[Wikimedia-l] Is (Wikipedian-in-residence, a proposal) to update?

[Željko Blaće]

Before this last 21st day in the 21st year of 21st century
is globally over, I try to re-initiate re-thinking
on this 15 years old proposal for a Wikipedian-in-residence
http://original-research.blogspot.com/2006/12/wikipedian-in-residence-proposal.html
but also articles in (only) 27 language Wikipedias,

Meta, Outreach wiki and elsewhere
for updating the notion of WIR and roles it performs in Wikimedia,
an ecosystem of diverse entities, dynamics and relations.

As Wikimedians with wider perspective than a single wiki project, often
more than a single language and for sure more than single community, gear
up to discuss and act on 2030 strategy, that includes new initiatives, new
formations of decentering resources, new content, forms and methods of
working, with new priorities, conditions, tools, services and what
not…there is also a value in reflecting and reimagining what is already
established but often overlooked practice.

Some of the WIR practitioners have been self-reflecting on and off publicly
https://wikistrategies.net/5-things-wikipedian-in-residence/ and engaging
with communities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9YgFm2eso there was also
network establishment.
3 years ago WREN UG (Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network User Group)
was recognized with the aim to protect the common elements of the role and
for creating a peer support network of new and experienced WIRs for
collaboration and to encourage a global professional environment which
inspires institutions to appoint persons to engage with Wikimedia.

In recent times Wikipedian-in-Residence, is more often
Wikimedian-in-Residence, in rapid growth of Commons and Wikidata (but also
in 2021 first one in Wiktionary) and sometimes Wikimedian-at-Large, in more
generalized practice of strategy or direction setting work.
Additionally in time of pandemic when doing physical events is challenging
and many of the (potential) partner organizations are closing down or
limiting public events to bare essential, short and transient it is more
important than ever that individuals (rather than cohorts of editathon
enthusiasts) keep revisiting institutions and work with them in a most
flexible mode and scale.

Finally to start both re-visioning and maybe even re-positioning WIRs in
Wikimedia we should think of what this network of ‘free agents’ can bring
towards 2030, beyond what WMF, affiliates, UGs, HUBs, WikiProjects and
other organizational forms can. Also think how much more useful this
initial inspiration of artists, writers and researchers in residence could
be if these creative and critical roles in the art and cultural sector get
embraced and encouraged more often and more intentionally.

Z. Blace
___
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/LLPODGYR7UVIP2KESHKUPJK2QR7MYYMK/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Wikisource gains a public

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am really happy to have noticed that Wikisource books will be offered by
the Internet Archive in its Open Library project.

Obviously, it is well deserved that Wikisource gets a bigger public.

I have two questions:
* to what extent is the Wikimedia Foundation aware and has been involved
* are there other projects where by collaboration with other orgs we will
have a bigger impact?

Thanks,
  GerardM

https://blog.openlibrary.org/2021/12/20/introducing-trusted-book-providers/
___
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/W6G3JOA4FUGSFHRKOAFE6FIYKIPLSZSI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Suggestion] Feedback/Request for Comments: On Closing the Loop on a Consultation

[Ashwin Baindur]

It would be great if each person who posts the first post in a thread
asking for feedback, closes the loop. Request all our Indian Wikimedian
friends to adhere to this best practice. :)

AshLin
___
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/AIJOW5JA4VVR3JISNCG5AQDK2PBU6TIK/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] [Suggestion] Feedback/Request for Comments: On Closing the Loop on a Consultation

[Tito Dutta]

Hello,

Problem statement: Various movement processes, programs, often request
feedback, suggestions or comments. In the process, they get feedback and
questions through different channels such as mailing lists, office hours,
talk pages etc. Now, sometimes it remains unclear what happens next.
Sometimes it remains unclear if a requested feedback is taken/incorporated
or not (and why?). And sometimes feedback and questions remain just
unanswered.
Possible solution: "Feedback was requested" and "Feedback is received" —
now this loop needs to be closed. Closing the loop in a consultation
process is important. (narration below)

A technology policy analyst spoke at Wikimedia Summit 2019. I'll quote a
part from the video[1]. He told—
"The core of responsive regulation is community consultation processes.
However, closing the loop on the consultation process is critical,
otherwise participants feel that they have wasted time providing feedback.
For example, the Indian telecom regulator first issues a consultation
paper. Then solicits the first round of feedback, then solicits a second
round of counter comments, then they hold round tables, and, finally, they
issue the recommendation or the regulation. But when they do that, they
make sure they close the loop. They provide reasoned explanations for why
suggestions were rejected... ..."

When any important major Wikimedia process comes forward and asks for
feedback or suggestions, there might be different results such as
feedback/suggestion accepted, partially accepted, rejected, not actionable,
kept on hold etc. However, closing the loop in this process is important,
example: "we received "this" feedback and this feedback was not
incorporated or was not actionable "because ___"..."

How can it help?
"Closure of a feedback loop" can:
a) help to understand how a feedback/suggestion was taken/noted, and what
were the observations?
b) show respect to the people and their feedback, and most possibly
encourage people to share feedback and ask questions in the next
consultation process
c) eliminate duplication. If a particular feedback is taken to a
conclusion, several other people don't need to suggest the same thing in
future.

I am posting this as an individual, and over-all this is a process-related
suggestion/feedback.
If the major Wikimedia processes or programs soliciting feedback or
questions consider this, I think that will be very helpful.
Regards,
User:Titodutta

References
[1] Video:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Summit_2019_-_Key_listener_Sunil_Abraham.webm
(quoted timestamp: around 3:40 of the video). Used as a general citation
from resource available on Wikimedia Commons
___
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/DFKDA5XKUISMGUCXPHMNMQJTXQ37ND66/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Fwd: Meta, WikiMedia, and the Hewlett Foundation partner with Africa No Filter

[Samuel Klein]

> our main focus has been identifying ways to work with the Africa Union to
plug them into
> ongoing and future priorities and initiatives in the region, with this
project being the first step towards that.

Perhaps an easy 'zeroth step' would be naming at least one community
lead/contact for any planned project, along with a description of the
project, somewhere on one of our wikis.  [A partnerships page on meta?]

> we don't think it's also feasible to consult each and every opportunity
at hand, creating even extra work for volunteers.

Confusion and uncertainty create more work than transparency. :)
Just share what is known in a public document, and make sure anything that
reaches the stage of a publicly announcable effort has active community
leadership.  Having to reconstruct this (here an exclusive reliance on
staff seems to mean at least a 5-week delay in even understanding what the
project might entail! unless one follows up with ANF to find out what they
hope to realize w/ their wikimedian in residence -- duplicating effort)

> although we would have preferred not to be grouped together in a single
announcement,
> we can't control the way a third party decides to share their information.

Perhaps we can.  Just today I had to sign boilerplate language from a large
org that says "you may list our name/logo on your site to indicate
collaboration or partnership only if part of at least 5 other logos, and
our logo may not be larger/more emphasized than the others".

I recommend requiring any partners to agree that our brands and names will
never be used in the same sentence as "Meta" as it refers to Facebook's
parent org, in public announcements or on web pages, for obvious reasons of
confusion and divergence of principles and goals.

SJ
#WTW /1

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:25 PM Jorge Vargas  wrote:

> Dear Florence,
>
> As promised, wanted to make sure we circled back before the holiday break
> after getting more information. Per my last communication, I want to
> reiterate we are indeed working on a project that is framed under a larger
> collaboration being discussed with the Africa Union. This collaboration was
> not initiated or directed specifically with Africa No Filter, which was
> only involved by the African Union as part of the process. Along the way,
> Africa No Filter has shown more interest in playing a more active role in
> the project, which we're still currently discussing if and how they
> partake. So far, our main focus has been identifying ways to work with the
> Africa Union to plug them into ongoing and future priorities and
> initiatives in the region, with this project being the first step towards
> that.
>
> Due to some WMF staff absences and a few logistical mishaps, we were not
> in a good position to fully coordinate on Africa No Filter’s announcement,
> which went live without final confirmation from them. That was not our
> intention, and we regret if this caught you or anyone else off guard. The
> goal remains to finalize a Diff post that will share the details of the
> project and was meant to be posted prior to any other announcements. In the
> interest of allowing everyone their holiday rest (and because this project
> is not really yet in motion), we will be communicating more about it in
> January 2022 in a Diff post and other channels. We also want to reiterate
> that this partnership has absolutely nothing to do with Meta or the Hewlett
> Foundation, and although we would have preferred not to be grouped together
> in a single announcement, we can't control the way a third party decides to
> share their information.
>
> Our work with the Africa Union has started in 2021 as part of the work the
> Foundation has done to listen to local initiatives, identify ways to
> engage, and support existing priorities in the region. Recognizing we can
> always do better, our teams are plugged into the field as much as possible,
> hearing needs and identifying synergies to what the movement is
> prioritizing locally. We strongly believe this project is aligned and
> follows the line of other projects we've been supporting in the region.
> This or any other project is also not coming from staff or stakeholders
> outside of Africa, and it's our critical intention that relevant work for
> the region and our movement there is led and supported regionally. We can
> also assure you that the project will continue to have plenty of room for
> feedback and discussion, as it's meant to be implemented within the
> movement priorities in 2022. We expect to have those interested partake and
> get involved!
>
> Your email does flag something relevant that we take to heart, which is
> how we can find ways to make sure relevant stakeholders locally can have
> better participation and due diligence earlier in these processes. Our
> intention will never be to create competing priorities, yet we don't think
> it's also feasible to consult each and every opportunity at hand, creating
> even extra wor

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Fwd: Meta, WikiMedia, and the Hewlett Foundation partner with Africa No Filter

[Jorge Vargas]

Dear Florence,

As promised, wanted to make sure we circled back before the holiday break
after getting more information. Per my last communication, I want to
reiterate we are indeed working on a project that is framed under a larger
collaboration being discussed with the Africa Union. This collaboration was
not initiated or directed specifically with Africa No Filter, which was
only involved by the African Union as part of the process. Along the way,
Africa No Filter has shown more interest in playing a more active role in
the project, which we're still currently discussing if and how they
partake. So far, our main focus has been identifying ways to work with the
Africa Union to plug them into ongoing and future priorities and
initiatives in the region, with this project being the first step towards
that.

Due to some WMF staff absences and a few logistical mishaps, we were not in
a good position to fully coordinate on Africa No Filter’s announcement,
which went live without final confirmation from them. That was not our
intention, and we regret if this caught you or anyone else off guard. The
goal remains to finalize a Diff post that will share the details of the
project and was meant to be posted prior to any other announcements. In the
interest of allowing everyone their holiday rest (and because this project
is not really yet in motion), we will be communicating more about it in
January 2022 in a Diff post and other channels. We also want to reiterate
that this partnership has absolutely nothing to do with Meta or the Hewlett
Foundation, and although we would have preferred not to be grouped together
in a single announcement, we can't control the way a third party decides to
share their information.

Our work with the Africa Union has started in 2021 as part of the work the
Foundation has done to listen to local initiatives, identify ways to
engage, and support existing priorities in the region. Recognizing we can
always do better, our teams are plugged into the field as much as possible,
hearing needs and identifying synergies to what the movement is
prioritizing locally. We strongly believe this project is aligned and
follows the line of other projects we've been supporting in the region.
This or any other project is also not coming from staff or stakeholders
outside of Africa, and it's our critical intention that relevant work for
the region and our movement there is led and supported regionally. We can
also assure you that the project will continue to have plenty of room for
feedback and discussion, as it's meant to be implemented within the
movement priorities in 2022. We expect to have those interested partake and
get involved!

Your email does flag something relevant that we take to heart, which is how
we can find ways to make sure relevant stakeholders locally can have better
participation and due diligence earlier in these processes. Our intention
will never be to create competing priorities, yet we don't think it's also
feasible to consult each and every opportunity at hand, creating even extra
work for volunteers. We believe there's a delicate balance, and the
Foundation continues to do its best to find the best ways to reach. We take
this opportunity as a learning on how more expansive and trust-building
forums can be created while balancing volunteer requests, as we continue to
regionalize and localize our work as much as possible as mandated by
Movement Strategy.

We look forward to sharing more about this project in January 2022, and to
more opportunities for dialogue in the new year. I wish you a restful and
lovely break, in hopes the new year brings us more spaces to share and
build together.

Warmly,
Jorge

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 12:58 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> HI Jorge
>
> I find it disturbing that you dont have a detailed answer even now, and
> that the WMF would agree to partnerships which dont respect the community
> its the community who has built and maintain the credibility of the
> projects.
>
> While its nice to see high level efforts from the WMF extreme care should
> be being taken in who we partner with and how they present the
> relationship.  I find it troubling that a partner can make an announcement
> and include a third party, especially when that third party has a long
> history for data collection, private data resale, supporting fake news, and
> violating copyright.
>
> Knowing this how robust are the data privacy exchanges what security is in
> place between the WMF and ANf & AU given that they are working with such a
> concerning third party and see the two as intertwined the "jumping of the
> gun" and link that third both very little respect for us
>
> Regards
> Gnangarra
>
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 03:39, Yael Weissburg 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Jorge, for this thoughtful and clear response.
>>
>> Florence, Xavier, and others: I know there's often good reason to message
>> Wikimedia-l, and also to let you know that you can always reach the WMF
>> Partnerships team

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Introducing the Wikimedia Wikimedia Affiliates Environmental Sustainability Covenant

[Gnangarra]

Sustainability is so different for communities that have extensive quality
road and rail networks, to others who live on Islands or are isolated
thousands of miles from their nearest neighbours and other Wikimedian
communities. Even the carbon footprint of getting our content to one person
in Europe is going to be significantly different to that of getting it to
someone in Tahiti, Patagonia,  or  Aleutian Islands.

History is littered with people who underestimated how big Russia is, our
communities are global. Decisions around sustainability  must ensure that
we dont disconnect people from sharing the sum of all knowledge.

Boodarwun

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 at 19:38, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> cool think lukas,
>
> the internatioinal energy agency publishes energy consumptoin erports from
> time to time, the last one i am aware of is here:
> https://www.iea.org/reports/data-centres-and-data-transmission-networks .
> it says that data centers consume 1% of the global electricity. data
> transfer consume 1.4 % of the global electric energy. and, interesting, it
> says that information and communications tech firms account for 50% of the
> renewable energy purchase globally. i read that google used 12.4 tera watt
> hours, wikipedia servers consume 2 giga watt hours per year:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers. as the data needs to
> be transported to clients reading it a rough guess would be another 3 giga
> watt hours per year is used by wikipedia readers. does wikimedia
> deutschland or the foundation really buy certificates to compensate for
> this 5 GWH electricity consumption?
>
> rupert
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:28 PM Lukas Mezger 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Wikimedia friends,
>>
>> I am writing to introduce the Wikimedia Affiliates Environmental
>> Sustainability Covenant, a cross-affiliate initiative aimed at reducing the
>> environmental impact of the Wikimedia Movement.[1]
>>
>> This initiative was born out of discussions about how to take action
>> against the climate crisis between Wikimédia France and Wikimedia
>> Deutschland, and is based on Movement Strategy Recommendation #1.8 (*"[W]e
>> will also align our practices to support the environmental sustainability
>> of our planet.”*).[2]
>>
>> You can read the full text of the agreement on Meta.[1] In short,
>> signatory Wikimedia affiliates commit to:
>> – reducing their carbon footprint
>> – improving sustainability topics on the Wikimedia projects
>> – supporting affiliates from regions most affected by the climate crisis
>> – sharing stories and encouraging others
>>
>> Eight Wikimedia affiliates have already signed the agreement,[3] others
>> are currently discussing it internally, and we are looking for more
>> Wikimedia affiliates to join as well.
>>
>> Over the past weeks, we (Bodhisattwa Mandal, Naphsica Papanicolaou,
>> Nanour Garabedian, and I), have presented the initiative at a number of
>> virtual Wikimedia gatherings and you can watch video recordings of our
>> talks in English, French, German, and Arabic.[4] You can also find a public
>> announcement on the Wikimédia France blog.[5]
>>
>> Again, we are looking forward to hearing from more affiliates interested
>> in joining this effort, and we are ready to answer any questions that you
>> may have.
>> Kind regards, and happy holidays to everyone celebrating,
>>
>> Lukas (User:Gnom)
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Affiliates_Environmental_Sustainability_Covenant
>>
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Increase_the_Sustainability_of_Our_Movement
>>
>> [3] Wikimedians for Sustainable Development, West Bengal Wikimedians User
>> Group, Wikimedia Deutschland, Wikimedia France, Wikimedia South Africa,
>> Wikimedia Italia, Wikimedia UK, Wikimedians of Tamazight User Group
>>
>> [4]
>> * Wikimania 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzYSKPK6UxQ
>> * WikiIndaba 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXIVCUNoGu4
>> * WikiArabia 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aENERdAmdAo
>> * CEE meeting 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oAIMDlc13M
>> * WikiConference North America:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbJ7IO9cJYg (at 3:33:10)
>> * WikiConvention francophone 2021:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlUD8MVPsyU (at 3:53:00)
>> * German-language WikiCon 2021:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2021-10-01_Klimaschutz_in_der_Community_(WikiCon_2021).webm
>>
>> [5]
>> https://www.wikimedia.fr/initiative-durabilite-notre-engagement-contre-le-rechauffement-climatique/
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dr. Lukas Mezger
>> Vorsitzender des Präsidiums / chair of the Supervisory Board
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
>> Tel. (030) 219 158 260 – (0151) 268 63 931
>> http://wikimedia.de
>>
>> Bleiben Sie auf dem neuesten Stand! Aktuelle Nachrichten und spannende
>> Geschichten rund um Wikimedia, Wikipedia und Freies Wissen im Newsletter: Zur
>> Anmeldung 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Gnangarra]

I think there is some poor wording being used ignoring nuances of the
English language and how different people speak it.  One point that hits
hard for me is the way its being framed as "policy" rather than
"principles".  Policy is too strong a word for its something that is
beholden with political obligations that shifts the WMF away from the core
pillars.  For many jurisdictions the term policy is going to translate into
activism, advocacy, even into the realm of labelling all Wikimedians as
lobbyists, or trouble makers.

Whereas if we take as a principle it sets this as an expectation of our
community and our internal activities, it does not cross that line into
areas which cause concern, dissent, and fear within governments, GLAMs,
government  agencies with whom we need to work. It also limits the risk to
communities who are charitable organisations, and individuals that want to
contribute without the fear of being labelled as a subversive.

Its one thing to consider what we do and put guides in place its another
for the WMF to step into areas, or push our contributors into positions
that have implications beyond sharing knowledge.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 22:02, Nathan  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:12 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> The WMF likes the *idea* of this being a community-driven, collaborative
>> project rather than actually doing the stuff that *makes* it a
>> community-driven, collaborative project. How many times does this process
>> have to repeat in identical fashion before we stop pretending that this
>> *is* a community-driven collaborative project? If the goal is simply to be
>> another generic top-down Silicon Valley information charity, just one that
>> has somehow procured a gigantic unpaid workforce that the elites can
>> command, then just state it outright so that people don't spend their free
>> hours toiling in the delusion they're part of a movement.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
> There's a misunderstanding here, I think. The Wikimedia movement and the
> Wikimedia projects are community-driven and collaborative. The WMF itself
> is not and has never been. People who expect the WMF to be managed by
> consensus, determined by RfC, are destined to always be disappointed.  The
> WMF certainly knows many people in the Wikimedia world have that
> expectation, and I suppose they considered and rejected the possibility of
> engaging in a community process for this policy. My criticism of the policy
> itself is that it contains very aspirational statements; I would have
> preferred it to be focused on what practical actions the WMF can take, and
> build a policy around how and when those actions will be taken.
>
> In any case, the WMF is not a governance experiment. The projects are, to
> some extent, although that is not their *purpose*. Expecting every policy
> and decision to be workshopped with "the community" is essentially
> demanding the WMF be dissolved.
> ___
> 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/G2SSMJBZ6FFGHSH3ILMHBS6GVKLULVMD/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
GN.
* 2021*
*Celebrating 20 years of Wikipedia*


Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- 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/F22PAIYBX3ZNCF3S6VH3C4WW4Q6PMPQC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Nathan]

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:12 PM Dan Szymborski 
wrote:

> The WMF likes the *idea* of this being a community-driven, collaborative
> project rather than actually doing the stuff that *makes* it a
> community-driven, collaborative project. How many times does this process
> have to repeat in identical fashion before we stop pretending that this
> *is* a community-driven collaborative project? If the goal is simply to be
> another generic top-down Silicon Valley information charity, just one that
> has somehow procured a gigantic unpaid workforce that the elites can
> command, then just state it outright so that people don't spend their free
> hours toiling in the delusion they're part of a movement.
>
> Best,
>
> Dan
>

There's a misunderstanding here, I think. The Wikimedia movement and the
Wikimedia projects are community-driven and collaborative. The WMF itself
is not and has never been. People who expect the WMF to be managed by
consensus, determined by RfC, are destined to always be disappointed.  The
WMF certainly knows many people in the Wikimedia world have that
expectation, and I suppose they considered and rejected the possibility of
engaging in a community process for this policy. My criticism of the policy
itself is that it contains very aspirational statements; I would have
preferred it to be focused on what practical actions the WMF can take, and
build a policy around how and when those actions will be taken.

In any case, the WMF is not a governance experiment. The projects are, to
some extent, although that is not their *purpose*. Expecting every policy
and decision to be workshopped with "the community" is essentially
demanding the WMF be dissolved.
___
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/G2SSMJBZ6FFGHSH3ILMHBS6GVKLULVMD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Maggie Dennis]

Link fail. >_< here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2020-10-15
(Sorry for the noise!)

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Maggie Dennis  wrote:

> Hi, Nosebagbear.
>
> As I said in my first email on the subject (and I said a lot, so I'm not
> surprised if it gets missed!), I really can only speak to my part of this -
> I work with the Human Rights Team that does on the ground interventions.
> The lead of this team has been a substantial input to this process, but the
> work in the policy is far more expansive than my part. THAT human rights
> intervention is where we have a playbook to which I refer, and although we
> don't talk about how, it's not been intended to be a secret that it exists.
> I first posted about the team on Meta in 2020 and spoke about it at my
> second office hour, here. I believe it has come up in subsequent calls,
> and I have mentioned it in each office hour announcement (at least that I
> wrote myself). I don't think we can safely talk about HOW we are handling
> human rights threats to community members, but it's never been my intention
> to downplay that we're working on it!
>
> I will let the Global Advocacy and Public Policy teams speak to the policy
> as a whole. But in terms of the questions you mailed in, I imagine they
> received others as well and are working to aggregate them.
>
> Best,
> Maggie
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:31 AM  wrote:
>
>> Hi Maggie,
>>
>> Could you answer a few things, or at least provide your (and the team's)
>> reasoning:
>>
>> 1) It has now been stated multiple times it was urgent to get a policy
>> like this. But you tell us there's a secret playbook already in play, and I
>> can't imagine that has changed immediately just because there's now a
>> visible policy, and with the break shortly occurring, the WMF other teams
>> can't really decide major things with it in mind either. And it also took
>> some time to (seemingly purely internally) write. So why is it taking so
>> long to explain why we're having to wait until after Christmas break to
>> discuss it? *Why is it retroactive discussion at all?*
>>
>> 2) The policy includes the line " use our influence with partners, the
>> private sector, and governments to advance and uphold respect for human
>> rights." - you say you note the tension from needing to have such a
>> playbook be hidden to remain functional and be a collaborative community.
>>
>> I don't doubt your reasoning on the playbook, but this line is in effect
>> "the policy team will lobby for better human rights"...but without us
>> knowing the actual execution of methods, specifically raised areas, a
>> complete listing of ongoing areas of focus and so on. There is already a
>> concern that the WMF spends too much time trying to speak for the movement
>> without actually knowing that their specific positions are backed by the
>> movement as a whole. Doing it with this dichotomy in place surely seems
>> even less wise.
>>
>> 3) Back, more generally, to the process issues. I emailed shortly after
>> this went public, at the time, some considerable time before the Christmas
>> break. I just got a message saying they were collating questions and would
>> answer in the new year. But most of my questions were on either "why was
>> this procedure used" or "why was this paragraph included", rather than
>> substantive content change proposals.
>>
>> If even I know why I included any given thing in a regular old policy
>> that I help draft and can thus answer questions rapidly, why was this not
>> the case here. Surely the reasoning for each bit of content and failure to
>> publicly consult are already known? So why the lag time?
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Richard (Nosebagbear)
>> ___
>> 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/UXQONI433PXLVTNG7UCZGR2TJEMJHHV7/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> She/her/hers
> Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>


-- 
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
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/7FFVPKXCCSCEBW6GVHKFKE3ISCWNMGLY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Maggie Dennis]

Hi, Nosebagbear.

As I said in my first email on the subject (and I said a lot, so I'm not
surprised if it gets missed!), I really can only speak to my part of this -
I work with the Human Rights Team that does on the ground interventions.
The lead of this team has been a substantial input to this process, but the
work in the policy is far more expansive than my part. THAT human rights
intervention is where we have a playbook to which I refer, and although we
don't talk about how, it's not been intended to be a secret that it exists.
I first posted about the team on Meta in 2020 and spoke about it at my
second office hour, here .
I believe it has come up in subsequent calls, and I have mentioned it in
each office hour announcement (at least that I wrote myself). I don't think
we can safely talk about HOW we are handling human rights threats to
community members, but it's never been my intention to downplay that we're
working on it!

I will let the Global Advocacy and Public Policy teams speak to the policy
as a whole. But in terms of the questions you mailed in, I imagine they
received others as well and are working to aggregate them.

Best,
Maggie

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:31 AM  wrote:

> Hi Maggie,
>
> Could you answer a few things, or at least provide your (and the team's)
> reasoning:
>
> 1) It has now been stated multiple times it was urgent to get a policy
> like this. But you tell us there's a secret playbook already in play, and I
> can't imagine that has changed immediately just because there's now a
> visible policy, and with the break shortly occurring, the WMF other teams
> can't really decide major things with it in mind either. And it also took
> some time to (seemingly purely internally) write. So why is it taking so
> long to explain why we're having to wait until after Christmas break to
> discuss it? *Why is it retroactive discussion at all?*
>
> 2) The policy includes the line " use our influence with partners, the
> private sector, and governments to advance and uphold respect for human
> rights." - you say you note the tension from needing to have such a
> playbook be hidden to remain functional and be a collaborative community.
>
> I don't doubt your reasoning on the playbook, but this line is in effect
> "the policy team will lobby for better human rights"...but without us
> knowing the actual execution of methods, specifically raised areas, a
> complete listing of ongoing areas of focus and so on. There is already a
> concern that the WMF spends too much time trying to speak for the movement
> without actually knowing that their specific positions are backed by the
> movement as a whole. Doing it with this dichotomy in place surely seems
> even less wise.
>
> 3) Back, more generally, to the process issues. I emailed shortly after
> this went public, at the time, some considerable time before the Christmas
> break. I just got a message saying they were collating questions and would
> answer in the new year. But most of my questions were on either "why was
> this procedure used" or "why was this paragraph included", rather than
> substantive content change proposals.
>
> If even I know why I included any given thing in a regular old policy that
> I help draft and can thus answer questions rapidly, why was this not the
> case here. Surely the reasoning for each bit of content and failure to
> publicly consult are already known? So why the lag time?
>
> Yours,
>
> Richard (Nosebagbear)
> ___
> 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/UXQONI433PXLVTNG7UCZGR2TJEMJHHV7/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
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/EFFZC3G3OKTRVWWXLP3R4O4ISF4PEMIA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[nosebagbear]

Hi Maggie,

Could you answer a few things, or at least provide your (and the team's) 
reasoning:

1) It has now been stated multiple times it was urgent to get a policy like 
this. But you tell us there's a secret playbook already in play, and I can't 
imagine that has changed immediately just because there's now a visible policy, 
and with the break shortly occurring, the WMF other teams can't really decide 
major things with it in mind either. And it also took some time to (seemingly 
purely internally) write. So why is it taking so long to explain why we're 
having to wait until after Christmas break to discuss it? *Why is it 
retroactive discussion at all?*

2) The policy includes the line " use our influence with partners, the private 
sector, and governments to advance and uphold respect for human rights." - you 
say you note the tension from needing to have such a playbook be hidden to 
remain functional and be a collaborative community. 

I don't doubt your reasoning on the playbook, but this line is in effect "the 
policy team will lobby for better human rights"...but without us knowing the 
actual execution of methods, specifically raised areas, a complete listing of 
ongoing areas of focus and so on. There is already a concern that the WMF 
spends too much time trying to speak for the movement without actually knowing 
that their specific positions are backed by the movement as a whole. Doing it 
with this dichotomy in place surely seems even less wise. 

3) Back, more generally, to the process issues. I emailed shortly after this 
went public, at the time, some considerable time before the Christmas break. I 
just got a message saying they were collating questions and would answer in the 
new year. But most of my questions were on either "why was this procedure used" 
or "why was this paragraph included", rather than substantive content change 
proposals.

If even I know why I included any given thing in a regular old policy that I 
help draft and can thus answer questions rapidly, why was this not the case 
here. Surely the reasoning for each bit of content and failure to publicly 
consult are already known? So why the lag time?

Yours,

Richard (Nosebagbear)
___
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/UXQONI433PXLVTNG7UCZGR2TJEMJHHV7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Maggie Dennis]

Hi, Dan.

With respect to this - "And telling the community things like that "there's
a secret playbook we have" is making everything worse. *Why* is there a
secret playbook for a collaborative movement? That is not how collaboration
and consensus work." - I *do* understand that there is a tension between
transparency and safety at times, and I'm sure we can do the balance
better. We have talked a bit about our approach with NDA-holding community
groups and iterated a lot on our approach in non-public conversations with
community members who have observed or experienced these kinds of issues on
our platforms. We keep exploring ways to be more transparent. The reason
that we do not discuss our protocols in responding to human rights threats
against users is that not only Wikimedians can see them and make use of
that information. I suspect these are similar reasons that there are other
closed forums like the functionaries mailing lists and a private steward
wiki. The Human Rights Team is, as their Meta page notes, planning to build
out a Human Rights Interest group within the community,  but we are a long
way from being able to publicly discuss what we are and are not well
equipped to handle without essentially highlighting weaknesses in our
system and making community members more vulnerable to exploitation.

I know that doesn't resolve the concern, but I do hope that it helps to
clarify my own position better.

Warm regards,
Maggie


On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:12 PM Dan Szymborski 
wrote:

> The fundamental problem here is that the WMF's response to everything is
> simply *reactive*. A policy is instituted, with zero real collaboration,
> little or no discussion, foggy goals, sparsely answered direct questions
> and then simply announced to the community in faux-press release fashion.
> And then when people in the community like Andreas Kolbe, who has been an
> important voice of caution on many issues, speak up, they're told that this
> isn't the specific bureaucratically appointed time to have a discussion.
>
> Then, various WMF-affiliated people assure that we can talk about this,
> which is basically "this is our decision, not yours, but we'll be happy to
> tell you why we did this, though we're not going to change anything" with
> any substantive changes require near rebellion in the Wiki movement. And
> telling the community things like that "there's a secret playbook we have"
> is making everything worse. *Why* is there a secret playbook for a
> collaborative movement? That is not how collaboration and consensus work.
>
> If I and my five friends are collaborating to make a fancy dinner, that
> involves *discussing*. It doesn't mean that I decide what the six dishes
> will be, inform the other five friends what my decision is, and then simply
> assuage them afterwards that I'd love to hear their input. If K says she
> doesn't like the parsnip dish I decided on, I don't say "well, I considered
> that as part of my decision, so that's that." If P asks why we don't have a
> dessert, I don't tell him that this is not the time of the dinner planning
> that we may talk about dish choices, but he can ask about it between 4 PM
> and 4:30 PM next Tuesday. My friends would get very angry at this very
> quickly.
>
> The WMF likes the *idea* of this being a community-driven, collaborative
> project rather than actually doing the stuff that *makes* it a
> community-driven, collaborative project. How many times does this process
> have to repeat in identical fashion before we stop pretending that this
> *is* a community-driven collaborative project? If the goal is simply to be
> another generic top-down Silicon Valley information charity, just one that
> has somehow procured a gigantic unpaid workforce that the elites can
> command, then just state it outright so that people don't spend their free
> hours toiling in the delusion they're part of a movement.
>
> Best,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:52 AM Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 8:07 PM geni  wrote:
>> 
>>
>>
>>> You and who's army? If one of the world's more questionable
>>> governments decides to target Wikipedians within its territory there's
>>> not a thing you can do about about it. You’re not France. You can’t
>>> threaten governments into submission (and if one of the most powerful
>>> states on earth can’t get Zara Radcliffe out you certainly can’t).
>>>
>>> You’re not a mineral extraction company. You don’t have mercenaries on
>>> retainer to try and get your people out.
>>>
>>> You policy is worse than useless. It doesn’t help at all but
>>> marginally increases the risk of being involved with Wikipedia as what
>>> can be seen as a harmless hobby writing about trains turns into being
>>> involved with a human rights campaigning organisation.
>>>
>>
>> There seems to be a lot of distress in this email, and I'm sorry to see
>> it. :( I hope I can speak thoughtfully to these issues without raising
>> dangers or ma

[Wikimedia-l] Queering Wikipedia 2022: User Survey

[WM LGBT]

Hi, fellow Wikimedians,

QW2022 (Queering Wikipedia) is a global conference focused on LGBTQ+
communities and our representation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia
projects in all languages.

If you are a Wikimedian and LGBTQ+ or a committed ally, please help
shape the proposal by providing feedback on what the priorities should
be, and how the event should run. You can give anonymous feedback
through the survey link below, or by copying the questions and
emailing in your responses in plain text.

Survey: 
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScLhbygKmWiyd8aemem2TcaOZ2UmL0y9YI4I57woaV8um43aw/viewform
Survey questions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/QW2022/Survey

To read the proposal, add your support, ask questions or even
volunteer to join in and help make the event a success, see:
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/QW2022/Proposal
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/QW2022/Volunteer

Visit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT to find out more about the
Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group and the different ways of talking with
fellow LGBTQ+ volunteers.

Different words and acronyms are used for communities within the
rainbow of sexualities and gender identities/expressions (e.g.
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, non-binary,
two-spirit, third gender, LGBT+, LGBTQ+, LGBTQQ2IA*, QUILTBAG, SOGI).
"Queer" is used by us to represent all members of these communities
and work toward solidarity for those affected by related
discrimination.

Thank you and happy holidays!
QW2022 proposal team
--
Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT
___
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/ESABLX6XMQWBLT6MRRFK2IAA5IOYDQ7K/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org