spend most of our time and energy talking about the ones that fail
to do so.  [*The article always ends on the wrong version
; confusion is always
due to the other person* :-]   Let's learn from the successes, and not fall
into stereotyping any parts of our nexus.

Wishing all a beautiful week's end,
SJ
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FFSRH4GTMJACZJQURGNWHK5X6MTR3WSE/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Guettarda]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:04 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Cool. How do we find those pages from the advertised tools? Were they
> shared here before (sorry if I missed them), or can we still vote on
> them somewhere?
>
>
The underlying problem is that we ended up with 70+ candidates for the
MCDC. We were allowed up to 400 words for our statements, so there is a lot
to work through. In a case like that, there's a tendency to only vote for
people you know, or only based on regional representation, or tenure, or
something similar. The Compass was an imperfect tool, and one that was put
together in response to the problem of too much participation (after all,
there was uncertainty initially as to whether 19 people would actually put
their names forward).

I think there was a week at the end of September when people could
suggest statements (the final tally was 108). After that there was
another week in which people were able to vote for the statements they
wanted the candidates to answer. Not everyone got it right - there were
some responses that made it clear that some people were voting based on
their own opinions about the statement, rather than what they wanted to
hear.

Once they were narrowed down, Cornelius created a Google sheet where the
candidates were able to give our opinions on the statements, based on a
five-point scale. We were also able to add up to 500 characters clarifying
our stances. (These were interesting, because it's obvious that some people
who voted "support" and some who voted "oppose" had pretty much the same
opinion, once you allowed for nuance.

After that the Compass tool was created. But even that output is too much
to parse. I put together a Google sheet for myself, where I could split
people into arbitrary groups - for example, only 54 people gave their
opinions on the compass, so I decided to separate those from the rest of
the group. I also split Europe/US/Canada from the rest of the world because
I want to make sure that I wasn't too biased by *who* I knew well. Being
able to sort people by tenure (thanks to Andrew's table) also allows me to
be more cogniscent of my biases (as an old-timer, I'm likely to gravitate
to people just because I've seen them around for the last 17 years).

Dusan's tool is great because it lets you compare responses to individual
questions, and lets you see the explanatory statements. Again, as I work my
way through the list and try to decide between people it helps me check
responses to individual questions.

I think confirmation bias would be to pick people you know and like (or and
maybe not like so much, but think the committee could use some
bomb-throwers). I'm grateful for the tools and summaries that people have
created. Now if there was only some way to compare pairs of candidate
statements side-by-side

Ian



> Or would it be fairer now to the candidates to let their statements
> stand alone and for people to vote based on those alone, rather than
> trying to provide 'advanced tools' that are intrinsically biased?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 15/10/21 22:51:21, Guettarda wrote:
> > Hi Mike
> >
> > The questions were selected from this list:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements
> >
> >
> > People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that
> > ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data
> > underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data
> >
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel  > > wrote:
> >
> > Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic
> > biases.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table
> >
> >
> > - this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you
> are
> > limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor
> since.
> >
> >
> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
> > <
> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
> >
> >
> > - this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and
> > encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on
> > their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by
> Q2 -
> > or looking up where Q6 was posted).
> >
> > We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote:
> >  > To echo 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Andrew Lih]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:44 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic biases.
>

That's a pretty grim way of looking at things. I could find a bigger
problem with the fact that the main page has images of the candidates, of
varying quality, aspect ratio, etc. with no attempt for normalization. The
effect of candidate presentation on voter preference is a highly studied
area in psychology and political science which should give us a lot more
pause than the side effects of either of these tools.[1]

Both of these tools allow one to cluster and examine the data in a
structured form. It doesn't prescribe or afford any type of interpretation.
As both of us are heavily into Wikidata, how is this different than
returning the value of a SPARQL query and relying on the user to be smart
about using the output?

The alternative to having these sense-making tools is scrolling down a page
with 70+ candidates trying to track five different parameters in one's
brain, by relying only on memory. Or giving up and reverting to voting for
those you recognize as friends. I don't think that's a good state of
affairs.

-Andrew

[1] - An issue I raised back in July 2021 -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WMF_elections_candidate/2021/candidates
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3A6R5PA4PEG4S6DQCRYXY2JAGTLY2Q2Y/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Luis Villa]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:34 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 08:47, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> I don't know if this already has a name, but I'm going to invent one: The
>> Great Circle of Excuse. It works like this: we have all realized that
>> something needs to be improved, let's say the design of our website. Then,
>> WMF gets a group of workers to think about it, and they come up with some
>> changes that neither respond to the needs nor are really a change beyond
>> certain aesthetic resources.
>>
>
> I stopped reading at this point. What you've written here is pretty
> insulting. There's a valid point buried under your rhetoric, but you're
> exacerbating the problem by being so rude and dismissive.
>

You misspelled "exemplifying the problem", Dan! :)

It's exactly this sort of "no, no, everything you've done is wrong" that is
what Jonathan Morgan was talking about. And then a followup *within a
minute* to blame someone, again.

It is worth noting that it's a bunch of *ex-*employees who are piping up
here; current employees know they can't weigh in without their competence,
ethics, integrity, motives, etc. being questioned, which makes it even
harder to do the rest of their already hard jobs, so they have good reason
to mostly stay quiet. Jonathan, Heather, Dan and I are speaking up in part
because we've walked a mile in these shoes and... it sucks. Big hugs to
both the current team and to the diaspora. Miss you all.

(For what it is worth, I think the current mobile app is pretty good and I
regularly finding pleasant surprises, like the iOS picture-of-the-day
widget, which brightens my every day with free content/knowledge. I do have
many nitpicks and wishlist items, and of course always wish things moved
faster, but I think it's pretty unfair to say (*especially* on mobile) that
nothing has improved.)

Luis
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DP2LMCOX4NWSHRYBNNQJ32TNIBBNTULT/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Mike Peel]

Cool. How do we find those pages from the advertised tools? Were they 
shared here before (sorry if I missed them), or can we still vote on 
them somewhere?


Or would it be fairer now to the candidates to let their statements 
stand alone and for people to vote based on those alone, rather than 
trying to provide 'advanced tools' that are intrinsically biased?


Thanks,
Mike

On 15/10/21 22:51:21, Guettarda wrote:

Hi Mike

The questions were selected from this list: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements 



People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that 
ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data 
underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data 



Ian


On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel > wrote:


Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic
biases.


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table



- this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you are
limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor since.

https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/



- this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and
encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on
their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by Q2 -
or looking up where Q6 was posted).

We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that.

Thanks,
Mike

On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote:
 > To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by
voters.
 > On meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help:
 >
 >

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates



 >

>
 >
 > The links point to:
 > - A table of all the factual information supplied by the
candidates in a
 > wiki table, in which each column is sortable.
 > - A browsable interface to all the compass questions and responses,
 > providing much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam
brought up is
 > that there may not be a good understanding of the variance in the
 > answers of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in
showing
 > that the following questions had the most diverse responses and are
 > likely to be the most useful for voters to examine directly.
 >
 > 6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running"
 > 11 - democratic governance structure
 > 20 - new forms of knowledge representation
 > 24 - regional elections
 > 27 - "counter-voice"
 > 45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated
 > 92 - ratification from all
 >
 > I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools.
 >
 > -Andrew
 >
 > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker mailto:risker...@gmail.com>
 > >> wrote:
 >
 >     Adam, you may find the tool discussed here
 >   
  >

 >     to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is
based on
 >     the information submitted by candidates for the election compass,
 >     and is quite visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)
 >
 >     I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the
differences
 >     between candidates a little more specifically than the general
 >     five-point compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that
there's
 >     some consensus amongst candidates (at least on the surface)
is that
 >     they could be representative of a pretty broad consensus
throughout
 >     the global community on 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Guettarda]

Hi Mike

The questions were selected from this list:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements

People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that
ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data
underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data

Ian


On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic biases.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table
> - this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you are
> limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor since.
>
>
> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
> - this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and
> encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on
> their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by Q2 -
> or looking up where Q6 was posted).
>
> We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote:
> > To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by voters.
> > On meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates
> >
> >
> > The links point to:
> > - A table of all the factual information supplied by the candidates in a
> > wiki table, in which each column is sortable.
> > - A browsable interface to all the compass questions and responses,
> > providing much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam brought up is
> > that there may not be a good understanding of the variance in the
> > answers of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in showing
> > that the following questions had the most diverse responses and are
> > likely to be the most useful for voters to examine directly.
> >
> > 6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running"
> > 11 - democratic governance structure
> > 20 - new forms of knowledge representation
> > 24 - regional elections
> > 27 - "counter-voice"
> > 45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated
> > 92 - ratification from all
> >
> > I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools.
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker  > > wrote:
> >
> > Adam, you may find the tool discussed here
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Candidates_Compass:_One_statement,_all_answers
> >
> > to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is based on
> > the information submitted by candidates for the election compass,
> > and is quite visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)
> >
> > I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the differences
> > between candidates a little more specifically than the general
> > five-point compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that there's
> > some consensus amongst candidates (at least on the surface) is that
> > they could be representative of a pretty broad consensus throughout
> > the global community on some points.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight  > > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla
> > mailto:kvai...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
> > ” for this
> > election. Click yourself through the tool and respond to the
> > 19 statements, and you will see which candidate is closest
> > to you!
> >
> >
> > Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for sharing the
> > interesting "election compass" experiment.  After trying the
> > tool, I urge you to take it offline.  Its algorithm is opaque,
> > and in my opinion very unlikely to give a helpful result.  It's
> > explicitly meant to influence how we vote, but without us having
> > done any validation of what it's actually calculating.  If you
> > want to test this tool, you could position it as an "exit poll",
> > to compare the tool's results with how each person actually
> > voted, or you could turn off the "alignment" scoring.
> >
> > My suspicions started with the fact that I answered "strongly
> > support" or "support" to almost every question, which suggests
> > that the axes were not chosen in a 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees new resolution on branding

[Zack McCune]

Hello Tito -

 "Supporting flexible naming for all affiliates, including the use of
taglines" means two things.

First, affiliates can continue using the names they choose. Second, new
work will be undertaken to develop short phrases ("taglines") that
affiliates can use optionally to show connection to the Movement or to
specific projects. These taglines might be phrases like (for example) "part
of the Wikimedia Movement" or "supporting Wikipedia in Nigeria" that enable
partners, press, and members of the public to better understand an
affiliate's work.

- Zack

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:10 PM Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Greetings,
> Thanks for the update. I thank the board for taking this action.
> What does "supporting flexible naming for all affiliates, including the
> use of taglines;" mean, that is mentioned on the Diff blog post?
> Sincerely,
> User:Titodutta
> (Sent from a handheld device, excuse typos etc)
>
> শুক্র, 15 অক্টো., 2021 12:20 AM তারিখে Shani Evenstein <
> sh...@wikimedia.org> লিখেছেন:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am happy to share with you that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> Trustees has passed a new resolution on the topic of branding [1].
>>
>> Some context
>>
>> As you may remember, last year the Board paused all work under the 2030
>> Movement Brand Project, in order to rethink and improve the Foundation’s
>> approach to community participation and decision making around renaming.
>> After year-long work, attentive listening and thoughtful conversation
>> between the Board, Wikimedia Foundation staff, and community advisors, the
>> committee has come up with a recommendation for next steps. The
>> recommendation was unanimously approved by the Board and captured in the
>> above mentioned resolution. The Wikimedia Foundation will therefore be
>> resuming its role to steward and protect Wikimedia brands, in partnership
>> with our broader movement, and the ad hoc Brand Committee concludes its
>> work .
>>
>> What are the main aspects of the resolution?
>>
>> Importantly, this resolution extends the Board’s decision that the
>> Wikimedia Foundation should not pursue renaming work for this fiscal year
>> (until at least July 2022). Instead, it directs the Foundation to support
>> the Wikimedia movement through three main areas of brand work that protect
>> and support Wikimedia’s reputation throughout the world. Please read more
>> about this decision on the Diff Blog [2].
>>
>> Next steps?
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation teams intend to share more information on new
>> projects, including their plans for engaging our community, in the coming
>> weeks. In the meantime, Foundation staff and I are available to answer
>> clarifying questions on the Wikimedia brand / 2030 movement brand project
>> talk page on Meta [3]. You are also welcome to join the Board’s Open
>> Meeting on October 20th, where you will be able to ask questions and hear
>> from the team directly [4].
>>
>> Special thanks
>>
>> On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank the community advisors to
>> the Brand Committee. This group has worked with us since February 2021,
>> lending their time and expertise. Their input to the process has been
>> invaluable and we appreciate their commitment to help us find a productive
>> way forward. Thank you -- Lucy Crompton-Reid, Joao Alexandre Peschanski,
>> Megan Wacha, Justice Okai-Allotey, Rachmat Wahidi, Erlan Vega Rios, Richard
>> Knipel, Phoebe Ayers and Jeffrey Keefer!
>>
>> I would also like to thank our Brand Studio team at the Wikimedia
>> Foundation for their hard work, dedication, professionalism,
>> flexibility, openness, and vision they brought to our joint work on the
>> future of branding.
>>
>> Together, we made sure that the next steps for brand work are closely
>> connected to our 2030 strategic goals and we have no doubt they will be an
>> important service to the Wikimedia movement. I look forward to watching
>> these plans come to life and invite the community to actively participate
>> in these discussions and decisions as they unfold.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Shani Evenstein Sigalov
>>
>> Chair, Brand Committee
>>
>> Board of Trustees, Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>>
>> [1]:
>>
>>
>> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Next_Steps_for_Brand_Work,_2021
>>
>> [2]:
>>
>>
>> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/10/14/wikimedia-foundation-board-of-trustees-new-resolution-on-branding/
>>
>> [3]:
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
>> 
>>
>> [4]:
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2021-10-20_Conversation_with_Trustees
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Mike Peel]

Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic biases.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table 
- this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you are 
limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor since.


https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/ 
- this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and 
encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on 
their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by Q2 - 
or looking up where Q6 was posted).


We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that.

Thanks,
Mike

On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote:
To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by voters. 
On meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help:


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates 



The links point to:
- A table of all the factual information supplied by the candidates in a 
wiki table, in which each column is sortable.
- A browsable interface to all the compass questions and responses, 
providing much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam brought up is 
that there may not be a good understanding of the variance in the 
answers of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in showing 
that the following questions had the most diverse responses and are 
likely to be the most useful for voters to examine directly.


6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running"
11 - democratic governance structure
20 - new forms of knowledge representation
24 - regional elections
27 - "counter-voice"
45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated
92 - ratification from all

I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools.

-Andrew

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker > wrote:


Adam, you may find the tool discussed here


to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is based on
the information submitted by candidates for the election compass,
and is quite visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)

I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the differences
between candidates a little more specifically than the general
five-point compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that there's
some consensus amongst candidates (at least on the surface) is that
they could be representative of a pretty broad consensus throughout
the global community on some points.

Risker/Anne

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight mailto:adam.m.wi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla
mailto:kvai...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:

Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
” for this
election. Click yourself through the tool and respond to the
19 statements, and you will see which candidate is closest
to you!


Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for sharing the
interesting "election compass" experiment.  After trying the
tool, I urge you to take it offline.  Its algorithm is opaque,
and in my opinion very unlikely to give a helpful result.  It's
explicitly meant to influence how we vote, but without us having
done any validation of what it's actually calculating.  If you
want to test this tool, you could position it as an "exit poll",
to compare the tool's results with how each person actually
voted, or you could turn off the "alignment" scoring.

My suspicions started with the fact that I answered "strongly
support" or "support" to almost every question, which suggests
that the axes were not chosen in a way that differentiates
between the candidates.  Instead, it seems like it's going to
amplify tiny differences like "strongly" vs "support"—is this true?

Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern in mind?  Are
there reasons to believe that the "alignment" scores are
meaningful in our scenario?

Kind regards,
Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
Writing in my volunteer capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 and

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikidata] Re: Re: Toolhub 1.0 is launched! Discover software tools used at Wikimedia

[Leila Zia]

Hi Bodhisattwa,

See below.

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:41 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal
 wrote:
>
> Also, is there any way to add info on existing tools?

I learned from Bryan yesterday that this is possible via toolsadmin
(Bryan helped with one of our tools yesterday via
https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/tools/id/wikinav for that particular
tool). Toolhub then updates the list of tools every hour and you
should see your tool in toolhub. I hope this helps.

And congratulations to all of you who have been involved in making
this launch and product happen. :)

Leila

>
> Regards,
> Bodhisattwa
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 19:53, Birgit Müller  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Galder :-) - answers are below:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:38 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Brigit, for this hub, it is great to have it! I have tried and 
>>> can't find any way to look for tools that are not nominated as "Coolest 
>>> Tool Award" besides looking for name. Is there a way for searching by 
>>> categories?
>>
>>
>> Today you can try searching for various keywords to find tools in the 
>> catalog (i.e. "Wikidata", "image", "editor", "template" ...). We're 
>> interested in adding support for the community to organize tools in 
>> categories/based on use cases in the future. There are some notes from past 
>> Design Research on that in the Data Model documentation. [0]
>>
>> Please feel welcome to comment on the talk page if you have further 
>> questions or ideas! [1]
>>
>> Birgit
>>
>> [0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Toolhub/Data_model#Tool_use_cases
>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Toolhub
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Galder
>>> 
>>> From: Birgit Müller 
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 4:58 PM
>>> To: wikitech-l ; 
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org ; 
>>> Wikimedia Cloud Services general discussion and support 
>>> ; wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org 
>>> ; wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org 
>>> 
>>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Toolhub 1.0 is launched! Discover software tools 
>>> used at Wikimedia
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> We are happy to announce the launch of Toolhub – a community-authored 
>>> catalogue that aims to make software tools used in the Wikimedia movement 
>>> discoverable to everyone.
>>>
>>>
>>> Community developed tools – including web applications, bots, gadgets, user 
>>> scripts, lua modules, and more – play a significant role in the Wikimedia 
>>> projects. These software applications address a wide range of use cases 
>>> including finding bad faith edits and other content curation, bulk editing, 
>>> collecting statistical information, creating special citations, and much 
>>> more. About ⅓ of all edits are made by bots and tools. In addition, 
>>> semi-automated edits are helped by user scripts, gadgets, and other editing 
>>> assistance tools that run from the user's local computer or directly inside 
>>> the wikis. There are thousands of tools available, but how can you find 
>>> them?
>>>
>>>
>>> With Toolhub, you can document and find tools, promote their use in your 
>>> wiki community, and help improve them by contributing data. You can create 
>>> and share lists of tools relevant to your work - for example, for GLAM 
>>> tools, or for wiki projects such as Women in Red.
>>>
>>>
>>> This first release provides a core set of functionalities, and contains an 
>>> initial data set of about 1500 tools. Most of the initial tools in the 
>>> catalog are imported from the same data files developers have created for 
>>> Hay's Directory which has been a major inspiration for Toolhub.
>>>
>>>
>>> Toolhub serves developers and users of tools alike. It is part of our 
>>> efforts to improve the infrastructure and services for technical 
>>> contributors, captured under one of Technology’s top level objectives in 
>>> the FY 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 annual plans: Tech Community Building. We 
>>> hope to continue conversations with developers and users of tools, plan to 
>>> improve Toolhub, and to further expand the functionality.
>>>
>>>
>>> A collaborative system and open developer platform
>>>
>>> Toolhub is built as an API driven platform that makes it possible to extend 
>>> and remix the catalogue, and to make collecting and reusing information 
>>> about tools as open and collaborative as we can. Everything that can be 
>>> done interactively with the Toolhub website can also be done remotely 
>>> through the API. We would love to hear from technical contributors 
>>> interested in using the Toolhub API to build new tools that make new ways 
>>> to add or consume information from Toolhub's catalog.
>>>
>>>
>>> Our decision record and weekly progress reports on Meta provide more 
>>> insights in technical implementation details and decisions made throughout 
>>> the development process. The Toolhub/About page provides information on 
>>> project origin, research, use cases, data model, and roadmap. This 
>>> recording from a lightning 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Mario Gómez]

Thank you for the Election Compass!

While the quantitative ranking was not very useful for me, these clear
statements and concise answers by all candidates helped me a lot in the
decision, and also the Election Compass tool was quite decent to explore
them. The process of wider community input to draft questions and upvoting
them has clearly led to a much more useful set of questions than what we
had at the Board of Trustees election.

So, while tooling could be improved in the future, I think the general
approach to questions was great, and next elections (for Board of Trustees
or whatever other body) should do it in a similar way.

Best,

Mario

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter drafting
> committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are
> running for seven seats in these elections.
>
> As recommended by the Movement Strategy recommendations, the goal is to
> assemble a Drafting Committee that will draft a Movement Charter to ensure
> a common framework for decision making in the Wikimedia movement
> .
> The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities
> vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates
> through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the
> Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1,
> 2021.
>
> Voting is open from October 12 10:00 UTC to October 24, 2021 23:59 (Anywhere
> on Earth ).
>
>
>
> Learn more about the candidates
>
> Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn
> about each candidate to inform your vote
> .
> The statements are translated to a number of languages, so you can have
> access to the information in many of your preferred languages.
>
> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
> ” for this election. Click
> yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you will
> see which candidate is closest to you! The tool is available in ~9
> languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Arabic,
> Indonesian, Hausa).
>
>
>
> Voting
>
> Similar to the previous Board elections, we have chosen Single
> Transferable Vote
> 
> for the voting system. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices
> in order of preference. Learn more about voting requirements
> ,
> how to vote
> ,
> and frequently asked questions about voting
> 
> .
>
>
> To cast your vote, please go to SecurePoll
> 
> .
>
>
> We also offer two question and answer times, if you have any questions
> regarding the Movement Charter and the voting process:w
>
>-
>
>Wednesday, 19:00 UTC, on Google Meet
>-
>
>Thursday, 13:00 UTC, on Zoom (that’s the Conversation Time with Maggie
>Dennis)
>
> Please write a short message to answ...@wikimedia.org if you want to
> participate in one of these.
>
>
>
> Please help select people who best fit the needs of the movement at this
> time. Vote and spread the word so more people can vote for candidates. Our
> aim is to have a committee with Wikimedians that combine the diversity of
> the Wikimedia Movement as well as a great mix of competencies.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Kaarel Vaidla, on behalf of the Movement Strategy & Governance team,
> Wikimedia Foundation
> --
>
> Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)
>
> Movement Strategy 
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/O6EYQSHWXT5JH7DZZDNLD4BRPEYPQZTF/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Andrew Lih]

To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by voters. On
meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates

The links point to:
- A table of all the factual information supplied by the candidates in a
wiki table, in which each column is sortable.
- A browsable interface to all the compass questions and responses,
providing much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam brought up is
that there may not be a good understanding of the variance in the answers
of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in showing that the
following questions had the most diverse responses and are likely to be the
most useful for voters to examine directly.

6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running"
11 - democratic governance structure
20 - new forms of knowledge representation
24 - regional elections
27 - "counter-voice"
45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated
92 - ratification from all

I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools.

-Andrew

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker  wrote:

> Adam, you may find the tool discussed here
> 
> to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is based on the
> information submitted by candidates for the election compass, and is quite
> visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)
>
> I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the differences
> between candidates a little more specifically than the general five-point
> compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that there's some consensus
> amongst candidates (at least on the surface) is that they could be
> representative of a pretty broad consensus throughout the global community
> on some points.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
>>> ” for this election.
>>> Click yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you
>>> will see which candidate is closest to you!
>>>
>>
>> Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for sharing the
>> interesting "election compass" experiment.  After trying the tool, I urge
>> you to take it offline.  Its algorithm is opaque, and in my opinion very
>> unlikely to give a helpful result.  It's explicitly meant to influence how
>> we vote, but without us having done any validation of what it's actually
>> calculating.  If you want to test this tool, you could position it as an
>> "exit poll", to compare the tool's results with how each person actually
>> voted, or you could turn off the "alignment" scoring.
>>
>> My suspicions started with the fact that I answered "strongly support" or
>> "support" to almost every question, which suggests that the axes were not
>> chosen in a way that differentiates between the candidates.  Instead, it
>> seems like it's going to amplify tiny differences like "strongly" vs
>> "support"—is this true?
>>
>> Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern in mind?  Are there
>> reasons to believe that the "alignment" scores are meaningful in our
>> scenario?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Adam Wight
>> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>> Writing in my volunteer capacity.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKNSAX5FKNUYRRKIZQJZP4OAURUN2JZ5/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
---
Email: and...@andrewlih.com
WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the Conversation with Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on October 20

[Mike Peel]

Obrigado!

On 15/10/21 20:56:28, Elena Lappen wrote:

Hi Mike,

Yes, of course! The meeting will be available on Commons and YouTube 
after the event. We will also be posting translated notes.


Best,
Elena

--
Elena Lappen (she/her)
Senior Movement Communications Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation



On Oct 15, 2021, at 12:42 PM, Mike Peel > wrote:


Hi Elena,

I can't attend this live, since it is happening during the working day 
in Europe.


Please could you commit to sharing a recording (and multilingual 
audio) on the Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia repository - Commons - 
after the event?


Thanks,
Mike

On 15/10/21 20:35:03, Elena Lappen wrote:

Hi everyone!
This Conversation with the Foundation Board of Trustees is coming up 
next week on *October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC [1]*.
Based on requests we received, we have coordinated Spanish 
interpretation for this conversation. If you would like to hear the 
call in Spanish, you will need to join the Zoom room. Please register 
for the Zoom room in advance [2].
/Con base a las solicitudes que hemos recibido, hemos coordinado la 
interpretación en español para esta conversación. Si quieren escuchar 
la llamada en español, tendrán que unirse a la sala de Zoom. Por 
favor, regístrense para unirse a la sala Zoom con antelación [3]./

Thanks and hope to see you there!
Elena
[1] https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1634727630 
 
>
[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2021-10- 
 
>20_Conversation_with_Trustees#How_to_join
[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2021-10-20_Conversation_with_Trustees/es#C%C3%B3mo_participar 
 
>

--
Elena Lappen (she/her)
Senior Movement Communications Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Shani Evenstein  >> wrote:


Hello, everyone.

TLDR:
Join the Conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of 
Trustees on October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC(check for your local time 
>).


During the meeting, you will:
* Meet the incoming CEO, Maryana Iskander.
* Meet the candidates nominated through the latest 
Community-Selection process to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of 
Trustees

* Learn about Board Committees’ work
* Engage through a Question & Answers session (partly pre-sent, and 
partly live).


Now in more details:
What are we announcing?
The Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees’ Community Affairs 
Committee 
>(CAC) 
is  hosting its second Conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation 
Board of Trustees (formerly called an Office Hour), which is an open 
forum for the community to directly engage with Trustees.


Come and meet the Board of Trustees, including the candidates 
nominated for the Board through the latest Community-Selection 
process, and the incoming CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation; learn 
about what the Board of Trustees has been up to lately; and engage 
through the Question & Answers section!


When & Where?
The meeting will be held on October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC(check for 
your local time >)!
We promised at the last meeting to alternate the timings for these 
in order to accommodate a wider range of time zones to be able to 
join in.
At least 3 Trusteesand relevant Wikimedia Foundation staff will be 
in attendance.
The session will be streamed live and recorded, so those who cannot 
participate live will be able to watch later.
Those who cannot attend are welcome to send questions in advance to 
the session (details below).


How will it work?
The meeting will last for 90 minutes.
The first 40  minutes will includea short introductionto the 
session, and an update on what the Board has been working onlately.
It will be followed 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the Conversation with Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on October 20

[Elena Lappen]

Hi Mike,

Yes, of course! The meeting will be available on Commons and YouTube after the 
event. We will also be posting translated notes.

Best,
Elena

--
Elena Lappen (she/her)
Senior Movement Communications Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation 



> On Oct 15, 2021, at 12:42 PM, Mike Peel  wrote:
> 
> Hi Elena,
> 
> I can't attend this live, since it is happening during the working day in 
> Europe.
> 
> Please could you commit to sharing a recording (and multilingual audio) on 
> the Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia repository - Commons - after the event?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> On 15/10/21 20:35:03, Elena Lappen wrote:
>> Hi everyone!
>> This Conversation with the Foundation Board of Trustees is coming up next 
>> week on *October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC [1]*.
>> Based on requests we received, we have coordinated Spanish interpretation 
>> for this conversation. If you would like to hear the call in Spanish, you 
>> will need to join the Zoom room. Please register for the Zoom room in 
>> advance [2].
>> /Con base a las solicitudes que hemos recibido, hemos coordinado la 
>> interpretación en español para esta conversación. Si quieren escuchar la 
>> llamada en español, tendrán que unirse a la sala de Zoom. Por favor, 
>> regístrense para unirse a la sala Zoom con antelación [3]./
>> Thanks and hope to see you there!
>> Elena
>> [1] https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1634727630 
>> 
>> [2] 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2021-10-
>>  
>> 20_Conversation_with_Trustees#How_to_join
>> [3] 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2021-10-20_Conversation_with_Trustees/es#C%C3%B3mo_participar
>>  
>> 
>> --
>> Elena Lappen (she/her)
>> Senior Movement Communications Specialist
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>> On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Shani Evenstein >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello, everyone.
>>> 
>>> TLDR:
>>> Join the Conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on 
>>> October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC(check for your local time 
>>> ).
>>> 
>>> During the meeting, you will:
>>> * Meet the incoming CEO, Maryana Iskander.
>>> * Meet the candidates nominated through the latest Community-Selection 
>>> process to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees
>>> * Learn about Board Committees’ work
>>> * Engage through a Question & Answers session (partly pre-sent, and partly 
>>> live).
>>> 
>>> Now in more details:
>>> What are we announcing?
>>> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees’ Community Affairs Committee 
>>> (CAC)
>>>  is  hosting its second Conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of 
>>> Trustees (formerly called an Office Hour), which is an open forum for the 
>>> community to directly engage with Trustees.
>>> 
>>> Come and meet the Board of Trustees, including the candidates nominated for 
>>> the Board through the latest Community-Selection process, and the incoming 
>>> CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation; learn about what the Board of Trustees has 
>>> been up to lately; and engage through the Question & Answers section!
>>> 
>>> When & Where?
>>> The meeting will be held on October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC(check for your 
>>> local time )!
>>> We promised at the last meeting to alternate the timings for these in order 
>>> to accommodate a wider range of time zones to be able to join in.
>>> At least 3 Trusteesand relevant Wikimedia Foundation staff will be in 
>>> attendance.
>>> The session will be streamed live and recorded, so those who cannot 
>>> participate live will be able to watch later.
>>> Those who cannot attend are welcome to send questions in advance to the 
>>> session (details below).
>>> 
>>> How will it work?
>>> The meeting will last for 90 minutes.
>>> The first 40  minutes will includea short introductionto the session, and 
>>> an update on what the Board has been working onlately.
>>> It will be followed by 50 minutes of Questions & Answers: around 20-30 
>>> minutes of answering questions sent in advance, and an additional 20-30 
>>> minutes of live questions.
>>> We will be monitoring YouTube, the Wikimedia General Chat Telegram group 
>>> and the Meta talk page for live questions.
>>> We would like to encourage everyone, especially those who cannot 
>>> participate at the designated time, to send questions for the Board in 
>>> advance of the meeting. The structure is meant to enable the CAC to not 
>>> only update the community on current matters the Board is 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the Conversation with Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on October 20

[Mike Peel]

Hi Elena,

I can't attend this live, since it is happening during the working day 
in Europe.


Please could you commit to sharing a recording (and multilingual audio) 
on the Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia repository - Commons - after 
the event?


Thanks,
Mike

On 15/10/21 20:35:03, Elena Lappen wrote:

Hi everyone!

This Conversation with the Foundation Board of Trustees is coming up 
next week on *October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC [1]*.


Based on requests we received, we have coordinated Spanish 
interpretation for this conversation. If you would like to hear the call 
in Spanish, you will need to join the Zoom room. Please register for 
the Zoom room in advance [2].


/Con base a las solicitudes que hemos recibido, hemos coordinado la 
interpretación en español para esta conversación. Si quieren escuchar la 
llamada en español, tendrán que unirse a la sala de Zoom. Por 
favor, regístrense para unirse a la sala Zoom con antelación [3]./


Thanks and hope to see you there!
Elena

[1] https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1634727630 

[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2021-10- 
20_Conversation_with_Trustees#How_to_join
[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2021-10-20_Conversation_with_Trustees/es#C%C3%B3mo_participar 



--
Elena Lappen (she/her)
Senior Movement Communications Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation



On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Shani Evenstein > wrote:


Hello, everyone.

TLDR:
Join the Conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 
on October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC(check for your local time 
).


During the meeting, you will:
* Meet the incoming CEO, Maryana Iskander.
* Meet the candidates nominated through the latest Community-Selection 
process to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees

* Learn about Board Committees’ work
* Engage through a Question & Answers session (partly pre-sent, and 
partly live).


Now in more details:
What are we announcing?
The Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees’ Community Affairs 
Committee 
(CAC) 
is  hosting its second Conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation 
Board of Trustees (formerly called an Office Hour), which is an open 
forum for the community to directly engage with Trustees.


Come and meet the Board of Trustees, including the candidates 
nominated for the Board through the latest Community-Selection 
process, and the incoming CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation; learn about 
what the Board of Trustees has been up to lately; and engage through 
the Question & Answers section!


When & Where?
The meeting will be held on October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC(check for 
your local time )!
We promised at the last meeting to alternate the timings for these in 
order to accommodate a wider range of time zones to be able to join in.
At least 3 Trusteesand relevant Wikimedia Foundation staff will be in 
attendance.
The session will be streamed live and recorded, so those who cannot 
participate live will be able to watch later.
Those who cannot attend are welcome to send questions in advance to 
the session (details below).


How will it work?
The meeting will last for 90 minutes.
The first 40  minutes will includea short introductionto the session, 
and an update on what the Board has been working onlately.
It will be followed by 50 minutes of Questions & Answers: around 20-30 
minutes of answering questions sent in advance, and an additional 
20-30 minutes of live questions.
We will be monitoring YouTube, the Wikimedia General Chat Telegram 
group and the Meta talk page for live 
questions.
We would like to encourage everyone, especially those who cannot 
participate at the designated time, to send questions for the Board in 
advance of the meeting. The structure is meant to enable the CAC to 
not only update the community on current matters the Board is working 
on, but also hear directly from the community. This will both  
increase the transparency around the Board’s work and will help inform 
the CAC’s future work.


Setting the agenda with your Questions
In order to be as efficient as possible, and since we anticipate that 
some questions will require answers from Wikimedia Foundation Staff, 
we are encouraging community members to send questions in advance. 
Please send all questions to ask...@wikimedia.org 
, by Wednesday, October 13(midnight, 
whatever time zone you may be in).
The Q & A section in the meeting 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the Conversation with Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on October 20

[Elena Lappen]

Hi everyone! 

This Conversation with the Foundation Board of Trustees is coming up next week 
on October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC [1]. 

Based on requests we received, we have coordinated Spanish interpretation for 
this conversation. If you would like to hear the call in Spanish, you will need 
to join the Zoom room. Please register for the Zoom room in advance [2].

Con base a las solicitudes que hemos recibido, hemos coordinado la 
interpretación en español para esta conversación. Si quieren escuchar la 
llamada en español, tendrán que unirse a la sala de Zoom. Por favor, 
regístrense para unirse a la sala Zoom con antelación [3].

Thanks and hope to see you there!
Elena

[1] https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1634727630
[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2021-10-20_Conversation_with_Trustees#How_to_join
[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2021-10-20_Conversation_with_Trustees/es#C%C3%B3mo_participar

--
Elena Lappen (she/her)
Senior Movement Communications Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation 



> On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Shani Evenstein  wrote:
> 
> Hello, everyone.
> 
> TLDR: 
> Join the Conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on 
> October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC (check for your local time 
> ). 
> 
> During the meeting, you will: 
> * Meet the incoming CEO, Maryana Iskander.
> * Meet the candidates nominated through the latest Community-Selection 
> process to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees
> * Learn about Board Committees’ work
> * Engage through a Question & Answers session (partly pre-sent, and partly 
> live).   
> 
> Now in more details:
> What are we announcing?
> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees’ Community Affairs Committee 
> 
>  (CAC) is  hosting its second Conversation with the Wikimedia Foundation 
> Board of Trustees (formerly called an Office Hour), which is an open forum 
> for the community to directly engage with Trustees. 
> 
> Come and meet the Board of Trustees, including the candidates nominated for 
> the Board through the latest Community-Selection process, and the incoming 
> CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation; learn about what the Board of Trustees has 
> been up to lately; and engage through the Question & Answers section!
> 
> When & Where?
> The meeting will be held on October 20, 2021 at 11:00 UTC (check for your 
> local time )! 
> We promised at the last meeting to alternate the timings for these in order 
> to accommodate a wider range of time zones to be able to join in. 
> At least 3 Trustees and relevant Wikimedia Foundation staff will be in 
> attendance. 
> The session will be streamed live and recorded, so those who cannot 
> participate live will be able to watch later. 
> Those who cannot attend are welcome to send questions in advance to the 
> session (details below).
> 
> How will it work?
> The meeting will last for 90 minutes. 
> The first 40  minutes will include a short introduction to the session, and 
> an update on what the Board has been working on lately. 
> It will be followed by 50 minutes of Questions & Answers: around 20-30 
> minutes of answering questions sent in advance, and an additional 20-30 
> minutes of live questions. 
> We will be monitoring YouTube, the Wikimedia General Chat Telegram group 
>  and the Meta talk page for live questions. 
> We would like to encourage everyone, especially those who cannot participate 
> at the designated time, to send questions for the Board in advance of the 
> meeting. The structure is meant to enable the CAC to not only update the 
> community on current matters the Board is working on, but also hear directly 
> from the community. This will both  increase the transparency around the 
> Board’s work and will help inform the CAC’s future work.
> 
> Setting the agenda with your Questions
> In order to be as efficient as possible, and since we anticipate that some 
> questions will require answers from Wikimedia Foundation Staff, we are 
> encouraging community members to send questions in advance. Please send all 
> questions to ask...@wikimedia.org , by 
> Wednesday, October 13 (midnight, whatever time zone you may be in). 
> The Q & A section in the meeting agenda will be based on the main topics 
> related to the questions received. We will share more exact topics on Meta 
> 
>  3 days before the meeting, including final names of Trustees in attendance. 
> 
> Please note -- 
> * Participants will still be able to ask questions live if that is preferred.
> * If you miss the deadline for sending questions (October 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Thanks Vito and Samuel for your words,
As a leader of an Education Program, I talk every day to students, people who 
was born after Wikipedia and have assumed during all their life that Wikipedia 
exists. They are digital natives, but, for the good or for the bad, they are 
used to having everything deployed, working and simple. They are used to Google 
Drive and its collaboration platforms; they are used to just buying some new 
device and having the operative system there. They haven't dealt with 
installing their own OS, making separate drives for data and OS or just having 
folders in their desktop to save things.

I have been with more than 6.000 students in the last 4 years 
(https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/hezkuntza_programa/programs 
4.147 accounts created) and they are shocked with the obsolescence of our 
platform. They don't understand why they can't write simultaneously, why they 
can't upload videos, or why there's not autosave. I'm with them every day, so I 
hear what they think about the design, the usability. They make the same 
mistakes once and again, so I'm starting to think that those are not mistakes, 
but software/UX errors.

Our system was obsolete 10 years ago. Whenever we fix something, we are a 
decade late. The new vector will be, too, a decade late. And every change we 
aren't doing is losing new contributors. Old wikimedians will eventually leave 
the project, because they can't contribute, because they have lost their 
enthusiasm or just because they die. If we want to have a whole new generation 
of wikimedians editing, then things must be thought for them, making everything 
easier, appealing and aligned with the way they have to contribute. Desktop 
computers are disappearing. We still can't edit in a good way with our mobile 
phones. We have a whole strategy thought for the 2030, but we aren't making any 
real usability step in that direction.

We have still some time left. And we have the most important thing: a mountain 
of money. Let's invest in the best way we can: attracting a new generation of 
Wikimedians who will push our projects to new heights and will make that little 
investment of money multiply for the future.

Galder

PD: Samuel, yes, of course, I use tropes, stylistic recourses and metaphors. 
I'm trying to tell something! 


From: Vi to 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 9:07 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

Regular contributors experience is quite different from less frequent 
contributors and (above all) readers. People into user interfaces design surely 
have a proper word for this, but we're used to a variety of small tricks/habits 
which are somehow expensive to change.

For example, since OOUI's developed I've been upset because it seems to need 
some more keystrokes for blocks and deletions. I, for one, am still using 
monobook, and I won't change it unless forced.

Introducing visual editor implied a cost for the communities to fix garbage 
wikicode introduced by VE during its first weeks/months, some years later, 
linterrors became the best game for our bots.

So I can confirm the inertia of regular editors about user interface is, 
usually, humongous, but also the project themselves have an enormous inertia 
since they are collections of terabytes of wikicode created during almost two 
decades.

I feel like this problem has never been addressed in a wide, strategic, way, 
leaving developers being torn apart by conflicting needs.

Vito

Il giorno ven 15 ott 2021 alle ore 19:11 Eduardo Testart 
mailto:etest...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:
Hi all,

A good example around this subject was the Visual Editor tool implementation, 
strongly opposed by the community in the beginning, and developed by the WMF, 
as it was probably necessary to turn Wikipedia into a more modern website.

A lot about the latter can be found and read as a real example of this debate

The cultural behavior of the group is a big factor on any technological 
implementation on the Wikimedia world, and to change culture, you need much 
more than money.

Sorry if this was mentioned before.


Cheers,


El vie., 15 de oct. de 2021 07:13, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>> escribió:
No, I don't have all the answers. Is just that every time someone says: "hey! 
this is broken!" and receives an excuse and then says again "HEY! THIS IS 
BROKEN!" the answer is not: "ok, we'll try to figure out how to solve it" but: 
"don't use caps". I'm a volunteer. I have spent lots of time trying to solve 
issues. Most of this time wasn't about the issue, was about someone trying to 
convince me that the bug was a feature. And now, when I tell here where "I 
THINK" that the problem is, I get a "you are being rude" excuse. Great. I'm 
being rude. Now, can we fix the problem?

Thanks

Galder

From: Dan Garry (Deskana) mailto:djgw...@gmail.com>>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Vi to]

Regular contributors experience is quite different from less frequent
contributors and (above all) readers. People into user interfaces design
surely have a proper word for this, but we're used to a variety of small
tricks/habits which are somehow expensive to change.

For example, since OOUI's developed I've been upset because it seems to
need some more keystrokes for blocks and deletions. I, for one, am still
using monobook, and I won't change it unless forced.

Introducing visual editor implied a cost for the communities to fix garbage
wikicode introduced by VE during its first weeks/months, some years later,
linterrors became the best game for our bots.

So I can confirm the inertia of regular editors about user interface is,
usually, humongous, but also the project themselves have an enormous
inertia since they are collections of terabytes of wikicode created during
almost two decades.

I feel like this problem has never been addressed in a wide, strategic,
way, leaving developers being torn apart by conflicting needs.

Vito

Il giorno ven 15 ott 2021 alle ore 19:11 Eduardo Testart 
ha scritto:

> Hi all,
>
> A good example around this subject was the Visual Editor tool
> implementation, strongly opposed by the community in the beginning, and
> developed by the WMF, as it was probably necessary to turn Wikipedia into a
> more modern website.
>
> A lot about the latter can be found and read as a real example of this
> debate
>
> The cultural behavior of the group is a big factor on any technological
> implementation on the Wikimedia world, and to change culture, you need much
> more than money.
>
> Sorry if this was mentioned before.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> El vie., 15 de oct. de 2021 07:13, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> escribió:
>
>> No, I don't have all the answers. Is just that every time someone says:
>> "hey! this is broken!" and receives an excuse and then says again "HEY!
>> THIS IS BROKEN!" the answer is not: "ok, we'll try to figure out how to
>> solve it" but: "don't use caps". I'm a volunteer. I have spent lots of time
>> trying to solve issues. Most of this time wasn't about the issue, was about
>> someone trying to convince me that the bug was a feature. And now, when I
>> tell here where "I THINK" that the problem is, I get a "you are being rude"
>> excuse. Great. I'm being rude. Now, can we fix the problem?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Galder
>> --
>> *From:* Dan Garry (Deskana) 
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 15, 2021 12:08 PM
>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 11:03, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
>> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Dan for using the Excuse 6: *At this point in the circle, there
>> is some volunteer who wants to fix this and raises the tone of the request.
>> Then we find the mother of all excuses, the wild card: you are being rude
>> and do not assume good faith. Excuse 6.*
>>
>>
>> I guess you've got all the answers then, eh?
>>
>> I think we're done here.
>>
>> Dan
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JLLSHUB4BVKVUU6TJDXG6NTDXSIX6JW3/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DYUOHFS4RBZKEQX6C5SUXNVCLMR2MGEC/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VOP7FAAQVWWENJRZDHKMCJ4BMZJ65IDQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Toolhub 1.0 is launched! Discover software tools used at Wikimedia

[Anupam Dutta]

Is the tool superb ?? There is no knowing, because unless one knows the
name of the software, one cannot locate it.

So, immediately version 1.1 is needed where we can search by Category...

Otherwise, it is useless.

Anupamdutta73


On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, 03:06 Samuel Klein  wrote:

> This is priceless.  Thank you Hay for leading the way :) and thanks to ev
> e ry one who made this happen.
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 4:04 PM MusikAnimal  wrote:
>
>> A long time coming! The interface looks amazing and seems very well
>> thought out. It's nice to have an official, single go-to for all things
>> tools, user scripts, gadgets, etc. Huge thanks and kudos to everyone
>> involved!
>>
>> ~ MA
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 3:37 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
>> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Brigit, for this hub, it is great to have it! I have tried and
>>> can't find any way to look for tools that are not nominated as "Coolest
>>> Tool Award" besides looking for name. Is there a way for searching by
>>> categories?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Galder
>>> --
>>> *From:* Birgit Müller 
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 14, 2021 4:58 PM
>>> *To:* wikitech-l ;
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org ;
>>> Wikimedia Cloud Services general discussion and support <
>>> cl...@lists.wikimedia.org>; wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org <
>>> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org>; wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> 
>>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Toolhub 1.0 is launched! Discover software
>>> tools used at Wikimedia
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> We are happy to announce the launch of Toolhub
>>>  – a community-authored catalogue that
>>> aims to make software tools
>>>  used in
>>> the Wikimedia movement discoverable to everyone.
>>>
>>> Community developed tools – including web applications, bots, gadgets,
>>> user scripts, lua modules, and more – play a significant role in the
>>> Wikimedia projects. These software applications address a wide range of use
>>> cases including finding bad faith edits and other content curation, bulk
>>> editing, collecting statistical information, creating special citations,
>>> and much more. About ⅓ of all edits are made by bots and tools. In
>>> addition, semi-automated edits are helped by user scripts, gadgets, and
>>> other editing assistance tools that run from the user's local computer or
>>> directly inside the wikis. There are thousands of tools available, but how
>>> can you find them?
>>>
>>> With Toolhub, you can document and find tools
>>> , promote their use in your
>>> wiki community, and help improve them by contributing data. You can create
>>> and share lists of tools relevant to your work - for example, for GLAM
>>> tools, or for wiki projects such as Women in Red.
>>>
>>> This first release provides a core set of functionalities
>>> , and contains an
>>> initial data set of about 1500 tools. Most of the initial tools in the
>>> catalog are imported from the same data files developers have created for 
>>> Hay's
>>> Directory  which has been a major
>>> inspiration for Toolhub.
>>>
>>> Toolhub serves developers and users of tools alike. It is part of our
>>> efforts to improve the infrastructure and services for technical
>>> contributors, captured under one of Technology’s top level objectives in
>>> the FY 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 annual plans: Tech Community Building
>>> .
>>> We hope to continue conversations with developers and users of tools,
>>> plan to improve Toolhub, and to further expand the functionality.
>>>
>>> A collaborative system and open developer platform
>>>
>>> Toolhub is built as an API driven platform that makes it possible to
>>> extend and remix the catalogue, and to make collecting and reusing
>>> information about tools as open and collaborative as we can. Everything
>>> that can be done interactively with the Toolhub website can also be done
>>> remotely through the API. We would love to hear from technical
>>> contributors interested in using the Toolhub API
>>>  to build new
>>> tools that make new ways to add or consume information from Toolhub's
>>> catalog.
>>>
>>> Our decision record
>>>  and weekly
>>> progress reports
>>>  on Meta
>>> provide more insights in technical implementation details and decisions
>>> made throughout the development process. The Toolhub/About page
>>>  provides information on
>>> project origin, research, use cases, data model, and roadmap. This recording
>>> from a 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks Galder for the provocative thread and Jonathan for your reflections
(in this thread and in issues elsewhere, past and present).

Galder -- I'm thinking about how to refactor your observations to make them
less personal, more general, easier to work with.
This issue and these patterns are not specific to {design | the foundation
| a developer/user feedback loop}, but the example you raise makes it
tangible.  Design is often an area that amplifies them - there's a reason
that *barn-raising* and *shed-painting* are analogies for very
different human tendencies...

You might call this class of interactions *feedback tropes* – like fiction
tropes , there are thousands of
common ones, not just a handful. They are mostly not "excuses" [other than
what you numbered 5.x].  Many tropes which you mention but did not number
("don't change anything", "better than nothing [don't take forever]", "this
doesn't even scratch the surface [so why bother]", "what have you done for
us lately", "you are bad at this") are part of their own cycle.

Naming more of these tropes might help defuse tension and avoid spiralling
– most tropes have known and relatively straightforward resolutions.

I can also see how these two cycles can amplify one another, though it
doesn't need to be that way.  For instance, in the thoughtfully
detailed Phab tickets you linked, where both you and others participating
feel fed up for different reasons.

SJ
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/P6W2QAZWXIUEILTDXWIV4IJTXRPRCZNQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Eduardo Testart]

Hi all,

A good example around this subject was the Visual Editor tool
implementation, strongly opposed by the community in the beginning, and
developed by the WMF, as it was probably necessary to turn Wikipedia into a
more modern website.

A lot about the latter can be found and read as a real example of this
debate

The cultural behavior of the group is a big factor on any technological
implementation on the Wikimedia world, and to change culture, you need much
more than money.

Sorry if this was mentioned before.


Cheers,


El vie., 15 de oct. de 2021 07:13, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> escribió:

> No, I don't have all the answers. Is just that every time someone says:
> "hey! this is broken!" and receives an excuse and then says again "HEY!
> THIS IS BROKEN!" the answer is not: "ok, we'll try to figure out how to
> solve it" but: "don't use caps". I'm a volunteer. I have spent lots of time
> trying to solve issues. Most of this time wasn't about the issue, was about
> someone trying to convince me that the bug was a feature. And now, when I
> tell here where "I THINK" that the problem is, I get a "you are being rude"
> excuse. Great. I'm being rude. Now, can we fix the problem?
>
> Thanks
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> *Sent:* Friday, October 15, 2021 12:08 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 11:03, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Dan for using the Excuse 6: *At this point in the circle, there is
> some volunteer who wants to fix this and raises the tone of the request.
> Then we find the mother of all excuses, the wild card: you are being rude
> and do not assume good faith. Excuse 6.*
>
>
> I guess you've got all the answers then, eh?
>
> I think we're done here.
>
> Dan
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JLLSHUB4BVKVUU6TJDXG6NTDXSIX6JW3/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DYUOHFS4RBZKEQX6C5SUXNVCLMR2MGEC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board September/October meeting outcomes

[Nataliia Tymkiv]

Dear all,

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [1] has concluded its meetings
for this quarter and I would like to provide you with an overview of the
outcomes of its September/October one [2]. All resolutions and other
resources are linked at the end of this message. Other relevant pages on
Meta are being updated.

As previously posted here on this list, the Board appointed the new
Trustees (Victoria Doronina, Lorenzo Losa, and Rosie
Stephenson-Goodknight), renewed Dariusz Jemielniak’s term [3] [4] [5] [6]
[7], and approved the Brand Resolution [8]. Many thanks to all of those
involved.

The Board also approved committee assignments [9]. Much of the Board’s
business is completed through the Board Committees, which are now tasked
with creating their priorities for the coming year. The Board will review
these priorities in December and vote to approve them as the 2022 Board
priorities, and will then publish them on Meta. The Board has approved its
Officer appointments for the next term. I shall continue as Board Chair
with Shani Evenstein-Sigalov and Esra’a Al Shafei continuing as Vice
Chairs.

The Board recently completed a committee evolution plan [10] that we are
now implementing. Part of this plan included creating an Executive
Committee [11], which will be composed of the Board Chair, Board
Vice-Chairs, and the Chairs of the Board committees. The Board approved
this as well as updating the Product Committee to the Product and
Technology Committee.

Each Committee also provided an update on their activities for the last
quarter. Highlights include:

   -

   The Audit Committee reviewed and approved the 2019 Form 990 [12], the
   annual informational document required by the Internal Revenue Service
   (IRS) for non-profit organizations in the United States.
   -

   The Board Governance Committee drafted a Trustee Code of Conduct [13],
   which was unanimously approved by the Board.
   -

   The Human Resources Committee completed its work around recruitment of a
   new CEO [14]. Maryana Iskander
   
will
   officially begin as CEO on January 5, 2022.
   -

   The Community Affairs Committee has been involved in community facing
   communication related to the Board selection process, Strategy
   implementation, Grants etc, hosted several public facing events, including
   an interactive session at Wikimania. The CAC also facilitated sessions with
   the candidates running for election.
   -

   The Product Committee continued its work, in partnership with Wikimedia
   Foundation staff, on a multi-year product-platform strategy.
   -

   The Special Projects Committee worked with staff to create a new
   onboarding process for incoming trustees. This work will continue over the
   next several months.


The Board also heard many updates from staff regarding the ongoing work of
the Foundation, including Wikimedia Enterprise. Please read the Board
statement for more information [15].

Also, the Board approved the minutes from the last meeting in August [16].

The Community Affairs Committee will be providing additional information on
the work of the Board at the October 20 Conversation with the Board

[17]. You can submit questions via ask...@wikimedia.org in advance. I hope
you are able to join this session.

Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees

[2] The meeting was online, over the course of a few days -- September (8,
15, 29), October (4, 13)

[3]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/10/13/wikimedia-foundation-welcomes-new-trustees-rosie-stephenson-goodknight-victoria-doronina-dariusz-jemielniak-and-lorenzo-losa/


[4]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Appointing_Victoria_Doronina_to_the_Board_of_Trustees

[5]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Appointing_Lorenzo_Losa_to_the_Board_of_Trustees

[6]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Appointing_Rosie_Stephenson-Goodknight_to_the_Board_of_Trustees

[7]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Renewing_Dariusz_Jemielniak%E2%80%99s_Appointment_to_the_Board_of_Trustees,_2021

[8]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Next_Steps_for_Brand_Work,_2021


[9]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_Officers_and_Committee_Membership,_2021


[10]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:2021_Committee_Evolution_Plan


[11]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Creating_an_Executive_Committee_and_Updating_Committee_Charters


[12]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRS_tax_related_information/2019_Wikimedia_Foundation_Form_990_Frequently_Asked_Questions


[13]

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Toolhub 1.0 is launched! Discover software tools used at Wikimedia

[Birgit Müller]

Thanks Galder :-) - answers are below:

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:38 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Brigit, for this hub, it is great to have it! I have tried and
> can't find any way to look for tools that are not nominated as "Coolest
> Tool Award" besides looking for name. Is there a way for searching by
> categories?
>

Today you can try searching for various keywords to find tools in the
catalog (i.e. "Wikidata", "image", "editor", "template" ...). We're
interested in adding support for the community to organize tools in
categories/based on use cases in the future. There are some notes from past
Design Research on that in the Data Model documentation. [0]

Please feel welcome to comment on the talk page if you have further
questions or ideas! [1]

Birgit

[0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Toolhub/Data_model#Tool_use_cases
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Toolhub



>
> Thanks
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Birgit Müller 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 14, 2021 4:58 PM
> *To:* wikitech-l ;
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org ;
> Wikimedia Cloud Services general discussion and support <
> cl...@lists.wikimedia.org>; wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org <
> wikid...@lists.wikimedia.org>; wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org <
> wikitech-ambassad...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Toolhub 1.0 is launched! Discover software tools
> used at Wikimedia
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> We are happy to announce the launch of Toolhub
>  – a community-authored catalogue that
> aims to make software tools
>  used in
> the Wikimedia movement discoverable to everyone.
>
> Community developed tools – including web applications, bots, gadgets,
> user scripts, lua modules, and more – play a significant role in the
> Wikimedia projects. These software applications address a wide range of use
> cases including finding bad faith edits and other content curation, bulk
> editing, collecting statistical information, creating special citations,
> and much more. About ⅓ of all edits are made by bots and tools. In
> addition, semi-automated edits are helped by user scripts, gadgets, and
> other editing assistance tools that run from the user's local computer or
> directly inside the wikis. There are thousands of tools available, but how
> can you find them?
>
> With Toolhub, you can document and find tools
> , promote their use in your wiki
> community, and help improve them by contributing data. You can create and
> share lists of tools relevant to your work - for example, for GLAM tools,
> or for wiki projects such as Women in Red.
>
> This first release provides a core set of functionalities
> , and contains an
> initial data set of about 1500 tools. Most of the initial tools in the
> catalog are imported from the same data files developers have created for 
> Hay's
> Directory  which has been a major
> inspiration for Toolhub.
>
> Toolhub serves developers and users of tools alike. It is part of our
> efforts to improve the infrastructure and services for technical
> contributors, captured under one of Technology’s top level objectives in
> the FY 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 annual plans: Tech Community Building
> .
> We hope to continue conversations with developers and users of tools, plan
> to improve Toolhub, and to further expand the functionality.
>
> A collaborative system and open developer platform
>
> Toolhub is built as an API driven platform that makes it possible to
> extend and remix the catalogue, and to make collecting and reusing
> information about tools as open and collaborative as we can. Everything
> that can be done interactively with the Toolhub website can also be done
> remotely through the API. We would love to hear from technical
> contributors interested in using the Toolhub API
>  to build new tools
> that make new ways to add or consume information from Toolhub's catalog.
>
> Our decision record
>  and weekly
> progress reports
>  on Meta
> provide more insights in technical implementation details and decisions
> made throughout the development process. The Toolhub/About page
>  provides information on
> project origin, research, use cases, data model, and roadmap. This recording
> from a lightning talk at ‘21 Wikimania
>  gives an overview of the
> main aspects in 10 minutes.
>
> Thank you <3
>
> This project wouldn’t have been possible without the support, 

[Wikimedia-l] Reminder - UCoC conversation hour is happening right now

[Youngjin Ko]

Hello there,

This is a reminder that UCoC conversation hour will be happening right now,
to collect the last minute feedback about Enforcement Draft Guideline

We are online until 15:30 UTC.
Meeting link: https://meet.google.com/yxd-eaza-gpf

Feel free to drop by
Thanks,
-- 
*Youngjin Ko *(he/him)

Movement Strategy and Governance facilitator
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZCATSHDG73Q2CQXHLQJCTRTKFICQJUWP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

No, I don't have all the answers. Is just that every time someone says: "hey! 
this is broken!" and receives an excuse and then says again "HEY! THIS IS 
BROKEN!" the answer is not: "ok, we'll try to figure out how to solve it" but: 
"don't use caps". I'm a volunteer. I have spent lots of time trying to solve 
issues. Most of this time wasn't about the issue, was about someone trying to 
convince me that the bug was a feature. And now, when I tell here where "I 
THINK" that the problem is, I get a "you are being rude" excuse. Great. I'm 
being rude. Now, can we fix the problem?

Thanks

Galder

From: Dan Garry (Deskana) 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 12:08 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 11:03, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks Dan for using the Excuse 6: At this point in the circle, there is some 
volunteer who wants to fix this and raises the tone of the request. Then we 
find the mother of all excuses, the wild card: you are being rude and do not 
assume good faith. Excuse 6.

I guess you've got all the answers then, eh?

I think we're done here.

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JLLSHUB4BVKVUU6TJDXG6NTDXSIX6JW3/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 11:03, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Dan for using the Excuse 6: *At this point in the circle, there is
> some volunteer who wants to fix this and raises the tone of the request.
> Then we find the mother of all excuses, the wild card: you are being rude
> and do not assume good faith. Excuse 6.*
>

I guess you've got all the answers then, eh?

I think we're done here.

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/55QRO66HA2VA3FCZ3TN2ARGV6AEKT3O3/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Thanks Dan for using the Excuse 6: At this point in the circle, there is some 
volunteer who wants to fix this and raises the tone of the request. Then we 
find the mother of all excuses, the wild card: you are being rude and do not 
assume good faith. Excuse 6.

From: Dan Garry (Deskana) 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 11:58 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 08:47, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
mailto:galder...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Dear all,
I don't know if this already has a name, but I'm going to invent one: The Great 
Circle of Excuse. It works like this: we have all realized that something needs 
to be improved, let's say the design of our website. Then, WMF gets a group of 
workers to think about it, and they come up with some changes that neither 
respond to the needs nor are really a change beyond certain aesthetic resources.

I stopped reading at this point. What you've written here is pretty insulting. 
There's a valid point buried under your rhetoric, but you're exacerbating the 
problem by being so rude and dismissive.

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NXFGZAOOMQ4FOJERJBVLPOEIJSGLWUCE/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 08:47, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> I don't know if this already has a name, but I'm going to invent one: The
> Great Circle of Excuse. It works like this: we have all realized that
> something needs to be improved, let's say the design of our website. Then,
> WMF gets a group of workers to think about it, and they come up with some
> changes that neither respond to the needs nor are really a change beyond
> certain aesthetic resources.
>

I stopped reading at this point. What you've written here is pretty
insulting. There's a valid point buried under your rhetoric, but you're
exacerbating the problem by being so rude and dismissive.

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DUQG4Q7ICK53BP7KCVNTKX7FKTFC7GXY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 100$ million dollars and still obsolete

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Dear all,
I don't know if this already has a name, but I'm going to invent one: The Great 
Circle of Excuse. It works like this: we have all realized that something needs 
to be improved, let's say the design of our website. Then, WMF gets a group of 
workers to think about it, and they come up with some changes that neither 
respond to the needs nor are really a change beyond certain aesthetic 
resources. It is always mentioned (excuse 1) that these changes have been 
measured externally (and, coincidentally, reinforce the design made) and 
(excuse 2) that there are people who do not want any change, so it is better 
not to be radical and make a patch that, in reality, we all know that it does 
not solve anything.

Then a previous design is presented to the community and a lot of comments are 
collected. As the design is only partial (look, this is what the Moon article 
is going to look like 
https://people.wikimedia.org/~jdrewniak/dip/#/en/wiki/Moon), and does not 
respond to all the other sections we have (home page, search pages, categories, 
menus...), you receive feedback that can be categorized into two main groups: 
the small group A tells you not to change anything. The big group B tells you 
that it doesn't even scratch the surface of the necessary changes 
(https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Prototype_testing).
 You have a few outsiders who tell you: "well, this is better than nothing". At 
that point you decide that you have to weigh group A with group B, so your 
design is right in the middle of the will of the community, and you go ahead 
without making the slightest change. Excuse 3 is set up: I heard the community 
and I'm weighing everyone's wishes. In reality, you only listen to your design 
and those outsiders who have told you it's better than nothing. The majority 
will continue to see that this is going nowhere and a minority will continue to 
be angry that you have made changes when they don't think you should have.

After excuse 3, it's time to implement. You decide that this has to be done in 
a very long process, where you measure the impact of every little change, 
without taking into account that every little change break something that was 
already working. So, you have trivial changes that break things, covered by 
excuse 4: we are measuring the impact. Even if the impact contradicts your 
assumption, the change will still be there 
(https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T285755). Because, hey, who cares (excuse 
4.1).


At this point, some members of the community decide to open issues in 
Phabricator. We reach the peak of excuse making. If something was working and 
now it can't be: we broke it on purpose by design (excuse 5.1 
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T290480), nobody was using that functionality 
(excuse 5.2 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T287609), that problem you 
mention is invalid, so your proposal is not even considered (excuse 5.3: 
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T289212) or that thing you ask for is out of 
our scope of work (excuse 5.4 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T292617 or 
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T293405...). There is a more complex version, 
let's call it excuse 5.1-4) where you ask for something in Phabricator, you are 
told to mention it on the MediaWiki discussion page, you get no answer there, 
you go back to Phabricator, and then one of the above four excuses is triggered.

At this point in the circle, there is some volunteer who wants to fix this and 
raises the tone of the request. Then we find the mother of all excuses, the 
wild card: you are being rude and do not assume good faith. Excuse 6.

At this point a new figure appears: the direct meeting with the team that is 
developing this. The team wants to listen to you. Actually, it's the opposite: 
they want you to listen to the new excuses that exist in the circle. You go 
through excuses 3, 4 and 5 with them. As excuse 6 can no longer be used, 
because you are there volunteering your time to try to improve something, 
excuse 7 appears: we can't take on these changes because our team is small and 
we can't make the logical changes you are suggesting for another 2 or 3 years. 
Maybe. If there are funds.

So the user who has gone through excuses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5x, 6 and 7 decides to 
write an email to the mailing list where the community will see that the 
problem is 7: there is not a big enough team to undertake something that we 
have decided in our strategic discussion. In fact, we are going in the opposite 
direction of the strategic goals. But we have money. A lot of it. A lot of 
money. We are sitting on mountains of money. We could simply hire people so 
that we can improve our system so much that it works perfectly for another 
decade and then, with minimal investment in staff, get a lot more money from 
people who like our service a lot more than they did before.

But no, instead we get excuse 8: there are actually enough staff, but those