[Wikimedia-l] Wiki Advocates Philippines User Group 2023-2024 Annual Report

[anthony diaz]

Dear Wikimedians,

It has been a year since we were formally recognized, and we are grateful
for all the volunteers who have contributed to making our program a
success. We also appreciate the supportive Wikimedians who have
collaborated with our efforts and have always been on our side in promoting
our activities. On behalf of the Wiki Advocates Philippines User Group
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Advocates_Philippines_User_Group>, I
would like to present our 2023-2024 annual report on Meta.
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Advocates_Philippines_User_Group/Reports/2023_Report>


Best regards,
*Anthony Diaz*
*Wiki Advocates Philippines Inc., Co-founder*
___
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/JUQJQL7ZIXFADGS6XLOHNALZ4H2JNCWT/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Wiki Advocates Philippines User Group 2023 Annual Report

[anthony diaz]

Dear Wikimedians,

It has been a year since we were formally recognized, and we are grateful
for all the volunteers who have contributed to making our program a
success. We also appreciate the supportive Wikimedians who have
collaborated with our efforts and have always been on our side in promoting
our activities. On behalf of the Wiki Advocates Philippines User Group
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Advocates_Philippines_User_Group>, I
would like to present our 2023 annual report on Meta.
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Advocates_Philippines_User_Group/Reports/2023_Report>


Best regards,
*Anthony Diaz*
*Wiki Advocates Philippines Inc., Co-founder*
___
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/CZJGS6B7LJKRYNJO7YU3M3XEPPBYIXMR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Safe harbour mooted in Australia for internet intermediaries

[Anthony Cole]

On 13th June, the High Court of Australia allowed a defamation case against
Google to proceed.  Presently, Australia has no "safe harbour" provision
for internet intermediaries, though there is some protection for telcos.
[1]

The previous week, on 7th June, the New South Wales state government
released a review of its 2005 defamation act, and the review recommends
that the states re-convene their defamation working party and ask it, inter
alia, if a specific safe harbour provision would be beneficial. [2][3]

WMF legal might want to consider making a submission to the working party
(once it has re-convened) to put our case, and might want to watch the law
reform process as it unfolds to ensure any safe harbour language that may
be adopted is broad enough to include Wikimedia projects.

1. The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/protecting-google-from-defamation-is-worth-seriously-considering-98252
2. Sydney Morning Herald.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nsw-pushes-for-historic-overhaul-of-defamation-laws-20180607-p4zk0k.html
3. The review. See recommendation 15c
http://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/justicepolicy/Documents/defamation-act-statutory-review-report.pdf
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

[Anthony Cole]

It's still there. Still linking to a local Kmart store. I'll email legal
and point them to this thread.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, 8:35 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Yea, looks like a K*mart ad.
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, 2:55 AM Jan Ainali  wrote:
>
> > Well, I guess Occam has it that a local Kmart store thought it was good
> to
> > use a keyword that put them in the top of a fairiy common search result.
> > Sneaky.
> >
> > Med vänliga hälsningar
> > Jan Ainali
> > http://ainali.com
> >
> > 2018-04-26 6:43 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra :
> >
> > > >
> > > > ​No​
> > > >> thing to do with Wikimedia Australia, we have made no such request.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > G
> > > ​angarra
> > > .
> > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > >  > > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
> > > .
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you Gnangarra.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, 12:44 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> >
> > ​No​
> >> thing to do with Wikimedia Australia, we have made no such request.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> G
> ​angarra
> .
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> Order
> here
> <
> https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> >
> .
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

[Anthony Cole]

Thanks Joseph. How weird.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 at 3:01 pm, Joseph Seddon <jsed...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey Anthony,
>
> Apologies for the delay on this.
>
> To the best of our knowledge, this ad isn't being run by the Wikimedia
> Foundation nor any vendor of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That Google ad (describing Wikipedia as the fact-checked encyclopedia) is
> > still the top result when I search for “wikipedia” in Australia.
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 8:57 pm, Isaac Olatunde <reachout2is...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Leigh, I disagree that all projects are hostile to outsiders. When
> > someone
> > > edit in a language they do not speak and use machine to translate
> > contents
> > > for example  and refused to stop after multiple warnings, a block in
> such
> > > case may not be considered an "hostile" response. That being said, I
> > > completely agree with Rob that fact-checked encyclopedia is more
> > > appropriate considering the hostility in some language Wikipedia,
> notably
> > > the English Wikipedia. How do you describe a Wikipedia where someone
> > create
> > > their first article and got deleted and when the  page creator
> approached
> > > the deleting admin on why their article got deleted and the response
> they
> > > received is "Kindly have the decency to create a decent article ",
> "count
> > > yourself lucky, I don't talk to IP address "?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Isaac.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Apr 15, 2018 3:21 PM, "Leigh Thelmadatter" <osama...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not just English Wikipedia. All of the projects are hostile to
> > > "outsiders"
> > > > Those not in English might even be worse for several reasons
> > > >
> > > > Enviado desde mi LG de Telcel
> > > >
> > > > -- Original message--
> > > > From: Robert Fernandez
> > > > Date: Sun, Apr 15, 2018 9:17 AM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List;
> > > > Cc:
> > > > Subject:Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia
> > > >
> > > > Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies,
> > > > organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English
> > > > Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia anyone
> > > > can edit" anymore.  So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and
> > > > relevant claim these days.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad
> > linking
> > > > to
> > > > > wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia.
> > We
> > > > used
> > > > > to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more
> > > honest
> > > > > than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of
> reliability
> > > and
> > > > > oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the
> > discussion
> > > > > about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone
> > else
> > > > > uncomfortabe with this?
> > > > > --
> > > > > Anthony Cole
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

[Anthony Cole]

That Google ad (describing Wikipedia as the fact-checked encyclopedia) is
still the top result when I search for “wikipedia” in Australia.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 8:57 pm, Isaac Olatunde <reachout2is...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Leigh, I disagree that all projects are hostile to outsiders. When someone
> edit in a language they do not speak and use machine to translate contents
> for example  and refused to stop after multiple warnings, a block in such
> case may not be considered an "hostile" response. That being said, I
> completely agree with Rob that fact-checked encyclopedia is more
> appropriate considering the hostility in some language Wikipedia, notably
> the English Wikipedia. How do you describe a Wikipedia where someone create
> their first article and got deleted and when the  page creator approached
> the deleting admin on why their article got deleted and the response they
> received is "Kindly have the decency to create a decent article ", "count
> yourself lucky, I don't talk to IP address "?
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac.
>
>
> On Apr 15, 2018 3:21 PM, "Leigh Thelmadatter" <osama...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not just English Wikipedia. All of the projects are hostile to
> "outsiders"
> > Those not in English might even be worse for several reasons
> >
> > Enviado desde mi LG de Telcel
> >
> > -- Original message--
> > From: Robert Fernandez
> > Date: Sun, Apr 15, 2018 9:17 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List;
> > Cc:
> > Subject:Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia
> >
> > Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies,
> > organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English
> > Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia anyone
> > can edit" anymore.  So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and
> > relevant claim these days.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad linking
> > to
> > > wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We
> > used
> > > to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more
> honest
> > > than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of reliability
> and
> > > oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the discussion
> > > about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else
> > > uncomfortabe with this?
> > > --
> > > Anthony Cole
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

[Anthony Cole]

This is off-topic (I presume) but the idea of the WMF increasing its
dependence on large corporate donors is beginning to trouble me. I want the
WMF to answer to our readers and volunteers not Bezos, Brin and Zuckerberg.

I say I presume this is off-topic because I presume the WMF isn’t, even
subconsciously, soft-peddling our share-alike right and right to effective
attribution from these re-users in exchange for dollars from these re-users.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 at 5:58 pm, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agree with Gerard. We WANT Youtube, Facebook, and others to use our
> content. That is one reason why we have released it under an open license
> and I believe one reason why we have been so successful. We of course also
> want them to provide appropriate attribution. I think this would be better
> achieved by reaching out and discussing it with these groups directly
> rather than initially by legal means. In my experience most reputable
> organizations are happy to attribute when asked.
>
> With respect to intermediation and them providing financial or direct
> technical support Google, Apple, and Microsoft are listed here as major
> beneficiaries as is the Brin Wojcicki Foundation
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors Would the WMF be happy
> with greater support? Yes I imagine so.
>
> James
>
> Please note that this is written in a personal capacity and does not
> represent an official position of anyone but myself.
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Maybe you know, but Katherine Mayer gave a talk at the CC conference The
> > subject was big companies using our content (it is not just writing) and
> > making a profit giving nothing / not much in return. The issue she raised
> > is that it may interfere with our collaboration model. People will
> > associate our content with the company that profits in this way and not
> > contribute their knowledge their expertise with us.
> >
> > So no word from the WMF, far from it. When you want the WMF to sue..
> There
> > is wonder if the effect it will have is really what we want. For me it is
> > first and foremost that people are properly informed and I prefer a
> YouTube
> > a Facebook to use our data over them not to do so over license issues.
> > Remember the days when Wikipedia was young; it was a wide held belief.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 16 April 2018 at 01:53, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Is someone from WMF monitoring wikimedia-l and notifying relevant
> > employees
> > > when an issue arises under their remit? This issue - big companies
> using
> > > our writing without attribution and like-licensing - has been hanging
> > with
> > > no word from the WMF for six months.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March:
> > > >
> > > > "In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue
> Office,
> > > > Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t
> constitute
> > > any
> > > > sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an
> > API
> > > > to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s
> > all
> > > > well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter,
> > the
> > > > CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships
> ...
> > > *Smart
> > > > assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it
> comes
> > to
> > > > leveraging that information base.*"[1]
> > > >
> > > > That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief
> > > Revenue
> > > > Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give
> > back." I
> > > > want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their
> > obligation
> > > to
> > > > meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights
> > > attached.
> > > > If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not
> > > > breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is
> > > based
> > > > on.
> > > >
> > > > 1.https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that-
> > > > us

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you, Philippe and Joseph.

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 at 8:22 am, Joseph Seddon <josephsed...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>  Hey Anthony.
>
> These emails came in on a weekend and today is a WMF holiday so I suspect
> it'll be another 24 hours or so before a response will get to you :)
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Philippe Beaudette <phili...@beaudette.me
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I suspect that the ad in question is a freebie, donated through Google's
> > giveaway to nonprofits. If so there is a point person at wmf (maybe in
> the
> > advancement team?) Who would know for sure.
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:10 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I just googled "wikipedia" again and that ad is still coming up.  (I’m
> in
> > > Australia.) When you click the link in the ad it takes you (via 3 or 4
> > > redirects) to wikipedia.org with the word "paid" in the search field.
> > [1]
> > >  When you click the Google maps link below the ad text it, strangely,
> > takes
> > > you to the location of a suburban Kmart store. I'm finding it harder to
> > > believe this is sanctioned by WMF. Anyway, I’d appreciate it if someone
> > > from the WMF could chime in on this.
> > >
> > > 1.  https://instagram.com/p/BhpnGuehzhw/
> > >
> > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 9:48 pm, Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > "   The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for
> evil
> > > > people    " + a winking Baphomet as logo
> > > >
> > > > I think we should change this to our slogan just for April 1.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > "   The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for
> evil
> > > > > people    " + a winking Baphomet as logo
> > > > >
> > > > > I find close to pointless derailing any discussion into a
> > > > incircumstantial
> > > > > series of tirades.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vito
> > > > >
> > > > > 2018-04-15 16:21 GMT+02:00 Leigh Thelmadatter <
> osama...@hotmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Not just English Wikipedia. All of the projects are hostile to
> > > > "outsiders"
> > > > >> Those not in English might even be worse for several reasons
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Enviado desde mi LG de Telcel
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -- Original message--
> > > > >> From: Robert Fernandez
> > > > >> Date: Sun, Apr 15, 2018 9:17 AM
> > > > >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List;
> > > > >> Cc:
> > > > >> Subject:Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies,
> > > > >> organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English
> > > > >> Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia
> anyone
> > > > >> can edit" anymore.  So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and
> > > > >> relevant claim these days.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole <
> ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad
> > > > linking
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked
> > encyclopedia.
> > > We
> > > > >> used
> > > > >> > to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems
> more
> > > > honest
> > > > >> > than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of
> > > reliability
> > > > and
> > > > >> > oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the
> > > > discussion
> > > > >> > about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is
> anyone
> > > else
> > > > >> > uncomfortabe with this?
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > Anthony Col

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

[Anthony Cole]

I just googled "wikipedia" again and that ad is still coming up.  (I’m in
Australia.) When you click the link in the ad it takes you (via 3 or 4
redirects) to wikipedia.org with the word "paid" in the search field. [1]
 When you click the Google maps link below the ad text it, strangely, takes
you to the location of a suburban Kmart store. I'm finding it harder to
believe this is sanctioned by WMF. Anyway, I’d appreciate it if someone
from the WMF could chime in on this.

1.  https://instagram.com/p/BhpnGuehzhw/

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 9:48 pm, Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > "   The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for evil
> people    " + a winking Baphomet as logo
>
> I think we should change this to our slogan just for April 1.
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "   The encyclopedia of evil people, by evil people, for evil
> > people    " + a winking Baphomet as logo
> >
> > I find close to pointless derailing any discussion into a
> incircumstantial
> > series of tirades.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2018-04-15 16:21 GMT+02:00 Leigh Thelmadatter <osama...@hotmail.com>:
> >
> >> Not just English Wikipedia. All of the projects are hostile to
> "outsiders"
> >> Those not in English might even be worse for several reasons
> >>
> >> Enviado desde mi LG de Telcel
> >>
> >> -- Original message--
> >> From: Robert Fernandez
> >> Date: Sun, Apr 15, 2018 9:17 AM
> >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List;
> >> Cc:
> >> Subject:Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia
> >>
> >> Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies,
> >> organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English
> >> Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia anyone
> >> can edit" anymore.  So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and
> >> relevant claim these days.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad
> linking
> >> to
> >> > wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We
> >> used
> >> > to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more
> honest
> >> > than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of reliability
> and
> >> > oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the
> discussion
> >> > about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else
> >> > uncomfortabe with this?
> >> > --
> >> > Anthony Cole
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

[Anthony Cole]

Is someone from WMF monitoring wikimedia-l and notifying relevant employees
when an issue arises under their remit? This issue - big companies using
our writing without attribution and like-licensing - has been hanging with
no word from the WMF for six months.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March:
>
> "In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue Office,
> Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t constitute any
> sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an API
> to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s all
> well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter, the
> CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships ... *Smart
> assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it comes to
> leveraging that information base.*"[1]
>
> That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief Revenue
> Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give back." I
> want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their obligation to
> meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights attached.
> If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not
> breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is based
> on.
>
> 1.https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that-
> use-wikipedia-giving-back/
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:47 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes of course the WMF can contact those who are detected reusing our
>> content without fully complying with licenses and encourage them to
>> comply.
>>
>> If a case were to go to court it would need to have one or more
>> contributors who were willing to cooperate with WMF legal in the case. But
>> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to do so.
>>
>> As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons:
>>
>> Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing requires a
>> crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a community. The
>> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new wikimedians,
>> and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is for
>> them
>> to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our content
>> being used without attribution is an existential threat to the project and
>> hence to the WMF.
>>
>> Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations. For
>> some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally I feel
>> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed to
>> me.
>> If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer contributions as
>> effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our
>> community. I'm also active on another site where every member regularly
>> gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would happen
>> if
>> it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued participation.
>>
>> Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by asking
>> for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution back
>> to
>> Wikipedia etc tackles the existential threat of other sites treating
>> wikipedia et al as CC0.
>>
>>
>> WSC
>>
>> On 5 April 2018 at 08:04, <wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
>> > > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share
>> alike"
>> > > and rely on WMF to preserve those rights.
>> >
>> > Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like yourself)
>> > are the ones who own copyright to the articles - the WMF doesn't. Unless
>> > you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other license
>> > enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action for
>> > you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.)
>> >
>> > -- Legoktm
>> >
>> >
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

[Anthony Cole]

To be clear, I’m not arguing we should resurrect “anyone can edit”.  I’m
wondering if this new slogan doesn’t run the risk of misleading readers wrt
Wikipedia’s reliability.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 at 10:21 pm, Leigh Thelmadatter <osama...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Not just English Wikipedia. All of the projects are hostile to "outsiders"
> Those not in English might even be worse for several reasons
>
> Enviado desde mi LG de Telcel
>
> -- Original message--
> From: Robert Fernandez
> Date: Sun, Apr 15, 2018 9:17 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List;
> Cc:
> Subject:Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia
>
> Considering the barriers to entry, growing thicket of policies,
> organized group harassment, and open hostility on the English
> Wikipedia, I'm not sure we can even call it "the encyclopedia anyone
> can edit" anymore.  So I'd say fact-checked is a more accurate and
> relevant claim these days.
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad linking
> to
> > wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We
> used
> > to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more honest
> > than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of reliability and
> > oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the discussion
> > about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else
> > uncomfortabe with this?
> > --
> > Anthony Cole
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

[Anthony Cole]

Link to a screen-shot of the ad: https://instagram.com/p/Bhl01fhhXHT/

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 at 8:53 pm, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad linking to
> wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We used
> to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more honest
> than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of reliability and
> oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the discussion
> about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else
> uncomfortabe with this?
> --
> Anthony Cole
>
> --
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] The fact-checked encyclopedia

[Anthony Cole]

I just googled “wikipedia” and the first result was a Google ad linking to
wikipedia.org.[1] It calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We used
to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems more honest
than this new formulation which to me implies a degree of reliability and
oversight I'm not sure we can ethically assert. I missed the discussion
about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else
uncomfortabe with this?
-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

[Anthony Cole]

 I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March:

"In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue Office,
Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t constitute any
sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an API
to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s all
well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter, the
CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships ... *Smart
assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it comes to
leveraging that information base.*"[1]

That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief Revenue
Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give back." I
want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their obligation to
meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights attached.
If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not
breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is based
on.

1.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that-use-wikipedia-giving-back/

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:47 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes of course the WMF can contact those who are detected reusing our
> content without fully complying with licenses and encourage them to comply.
>
> If a case were to go to court it would need to have one or more
> contributors who were willing to cooperate with WMF legal in the case. But
> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to do so.
>
> As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons:
>
> Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing requires a
> crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a community. The
> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new wikimedians,
> and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is for them
> to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our content
> being used without attribution is an existential threat to the project and
> hence to the WMF.
>
> Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations. For
> some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally I feel
> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed to me.
> If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer contributions as
> effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our
> community. I'm also active on another site where every member regularly
> gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would happen if
> it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued participation.
>
> Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by asking
> for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution back to
> Wikipedia etc tackles the existential threat of other sites treating
> wikipedia et al as CC0.
>
>
> WSC
>
> On 5 April 2018 at 08:04, <wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> > > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share
> alike"
> > > and rely on WMF to preserve those rights.
> >
> > Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like yourself)
> > are the ones who own copyright to the articles - the WMF doesn't. Unless
> > you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other license
> > enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action for
> > you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.)
> >
> > -- Legoktm
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

[Anthony Cole]

We're not at that point yet. I would like to know whether an informal
conversation between WMF and Amazon on this topic has begun, though.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Kunal Mehta <lego...@member.fsf.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share alike"
> > and rely on WMF to preserve those rights.
>
> Why are you relying on the WMF? Wikipedia contributors (like yourself)
> are the ones who own copyright to the articles - the WMF doesn't. Unless
> you've granted/transferred copyright to the WMF (or some other license
> enforcement agreement), I don't think they can pursue legal action for
> you or other Wikipedians. (IANAL, etc.)
>
> -- Legoktm
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

[Anthony Cole]

I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share alike"
and rely on WMF to preserve those rights.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 7:33 PM The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would love for an update. Wikipedia license doesn't just call for
> attribution, but for copyleft to be preserved.
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Adele and Yongmin. I'll ask Barbara to clarify next time we
> chat.
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 at 12:49 am, Yongmin H. <li...@revi.pe.kr> wrote:
> >
> > > I tried quite a lot (around 10 times) and succeded to get one saying
> > > ‘here’s something I found from Wikipedia.’ I have it recorded, but
> > > uploading it fails... Will try later.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Yongmin
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > https://wp.revi.blog
> > > Text licensed under CC BY ND 2.0 KR
> > > Please note that this address is list-only address and any non-mailing
> > > list mails will be treated as spam.
> > > Please use
> https://encrypt.to/0x947f156f16250de39788c3c35b625da5beff197a
> > .
> > >
> > > 2017. 9. 22. 01:27, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> 작성:
> > >
> > > > I was speaking with Barbara Page last night (Barbara's highlighting
> of
> > > this
> > > > issue in a Wikipediocracy blog post
> > > > http://wikipediocracy.com/2017/07/24/alexa/ prompted Andreas to open
> > > this
> > > > discussion) last night and she told me when she asks Alexa about
> > ovarian
> > > > cancer these days, Alexa begins with "According to Wikipedia..." Can
> > > anyone
> > > > else with Alexa confirm this?
> > > >
> > > >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 at 3:55 am, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> I checked in with Adele today, to ask about progress on the Amazon
> > Echo
> > > >> licensing issue, and whether she had a rough idea when she'd be able
> > to
> > > >> report back to us.
> > > >>
> > > >> Adele was happy for me to pass on here that we're unlikely to hear
> > > anything
> > > >> further about this until September, as Wikimania is looming, and she
> > > will
> > > >> be off on a much-needed holiday after that.
> > > >>
> > > >> Adele added that the timeline really depends on the Amazon staff
> they
> > > >> contacted. While she will let us know as soon as she hears from
> them,
> > > the
> > > >> call required for this type of outreach will probably only happen in
> > > >> September.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Andreas
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Adele Vrana <avr...@wikimedia.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hello,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I am Adele Vrana, Director of Strategic Partnerships at the
> > Foundation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We have contacts at Amazon and will seek to clarify the questions
> > > raised
> > > >> on
> > > >>> this thread. I will make sure to circle back with you once we have
> an
> > > >>> update.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> All the best,
> > > >>> Adele
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Am 27.07.2017 um 18:37 schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden ...
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I will not spend an hour trying to identify the exact article
> > version
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>>> matches Alexa's output in that video best, but it's safe to
> assume
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>> this inserted "Ed", too, came from Wikipedia, even though it had
> > gone
> > > >>> by
> > > >>>>> the time the video was uploaded to YouTube.
> > > >>>>
> > > &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy Phase 2

[Anthony Cole]

H James. I've made a proposed change to the metrics paragraph. [1] Let's
discuss it on the talk page.

Regarding Phase 2, though, I don't see a lot of involvement from others. Is
everyone just having a bit of a rest after what must have been a pretty
exhausting Phase 1 development process?

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_2030/Process_planning=prev=17657673


On 8 Jan 2018 1:03 AM, "James Salsman" <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anthony,
>
> I've been working on
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030/Process_planning which
> is where I believe the Phase 2 process is starting from.
>
> I am particularly interested in your opinion as to whether survey
> metrics should be added to traditional metrics.
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now that the movement direction has been decided on and the endorsement
> > process seems to be complete, can anyone tell me where we are at with
> > regard to phase 2 of the process - "The main goal of phase 2 will be to
> > answer the question "How do we implement the strategic direction", which
> > means identifying the resources needed for execution, and the activities
> it
> > involves." [1]
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> > 1.
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy Phase 2

[Anthony Cole]

Now that the movement direction has been decided on and the endorsement
process seems to be complete, can anyone tell me where we are at with
regard to phase 2 of the process - "The main goal of phase 2 will be to
answer the question "How do we implement the strategic direction", which
means identifying the resources needed for execution, and the activities it
involves." [1]

Anthony Cole

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you Adele and Yongmin. I'll ask Barbara to clarify next time we chat.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 at 12:49 am, Yongmin H. <li...@revi.pe.kr> wrote:

> I tried quite a lot (around 10 times) and succeded to get one saying
> ‘here’s something I found from Wikipedia.’ I have it recorded, but
> uploading it fails... Will try later.
>
> --
> Yongmin
> Sent from my iPhone
> https://wp.revi.blog
> Text licensed under CC BY ND 2.0 KR
> Please note that this address is list-only address and any non-mailing
> list mails will be treated as spam.
> Please use https://encrypt.to/0x947f156f16250de39788c3c35b625da5beff197a.
>
> 2017. 9. 22. 01:27, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> 작성:
>
> > I was speaking with Barbara Page last night (Barbara's highlighting of
> this
> > issue in a Wikipediocracy blog post
> > http://wikipediocracy.com/2017/07/24/alexa/ prompted Andreas to open
> this
> > discussion) last night and she told me when she asks Alexa about ovarian
> > cancer these days, Alexa begins with "According to Wikipedia..." Can
> anyone
> > else with Alexa confirm this?
> >
> >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 at 3:55 am, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I checked in with Adele today, to ask about progress on the Amazon Echo
> >> licensing issue, and whether she had a rough idea when she'd be able to
> >> report back to us.
> >>
> >> Adele was happy for me to pass on here that we're unlikely to hear
> anything
> >> further about this until September, as Wikimania is looming, and she
> will
> >> be off on a much-needed holiday after that.
> >>
> >> Adele added that the timeline really depends on the Amazon staff they
> >> contacted. While she will let us know as soon as she hears from them,
> the
> >> call required for this type of outreach will probably only happen in
> >> September.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Andreas
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Adele Vrana <avr...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I am Adele Vrana, Director of Strategic Partnerships at the Foundation.
> >>>
> >>> We have contacts at Amazon and will seek to clarify the questions
> raised
> >> on
> >>> this thread. I will make sure to circle back with you once we have an
> >>> update.
> >>>
> >>> All the best,
> >>> Adele
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am 27.07.2017 um 18:37 schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will not spend an hour trying to identify the exact article version
> >>>> that
> >>>>> matches Alexa's output in that video best, but it's safe to assume
> >> that
> >>>>> this inserted "Ed", too, came from Wikipedia, even though it had gone
> >>> by
> >>>>> the time the video was uploaded to YouTube.
> >>>>
> >>>> The current (full) answer is
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden, the American computer professional former
> >>>> CIA employee, and government contractor who leaked classified
> >>>> information from the U.S. National Security Agency in 2013.'
> >>>>
> >>>> Now obviously there could be -lots- going on behind the scenes, for
> >>>> example long term caching of search results (difficult to believe that
> >>>> Bing would allow that if it is really from them, but who knows) and so
> >>> on.
> >>>>
> >>>> Simon
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ___
> >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

[Anthony Cole]

I was speaking with Barbara Page last night (Barbara's highlighting of this
issue in a Wikipediocracy blog post
http://wikipediocracy.com/2017/07/24/alexa/ prompted Andreas to open this
discussion) last night and she told me when she asks Alexa about ovarian
cancer these days, Alexa begins with "According to Wikipedia..." Can anyone
else with Alexa confirm this?

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 at 3:55 am, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I checked in with Adele today, to ask about progress on the Amazon Echo
> licensing issue, and whether she had a rough idea when she'd be able to
> report back to us.
>
> Adele was happy for me to pass on here that we're unlikely to hear anything
> further about this until September, as Wikimania is looming, and she will
> be off on a much-needed holiday after that.
>
> Adele added that the timeline really depends on the Amazon staff they
> contacted. While she will let us know as soon as she hears from them, the
> call required for this type of outreach will probably only happen in
> September.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Adele Vrana <avr...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am Adele Vrana, Director of Strategic Partnerships at the Foundation.
> >
> > We have contacts at Amazon and will seek to clarify the questions raised
> on
> > this thread. I will make sure to circle back with you once we have an
> > update.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Adele
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 27.07.2017 um 18:37 schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> > > >
> > > > Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden ...
> > > >
> > > > I will not spend an hour trying to identify the exact article version
> > > that
> > > > matches Alexa's output in that video best, but it's safe to assume
> that
> > > > this inserted "Ed", too, came from Wikipedia, even though it had gone
> > by
> > > > the time the video was uploaded to YouTube.
> > >
> > > The current (full) answer is
> > >
> > > 'Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden, the American computer professional former
> > > CIA employee, and government contractor who leaked classified
> > > information from the U.S. National Security Agency in 2013.'
> > >
> > > Now obviously there could be -lots- going on behind the scenes, for
> > > example long term caching of search results (difficult to believe that
> > > Bing would allow that if it is really from them, but who knows) and so
> > on.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Adele Vrana*
> > *Strategic Partnerships - Global Reach*
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6773
> > avr...@wikimedia.org
> >
> > *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the
> > sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
> > <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Videos of sessions at Vienna Hackathon and WikiCite

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you Andrew for the recordings and Leila for the links.

On 27 May 2017 3:59 PM, "NC Hasive"  wrote:

> Thanks Andrew and Leila. Happy to watch.
>
>
> -Hasive
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Edward Galvez 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Andrew and Leila - I am watching right now.. the sound quality is
> > amazing. It feels like I am in the room...
> >
> > -E
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I could not make it to Vienna for the Hackathon [1] and WikiCite [2]
> > > and I was happy to see that Andrew Lih has been doing some serious
> > > recordings [3] of the sessions. I watched the Showcase Talks [4] from
> > > the third day of the Hackathon which gave a nice overview of
> > > everything that had happened there. Sharing the links here in case
> > > some of you are interested to watch them as well.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Andrew! :)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Leila
> > >
> > > --
> > > Leila Zia
> > > Senior Research Scientist
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Hackathon_2017
> > > [2]
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2017
> > > [3]
> > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN4mEhpy3b8RsYfokuzsBGnw-_
> KVDSfX_
> > > [4]
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQDSd9ewjSw=3=
> > > PLN4mEhpy3b8RsYfokuzsBGnw-_KVDSfX_
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edward Galvez
> > Evaluation Strategist (Survey Specialist), and
> > Affiliations Committee Liaison
> > Learning & Evaluation
> > Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive) **:: **নুরুন্নবী চৌধুরী (হাছিব)*
> User: Hasive  |
> GSM/WhatsApp/Viber: +8801712754752
> ​
> Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia  user:Hasive>
> Board Member | Wikimedia Bangladesh 
> fb.com/Hasive  | @nhasive
>  | www.nhasive.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Congratulation, Hebrew Wikipedia

[Anthony Cole]

Outstanding (normal for Hebrew Wikipedia)

On 30 Dec 2016 8:49 AM, "Sam Klein"  wrote:

> Huzzah!  Congrats, and thanks for sharing this, Itzik :)
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
> it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm happy to share with you that this morning the 200,000th article has
> > been written on the Hebrew Wikipedia - The Southern Pudu (there is not
> > article about him in English!):
> > https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95_%D7%
> > 93%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99
> >
> > Yesterday we released to the press a list of the top 20 most viewed
> > articles on HEWP during the last year. Most of the news outlets in Israel
> > published the list, but alongside the list, we added also some
> statistics:
> > An average of 45 articles are written on by 760 active editors and 150
> very
> > active editors. The number of very active editors increased by 20%
> compare
> > to last year [1] - while number globally increased only by 0.11% [2] and
> 0%
> > on ENWP [3] .
> >
> > We are really proud of the Hebrew community and Wikimedia Israel
> volunteers
> > who run and support great projects and initiatives, alongside the
> community
> > members, to consistently increase the number of editors and their
> activity.
> > This achievement is thanks to their efforts!.
> >
> >
> > Happy near year from Israel!
> >
> >
> > Some of the coverage about the most viewed articles on HEWP:
> >
> >- http://net.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1225240
> >-
> >http://www.mako.co.il/news-money/tech-q4_2016/Article-
> > c3f561fba944951004.htm
> >-
> >http://reshet.tv/item/news/economics/computers-science-
> > technology/wikipedia-most-read-2016-79561/
> >- http://hakolkalul.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=1225272 (minute
> >21:15)
> >-
> >http://www.mako.co.il/news-channel2/first-edition-q4_2016/Article-
> > c7cea84f8464951004.htm?sCh=e3be6603e7478110=25483675
> >(minute 38:39)
> >- http://www.calcalist.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3704729,00.html
> >- http://www.ch10.co.il/news/335964/#.WGUkkht97mE
> >- http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/439575
> >- http://mizbala.com/news/117472
> >- http://www.maariv.co.il/news/israel/Article-568404
> >- http://www.kipa.co.il/tarbut/70410.html
> >- http://www.kipa.co.il/tarbut/70410.html
> >- http://www.pc.co.il/it-news/231238/
> >- http://www.ice.co.il/media/news/article/460324
> >- http://tech.walla.co.il/item/3026625
> >- http://www.hidabroot.org/article/215941
> >
> > [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryHE.htm
> > [2] http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/#secondary-graphs-tab
> > [3] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> > Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> > +972-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> > sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj  w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] User session reset due to security issue

[Darian Anthony Patrick]

Due to a programming error, users who logged in to a Wikimedia project
wiki between 2016-06-07 and 2016-06-14 may have had the "Keep me logged
in (for up to 30 days)” setting inadvertently selected, despite the
checkbox not having been checked. In order to prevent unauthorized
access to user accounts in instances of shared computer use, the
Foundation is resetting user sessions for all users who logged in within
the aforementioned timeframe. Users who have their session reset will
need to log in again.

We apologize for the inconvenience this causes, but we want to reduce
the possibility of unintended access to user accounts by unauthorized
parties.

Additional information may be found at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_session_reset.

-- 
Darian Anthony Patrick
App. Security Engineer
IRC:   dapatrick
Wikis: DPatrick (WMF)
--
5304 CF26 E373 AEEF 6855  07AA 5F3E B709 00D4 11A4
--



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Documentation & Evaluation of the Wikimedia Conference 2016 published

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you so much for pulling all that together, Cornelius. An excellent
resource for us who didn't make it to the conference.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Andy Cruz y Corro <andyc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Cornelius! Just FYI: the documentation link seems to be wrong and
> located at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Documentation_and_Follow-Up
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Cornelius Kibelka <
> cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
> > tl:dr; The documentation of the Wikimedia Conference 2016 is published
> > on
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Documentation
> > and Follow-Up. The feedback evaluation of the conference is published on
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Feedback_evaluation
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dear Wikimedia friends,
> >
> > In April, Wikimedia Deutschland hosted the Wikimedia Conference 2016 in
> > Berlin.[1] y job as the Program and Engagement Coordinator is – besides
> > creating the program – to make this conference more sustainable and
> secure
> > continuous participation of everyone involved.[2] My primary assignment
> is
> > to support the participants and speakers. But it’s more than that: My
> task
> > is to ensure and monitor that essential conference topics are constantly
> > being worked on and further developed.
> >
> > The first step for your further engagement is the documentation of the
> > sessions. I’m happy to announce that I just have published it on Meta:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Documentation
> > and
> > Follow-Up
> >
> > Based on the notes of the volunteer notetakers, I have summarised the
> > conversations and discussions of most of the sessions. Many sessions
> have a
> > “How to move forward” box where you can see the next steps agreed upon at
> > the conference and contact persons to reach out to. The documentation is
> > not only a valuable resource for participants, but should also provide
> > those who did not attend with insights and inspiration.
> >
> > During the pre-conference Thursday of Wikimania 2016, Nicole and I will
> > host a “WMCON Follow-Up Day” where will work further on the main topics
> of
> > the Wikimedia Conference. I’ll publish more details about this day in the
> > upcoming days.
> >
> > Additionally, our Evaluation team has published the WMCON evaluation
> based
> > on the post-survey we asked participants to fill out.[3] Thanks to all
> > participants who have rated the Wikimedia Conference extraordinary well:
> > 67% of the participants said the conference was ‘excellent’, 32% rated it
> > as ‘good’. Wow! You can find further details and opinions in the
> evaluation
> > report.[3]
> >
> > An overall report of the Wikimedia Conference including the Program and
> > Engagement Coordination as well as lessons learned will be published by
> the
> > end of July.
> >
> > If you have any remarks, comments or feedback, please don’t hesitate to
> get
> > in touch with me.
> >
> > Best regards from Berlin,
> >
> > Cornelius
> >
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016
> >
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference/Program_and_Engagement_Coordination
> >
> > [3]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Feedback_evaluation
> >
> > --
> > Cornelius Kibelka
> > Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
> > for the Wikimedia Conference
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > http://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> > Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Crisis of Confidence

[Anthony Cole]

Fae, I can see no reason for Dariusz to leave the board. He seems to be
decent and intelligent. The Arnnon thing was an error but it was clearly
part of a broader problem. Yes, they all need training but that seems to be
in the works. I hope he stays, and is re-elected if he chooses to run next
time.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
nwil...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> With regard to "[the WMF board] delivering services that are of a high
> > quality", all the metrics that the WMF report show the opposite. The
> > WMF consistently fail to meet the performance targets they set for
> > themselves, as you can see from the most recent quarterly report, they
> > "missed", i.e. "failed", 35% of all their objectives.[3] In the Retail
> > & Telecoms businesses I have worked in, a pattern of poor performance
> > like this would see speedy major investment in change and improvement,
> > including major changes at the board level.
> > [...]
> > 3.
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q2_(October-December).pdf=5
>
>
>
> The explanation for this, is at the top of
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
> : "NB: In a mature 90-day goalsetting process, the “sweet spot” is for
> about 75% of goals to be a success. Organizations that are meeting 100% of
> their goals are not typically setting aggressive goals."
> Note that partial successes are not also represented, if one just checks
> the overview result; it's a simple binary system. See the textual notes for
> details about partial successes within individual goals.
> Plus, not reaching that 75% target of completely-successful goals, is
> perhaps also attributable to the intense and widespread stress of that time
> period...
> Hope that helps.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

[Anthony Cole]

Denny, regarding "The formal task force was created end of October. This
task force involved outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact
finding."

Who was on the task force, besides you and Patricio? What do you mean by
"professional fact finding?"

Regarding, "The official task force, set up by the Trustees, worked under
the standards of keeping confidentiality, obviously. I thought this goes
without saying, but I am explicating it."

This is still ambiguous. Was the new task force expecting James to share
information that was given to him on the understanding he wouldn't share
it?

As a general point, crises always start out messy. That you moved from an
ad hoc inquiry to a formal one is perfectly normal. Characterising the
initial attempt to understand the situation as "unprofessional" and the
next (that excluded James) as "professional", if that's what you're doing,
strikes me as a bit sly.





Anthony Cole


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 May 2016 at 23:27, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > On the other hand, I however, had requested multiple times before the
> > November board meeting to see what information those 5 investigation
> board
> > members were looking at. I was denied access to these details. Some of
> the
> > documents contained key information I only become aware of in the last
> > couple of months.
>
> *This* is breathtakingly crappy governance by the WMF board. Trustees
> are trustees, there's no "grade A" trusted trustees and lesser "grade
> B" less trusted trustees.
>
> We are overdue to clear out the self-selected "grade A" trustees that
> have become far too used to claiming that they are irreplaceable and
> have unique talents. There's a vast pool of community members with
> fantastic experience to choose from, and who have absolutely no
> undeclared commercial conflicts of interest, or are seeking to puff up
> the 'tech' side of their resumeés, so they can charge higher fees for
> speaking engagements or attract contracts as special advisors for
> politicians.
>
> Thanks for factually explaining events more clearly James.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Anthony Cole]

The Signpost has just published the October 2015 email exchange between
James and Jimmy - the exchange that Jimmy wouldn't release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-24/Op-ed

Thank you Signpost.



Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is getting ridiculous.
>
> Jimmy, you quoted from an email exchange with James. James claims this
> selective quoting distorted the nature of the exchange. You have been asked
> to publish the entire exchange. The only other party to that exchange
> (James) wants it published. As Fae and others have repeatedly pointed out,
> you may simply redact any confidential board information. Your explanations
> for not releasing the whole exchange are an insult to our intelligence and
> your refusal to do so is a display of contempt.
>
> James is a genuine leader and spokesperson, elected by the community.
>
> What are you?
>
> You happened to be there when your failed encyclopaedia, thanks to Larry's
> idea to use a wiki and thanks to the energy and determination of the
> community, exploded before your eyes into this amazing thing.
>
> Now, you pretend to be the genius behind Wikipedia. Now, you pose as the
> humanitarian who gave away the encyclopaedia because "it was the right
> thing to do" (when, in reality, you relinquished it because the community
> wouldn't allow you to monetise it). Now, you make a nice living off this
> charade.
>
> You can take that story with you and, I'm sure, for a while at least,
> you'll still be able to dine out on it. But you're in the way here. It's
> time to move on from the board and from your self-appointed role as
> "spokesperson for the community".
>
> We need honest, hard working people who genuinely represent us in a
> public-facing role, not a deceitful, self-aggrandising, opportunistic
> squatter.
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hoi,
>> > Governance worth a damn...  Did you know that I introduced Jan
>> Bart
>> > to Jimmy  the rest is also history.
>>
>>
>> Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.
>>
>> >
>> > But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
>> > board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
>> > relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
>> > board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right,
>> remember
>> > that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead
>> or
>> > when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
>> >
>> >
>> I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect
>> are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the
>> spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets
>> direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or
>> dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'
>>
>> I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not
>> making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one
>> we're
>> right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their
>> own sanity :p
>>
>>
>> > This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does
>> hinder
>> > and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
>> > Thanks,
>> >GerardM
>> >
>> > On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com
>> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>> > > <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > Hoi,
>> > > > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine
>> comes
>> > > out,
>> > > > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think
>> he
>> > is
>> > > > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still
>> intend
>> > > on
>> > > > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
>> > > convincing
>> > > > before most other people would agree with you.
>> > > >
>> > > > The problem with your single issue a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Anthony Cole]

This is getting ridiculous.

Jimmy, you quoted from an email exchange with James. James claims this
selective quoting distorted the nature of the exchange. You have been asked
to publish the entire exchange. The only other party to that exchange
(James) wants it published. As Fae and others have repeatedly pointed out,
you may simply redact any confidential board information. Your explanations
for not releasing the whole exchange are an insult to our intelligence and
your refusal to do so is a display of contempt.

James is a genuine leader and spokesperson, elected by the community.

What are you?

You happened to be there when your failed encyclopaedia, thanks to Larry's
idea to use a wiki and thanks to the energy and determination of the
community, exploded before your eyes into this amazing thing.

Now, you pretend to be the genius behind Wikipedia. Now, you pose as the
humanitarian who gave away the encyclopaedia because "it was the right
thing to do" (when, in reality, you relinquished it because the community
wouldn't allow you to monetise it). Now, you make a nice living off this
charade.

You can take that story with you and, I'm sure, for a while at least,
you'll still be able to dine out on it. But you're in the way here. It's
time to move on from the board and from your self-appointed role as
"spokesperson for the community".

We need honest, hard working people who genuinely represent us in a
public-facing role, not a deceitful, self-aggrandising, opportunistic
squatter.


Anthony Cole


On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Governance worth a damn...  Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
> > to Jimmy  the rest is also history.
>
>
> Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.
>
> >
> > But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
> > board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
> > relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
> > board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember
> > that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or
> > when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
> >
> >
> I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect
> are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the
> spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets
> direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or
> dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'
>
> I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not
> making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one we're
> right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their
> own sanity :p
>
>
> > This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does
> hinder
> > and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
> > > out,
> > > > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think
> he
> > is
> > > > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still
> intend
> > > on
> > > > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
> > > convincing
> > > > before most other people would agree with you.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil
> > than
> > > > anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
> > > about
> > > > what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful
> talk
> > > but
> > > > for me it failed.
> > >
> > > From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
> > > damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
> > > weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
> > > duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
> > > profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
> > > Jimmy's behaviour

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Hi Ting.

You say, "...a board member should not foster his or her own pet projects."

It's just one vote out of ten (normally). If they can't persuade their
colleagues, the motion won't pass.

In the case of community-selected trustees, they were put there by people
who know their enthusiasms and expect them to do what they can to allow
those initiatives to flourish, and who trust them not to do that at the
expense of the overall shared mission.

Shouldn't a discussion affecting an initiative include the very trustee who
is (likely) the best informed and best placed to explain things to the
other trustees?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Ting Chen <wing.phil...@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hello Anthony,
>
> in my opinion a board member should not foster his or her own pet
> projects. The WMF board members are leading a global movement. When
> everyone of them are fosting their own pet projects other projects may
> suffer. The board members should be beyond the single projects and give
> directions, like do more for the small projects, instead of single out the
> Swahili Wikipedia (just as an example).
>
> This does not mean that the board members should not continue their
> involvement in the projects, but then as community members, not having more
> power or say than other community members.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
>
>
>
> Am 04/12/2016 um 01:03 PM schrieb Anthony Cole:
>
>> Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
>> movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
>> initiative?
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> jytdog, regarding:
>>>
>>> "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
>>> outside interests
>>> and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
>>> with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
>>> role."
>>>
>>> When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?
>>>
>>> I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
>>> hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
>>> just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
>>> they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I
>>> think,
>>> expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is
>>> it
>>> a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>>>>
>>>> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
>>>> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
>>>> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the
>>>> board,
>>>> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
>>>> away.
>>>>
>>>> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
>>>> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>>>>
>>>> Anthony Cole
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog <jyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
>>>>> we
>>>>> changed
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>>>>>
>>>>>> "
>>>>>>
>>>>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
>>>>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content
>>>>> as
>>>>> an
>>>>> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the
>>>>> WMF
>>>>> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
>>>>> page,
>>>>> too)
>>>>>
>>>>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
>>>>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
>>>>> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actua

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Ugh. Sorry. I mean: should involvement in and advocacy for a particular
movement initiative disqualify one from voting on motions related to that
initiative?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jytdog, regarding:
>
> "Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside 
> interests
> and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict
> with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the
> role."
>
> When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?
>
> I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
> hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
> just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
> they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I think,
> expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is it
> a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>>
>> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
>> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
>> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
>> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
>> away.
>>
>> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
>> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog <jyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why
>>> we
>>> changed
>>> <
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>>> >"
>>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
>>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as
>>> an
>>> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
>>> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
>>> page,
>>> too)
>>>
>>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
>>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
>>> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
>>> Debating
>>> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
>>> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever
>>> areas
>>> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
>>> wasn't made public.
>>>
>>> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
>>> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
>>> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
>>> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
>>> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>>>
>>> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>>> >
>>> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
>>> > knowledge with the world?"
>>> >
>>> > Yes.
>>> >
>>> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>>> > yearly
>>> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
>>> should
>>> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>>> >
>>> > It depends on what we want them to do.
>>> >
>>> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
>>> > Wikipedia's
>>> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers]
>>> is
>>> > problematic?"
>>> >
>>> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>>> >
>>> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>>> > less frequently,
>&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

jytdog, regarding:

"Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant
outside interests
and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests conflict with
a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into the role."

When you say "relevant outside interests" what do you mean?

I'd love to hear Denny's thoughts on this. Also, Denny, I'm interested to
hear you were concerned about a conflict of interest with Wikidata. I'm
just now rethinking the question of internal conflicts of interest. Are
they necessarily a bad thing? You were elected by a community who, I think,
expected you to create an environment where Wikidata could flourish. Is it
a bad thing to have advocates for movement initiatives on the board?

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.
>
> We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
> and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
> discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
> and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
> away.
>
> He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
> him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog <jyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we
>> changed
>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
>> >"
>> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
>> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as
>> an
>> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
>> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk
>> page,
>> too)
>>
>> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
>> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
>> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.
>> Debating
>> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
>> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas
>> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
>> wasn't made public.
>>
>> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
>> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
>> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
>> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
>> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>>
>> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
>> >
>> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
>> > knowledge with the world?"
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
>> > yearly
>> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
>> should
>> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
>> >
>> > It depends on what we want them to do.
>> >
>> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
>> > Wikipedia's
>> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
>> > problematic?"
>> >
>> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
>> >
>> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
>> > less frequently,
>> > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
>> >
>> > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity,
>> I
>> > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no
>> expert on
>> > these things.
>> >
>> >
>> > Anthony Cole
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Anthony Cole wrote:
>> > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
>> > we're
>> > > >all agreed now, I think,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Good points worth repeating, though, jytdog.

We're learning as we go here. COI is notoriously difficult to anticipate
and manage. None of us, that I'm aware of, thought about - or at least
discussed - the implications of his Google role when he ran for the board,
and when it became too onerous to manage, Denny had the wisdom to step
away.

He's an enormous asset to this movement; as I said, we're lucky to have
him, and I'm very grateful for all he's contributed.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, jytdog <jyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is kind of frustrating.  Lila (speaking for the board) in her "Why we
> changed
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lila_Tretikov%27s_statement_on_Why_we%27ve_changed
> >"
> message, identified falling page views (creating a threat of falling
> donation revenue) caused by folks like Google repurposing our content as an
> "existential challenge".I am not sure I agree with that, but the WMF
> Board and the former ED said that.  (Jimmy confirmed that on his Talk page,
> too)
>
> The key thing about Denny's COI issues as they unfolded, is that he was
> surprised and frustrated about the problems managing his COI ended up
> causing - so much so that he quit.  That stuff actually happened.  Debating
> what his COI was or whether it mattered is really beside the point... and
> all murky because whatever management plan was worked out - whatever areas
> actually were identified as problematic - we do not know, as that plan
> wasn't made public.
>
> Going forward, there should be a) a clear disclosure of relevant outside
> interests and b) a pre-agreed COI management plan where those interests
> conflict with a Trustee's obligations, before Trustees formally step into
> the role.  What happened with Denny doesn't have to happen again.  That
> seems to be the key issue looking forward.
>
> I'm repeating myself, and will stop now.
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:
> >
> > "Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
> > knowledge with the world?"
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > "What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> > yearly
> > budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller
> should
> > the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"
> >
> > It depends on what we want them to do.
> >
> > "...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
> > Wikipedia's
> > page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
> > problematic?"
> >
> > I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.
> >
> > "If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
> > less frequently,
> > that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"
> >
> > If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I
> > doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert
> on
> > these things.
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Anthony Cole wrote:
> > > >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results,
> > we're
> > > >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> > > >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
> > >
> > > Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate
> and
> > > reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction"
> feature
> > > for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and
> re-users'
> > > interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and
> correct.
> > >
> > > Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we
> > make
> > > our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be
> > applauding
> > > Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
> > >
> > > As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> > > organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
> > > Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing
> management
> > > issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
> > >
> > > What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

I agree with all of that, MZ. As to your questions:

"Shouldn't we be applauding Google and others for helping us share our
knowledge with the world?"

Yes.

"What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of yearly
budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or smaller should
the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?"

It depends on what we want them to do.

"...are you sure that we're all agreed that this [Google impacting
Wikipedia's
page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers] is
problematic?"

I'm less concerned than many, and I'm sure others are unconcerned.

"If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit
less frequently,
that actually saves us money, doesn't it?"

If our page views drop by 50% and this halves our fundraising capacity, I
doubt that would be offset by the saved hosting costs. But I'm no expert on
these things.


Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> Anthony Cole wrote:
> >Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results, we're
> >all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
> >consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers.
>
> Google and others have a direct interest in their data being accurate and
> reliable. We already see that Google has a "report a correction" feature
> for some of its services. It's in both Wikimedia's interest and re-users'
> interest for the underlying data source to be update-to-date and correct.
>
> Our mission is to spread free educational content to the world and we make
> our data available for re-use for this purpose. Shouldn't we be applauding
> Google and others for helping us share our knowledge with the world?
>
> As far as threats to direct-to-user fund-raising go, I'd put
> organizational instability ahead of Google at the moment. The Wikimedia
> Foundation has repeatedly been in the news lately for ongoing management
> issues, both in its executive team and in its board of trustees.
>
> What size do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should be in terms of
> yearly budget and number of full-time employees? How much bigger or
> smaller should the Wikimedia Foundation be than other Wikimedia chapters?
>
> Even if we accepted your premise that Google was impacting Wikipedia's
> page views and the ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers
> (citations needed, to be sure), are you sure that we're all agreed that
> this is problematic? If others re-using our content has a side effect
> of reducing donations to Wikimedia Foundation Inc., donations which are
> received through questionable and increasingly obnoxious on-site
> advertisements, you will not find universal agreement that this donor
> reduction would be terrible. As others have argued previously, small and
> recurring donations are a means of providing accountability for the
> entities entrusted with these monetary donations. If potential donors no
> longer trust the Wikimedia Foundation to manage and distribute this
> money, no longer donating financially is practical and wise.
>
> If Google causes page views to go down and our sites are directly hit less
> frequently, that actually saves us money, doesn't it? We're theoretically
> then off-loading some of our hosting costs to Google, Facebook, and
> others who are downloading and re-uploading our data to the Web, exactly
> as we mandated that anyone be able to do. With multiple copies of the data
> on the Web, we're better ensuring that the content lives on in perpetuity.
>
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Anthony Cole]

Just for the record, I raised the conflict of interest issue with Denny in
more than one venue - a Signpost discussion and (I think) here, and I
discussed it in other places. I never suggested he was a mole for Google
and I'm not aware of anyone who did - though I may have missed or
forgotten.

Google's "info boxes" and their answers at the top of their results, we're
all agreed now, I think, are impacting Wikipedia's page views and,
consequently, our ability to raise funds and recruit new volunteers. This
was described by Jimmy as an existential threat to the movement recently.
Denny is involved in those aspects of Google's operations. This is a
profound conflict of interest.

Denny is also a main thought leader behind Wikidata, and will have serious
biases concerning its priority.

These interests and involvements (Wikidata  and Google) are a good fit with
each other and we're lucky to have someone with Denny's ability and
integrity bridging the two. But it's just untenable for him to sit on the
board of trustees while he's in those roles.



Anthony Cole


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>I feel that Denny's decision to resign makes sense, and in no way does
> this
> >>>decision put a cloud over his continued involvement in our community.
>
> Pine,
> I don't necessarily disagree with you,
> but you are doing a very common mistake in the Wikimedia world:
> you are not taking into account people's emotions.
> Making an hard decision always takes its toll, and it's all but granted
> that someone wants to stay
> in the same community that lacked trust in him and stressed him out for
> weeks.
> I personally trusted him, I felt the pain in his messages to this list in
> the last months, and I'm sad he has to leave
> from what I thought was an important decisive role.
>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Brill,
> >
> > Speaking generally (meaning, not in regard to the specific situation of
> > Denny), conflict of interest issues do happen on a regular basis. In my
> > experience, we also generally handle them well.
> >
> > Having numerous business relationships and interests is common in the
> > business world. Many times when there is a conflict of interest issue,
> it's
> > sufficient to recuse from particular discussions. Sometimes, the best
> > course of action is to resign from one role or another.
> >
> > Regarding Denny's situation specifically, after leaving the WMF board, he
> > may provide valuable input and may in some ways be more effective because
> > he will have stepped away from numerous COI issues.
> >
> > I feel that Denny's decision to resign makes sense, and in no way does
> this
> > decision put a cloud over his continued involvement in our community.
> >
> > There are many problems in the Wikimedia universe, but I think that our
> COI
> > policies are generally sound.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I find this issue of Conflict of Interest exceedingly problematic.
> > >
> > > Almost every person working and living today will have a conflict of
> > > interest somehow, especially as one becomes a contributor to any of the
> > > Wikimedia projects, gets to know people, tries to organize events or
> > > promote the value of Wikipedia, Wikimedia, etc. Or if you work in any
> > field
> > > that specializes in anything online or technical. It is an impossible
> > > situation.
> > >
> > > I think that Wikimedia deals with this very badly -- and obviously at
> > great
> > > personal cost to talented, giving people. I am sorry.
> > >
> > > And to the bigger problem: Wikimedia loses a smart person who has loads
> > of
> > > ideas and expertise -- and is a contributor to Wikidata (one of the
> best
> > &
> > > most exciting projects to be visited upon Wikimedia) because of this
> > arcane
> > > and quite frankly needing to be re-evaluated rule? I see this as one of
> > the
> > > many problems of Wikimedia.
> > >
> > > EVERYONE has conflict of interest. We need the smartest and brightest
> > minds
> > > out there to contribute whatever they willingly can and will do on a
> > > volunteer basis. How can they not have connections to the real world as
> > > well as to online? Do we expect volunteers to be in their bunkers
> > > somewhere, siloed from the world, that these clean f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disabe Media Viewer for non-logged-in users and logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons

[Anthony Cole]

That RFC is 20 months old. That media viewer is not today's media viewer.

Anthony Cole


On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org>
wrote:

> On 16-03-14 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
> > the non-participation of
> > non-participants can't render all decisions invalid.
>
> It rarely becomes a problem in practice; the vast majority of decisions
> made on projects are editorial or internal management.
>
> In this particular case, there is a tiny segment of the editing
> community making a sweeping UI decision that - by definition - doesn't
> even affect *them*.
>
> That can't possibly be right.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Thanks Peter. It's not my work, I put it out to tender at Village Pump
(technical) and User:Makyen took it and did it. (It doesn't seem to be
working now, though.) I'm pretty confident it's technically possible to
make it accessible (readable by JAWS [1]) now. What's missing is the WMF's
decision to invest in reliability. Reliability, I'm discovering, is the
thing that must not be named. "We tried fixing reliability. Remember
Nupedia? Hahahahahahaha."

Magnus: I think we agree both ratios (Wikipedia's and Wikidata's) have a
long way to go. :o)

TTS: Yes. Why not? A simple button that smoothly reads an article to me,
like a podcast, with fast forward and rewind or skip, while I do the dishes
would be cool. I hope they're not going to try to re-invent JAWS, though.




Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusman...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> I like this for the interface, and as you said for the screen reading
> function. I hear WMF is working on some TTS thing now?
>
> Not sure it would significantly alter my ratios at the moment, especially
> given its rather low takeup (i presume). In your example, it would actually
> make the ratio worse for Wikipedia, providing evidence for more than one
> statement per sentence ;-)
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:53 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ugh. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2#Example
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> > >> discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph."
> Check
> > >> out the first paragraph and its references here:
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
> > >>
> > >> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
> > >> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what
> each
> > >> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
> > >> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool
> tip.
> > >>
> > >> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that
> > screen
> > >> readers can read it.
> > >>
> > >> Anthony Cole
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > >> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those
> at
> > >>> the
> > >>> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of
> references
> > >>> at
> > >>> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my
> point.
> > >>> Many
> > >>> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
> > >>> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences
> > after
> > >>> the
> > >>> > last footnote marker.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
> > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote
> > >>> marker
> > >>> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at
> the
> > >>> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as
> > unsourced
> > >>> > statements.
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> discern
> > >>> what
> > >>> a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my
> > >>> "one
> > >>> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement
> numbers.
> > So
> > >>> is my  count, then. I am certain you can find an article where
> my
> > >>> statement-to-reference ratio is off against W

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

I'd use it for most of my citations if it also worked for users of screen
readers. But I can't bring myself to add a feature to an article that isn't
accessible by the sight impaired.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> That would be a useful feature in the long term
> Cheers,
>  Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Anthony Cole
> Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 8:42 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
>
> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
> out the first paragraph and its references here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
>
> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
>
> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen
> readers can read it.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those
> > > at the end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of
> > > references at the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are
> missing my point.
> > Many
> > > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
> > > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences
> > > after
> > the
> > > last footnote marker.
> > >
> > > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote
> > > marker supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the
> > > sentences at the beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be
> > > counted as unsourced statements.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern
> > what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As
> > described, my "one sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of
> > statement numbers. So is my  count, then. I am certain you can
> > find an article where my statement-to-reference ratio is off against
> > WIkipedia; but I believe I could find more instances where it is in
> favour of Wikipedia.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
> > doesn't
> > > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
> > >
> >
> > Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care
> > :-)
> >
> > My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one
> > can't "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor
> referencing.
> > Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things).
> > That is all.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Magnus
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of
> > > > you
> > only
> > > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end
> > > > of paragraphs.
> > > >
> > > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a
> > > > paragraph
> > > if,
> > > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a
> > > > paragraph
> > often
> > > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
> > > >
> > > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
> > > >
> > > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in
> > > > his response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading
> > > > because, provided statements are repeated and supported by a
> > > > reliable source in
> > > the
> > > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
> > > en.Wikipedia
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Ugh. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2#Example

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
>> discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
>> out the first paragraph and its references here:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
>>
>> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
>> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
>> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
>> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
>>
>> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen
>> readers can read it.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at
>>> the
>>> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references
>>> at
>>> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.
>>> Many
>>> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
>>> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after
>>> the
>>> > last footnote marker.
>>> >
>>> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote
>>> marker
>>> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
>>> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
>>> > statements.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern
>>> what
>>> a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my
>>> "one
>>> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So
>>> is my  count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
>>> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
>>> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
>>> doesn't
>>> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-)
>>>
>>> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one
>>> can't
>>> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
>>> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That
>>> is
>>> all.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Magnus
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Anthony Cole
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you
>>> only
>>> > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
>>> > > paragraphs.
>>> > >
>>> > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a
>>> paragraph
>>> > if,
>>> > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph
>>> often
>>> > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
>>> > >
>>> > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
>>> > >
>>> > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
>>> > > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
>>> > > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source
>>> in
>>> > the
>>> > > body of an article, citations are not exp

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
> discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
> out the first paragraph and its references here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
>
> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
>
> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen
> readers can read it.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at
>> the
>> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at
>> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.
>> Many
>> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
>> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after
>> the
>> > last footnote marker.
>> >
>> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote marker
>> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
>> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
>> > statements.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern
>> what
>> a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my "one
>> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So
>> is my  count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
>> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
>> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
>> doesn't
>> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
>> >
>>
>> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-)
>>
>> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one can't
>> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
>> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That is
>> all.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Anthony Cole
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you
>> only
>> > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
>> > > paragraphs.
>> > >
>> > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph
>> > if,
>> > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph
>> often
>> > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
>> > >
>> > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
>> > >
>> > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
>> > > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
>> > > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in
>> > the
>> > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
>> > en.Wikipedia
>> > > article leads.
>> > >
>> > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
>> > Wikipedia's
>> > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
>> > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
>> > > appalling.
>> > >
>> > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is
>> worse".
>> > > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true
>> but
>> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
discern what a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
out the first paragraph and its references here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.

Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.

I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen
readers can read it.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusman...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at the
> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at
> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.
> Many
> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after
> the
> > last footnote marker.
> >
> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote marker
> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
> > statements.
> >
>
> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern what
> a  refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my "one
> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So
> is my  count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
>
>
> >
> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
> doesn't
> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
> >
>
> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-)
>
> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one can't
> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That is
> all.
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus
>
>
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you
> only
> > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
> > > paragraphs.
> > >
> > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph
> > if,
> > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph
> often
> > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
> > >
> > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
> > >
> > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
> > > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
> > > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in
> > the
> > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
> > en.Wikipedia
> > > article leads.
> > >
> > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
> > Wikipedia's
> > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
> > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
> > > appalling.
> > >
> > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is
> worse".
> > > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
> > > still an invalid argument.
> > >
> > > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
> > >
> > > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references
> > is
> > > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy
> > > to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding
> > > them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
> > >
> > > You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media
> viewer
> > > and visual editor was the stoopid pow

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

[Anthony Cole]

Thanks, Marc. That's a relief.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote:

> On 2016-03-12 6:31 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
>
>> I've lost track of where that's at.
>>
>
> Well, there was a consultation involving too few people that had a slight
> majority picking every other year out of a set of constrained options;
> followed by quite a bit of protestation; followed by the chair of the
> selection committee responding that the consultation will be given "all due
> consideration".
>
> I've very little doubt - knowing the selection committee people and their
> involvement in Wikimania since Frankfurt - that the so-called consultation
> /will/ be given all the consideration that it is due: very little, and a
> bit of chuckle.
>
> :-)
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at the
end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references at
the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point. Many
editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after the
last footnote marker.

There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote marker
supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
statements.

But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just doesn't
matter which project is more poorly referenced.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you only
> counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
> paragraphs.
>
> And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph if,
> as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph often
> supports all statements in the paragraph?
>
> Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
>
> Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
> response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
> provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in the
> body of an article, citations are not expected or required in en.Wikipedia
> article leads.
>
> Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating Wikipedia's
> lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
> reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
> appalling.
>
> Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is worse".
> You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
> still an invalid argument.
>
> It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
>
> Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references is
> difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy
> to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding
> them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
>
> You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media viewer
> and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Magnus.
>> >
>> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay
>> [1]
>> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were
>> addressing
>> > me.
>> >
>> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe
>> a
>> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable
>> sources.
>> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
>> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with
>> the
>> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references
>> per
>> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
>> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
>> > en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
>> > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>> >
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> >
>> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because
>> whole
>> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
>> > only once at the end of the paragraph.
>> >
>>
>> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
>> references at the end. Every  is sacred ;-)
>>
>> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is low
>> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
>> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name,
>> birth
>> date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three
>> occupations).
>> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. This
>> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the num

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you only
counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
paragraphs.

And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a paragraph if,
as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph often
supports all statements in the paragraph?

Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?

Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source in the
body of an article, citations are not expected or required in en.Wikipedia
article leads.

Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating Wikipedia's
lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
appalling.

Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is worse".
You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true but
still an invalid argument.

It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.

Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding references is
difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is easy to
add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than adding them
to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?

You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media viewer
and visual editor was the stoopid power users.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <magnusman...@googlemail.com
> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Magnus.
> >
> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
> > me.
> >
> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable
> sources.
> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with
> the
> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references
> per
> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
> > en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
> > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
> >
>
> Correct.
>
> >
> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
> > only once at the end of the paragraph.
> >
>
> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs, not
> references at the end. Every  is sacred ;-)
>
> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles is low
> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last name, birth
> date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three occupations).
> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. This
> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the number of
> references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains constant,
> thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.
>
> >
> > But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
> > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
> > arguments.
> >
>
> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put them in
> my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.
>
>
> >
> > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> > that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
> > that is so, you should fix that.
> >
>
> Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more
> difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and
> drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly to add
> book references, but still reasoably possible.
> What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a random
> Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be
> referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
> Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikid

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Gnangarra,

I was away when Andy was here, and am really regretting missing his
presentation. Can you explain to me why the Wikidata people have to make a
wikidata item of every source before they can cite it?

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, there's a typo in that last paragraph. It should read:
>
> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata *statements*.
> If that is so, you should fix that.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Magnus.
>>
>> I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
>> earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
>> me.
>>
>> Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
>> formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
>> Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
>> contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
>> number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
>> statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
>> ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
>> en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
>> Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>>
>> Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
>> paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
>> only once at the end of the paragraph.
>>
>> But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
>> be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
>> arguments.
>>
>> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
>> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
>> that is so, you should fix that.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <andreeng...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
>>> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
>>> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
>>> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
>>> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
>>> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
>>> be, because I know you have done many good things.
>>>
>>> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
>>> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
>>> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
>>> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
>>> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
>>> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
>>> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
>>> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>>>
>>> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
>>> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
>>> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
>>> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
>>> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
>>> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
>>> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
>>> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
>>> resistance against the product as a whole.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
>>> <magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
>>> thread. I
>>> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
>>> well
>>> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
>>> quite up
>>> > to the job.
>>> >
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Sorry, there's a typo in that last paragraph. It should read:

The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata *statements*.
If that is so, you should fix that.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Magnus.
>
> I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
> earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
> me.
>
> Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
> formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
> Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
> contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
> number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
> statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
> ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
> en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
> Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>
> Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
> paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
> only once at the end of the paragraph.
>
> But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
> be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
> arguments.
>
> The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
> that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
> that is so, you should fix that.
>
>
>
> 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <andreeng...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
>> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
>> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
>> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
>> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
>> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
>> be, because I know you have done many good things.
>>
>> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
>> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
>> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
>> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
>> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
>> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
>> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
>> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>>
>> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
>> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
>> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
>> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
>> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
>> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
>> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
>> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
>> resistance against the product as a whole.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
>> <magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
>> thread. I
>> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
>> well
>> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not
>> quite up
>> > to the job.
>> >
>> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
>> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
>> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
>> time
>> > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
>> >
>> > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
>> >
>> > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
>> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

[Anthony Cole]

Hi Magnus.

I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an essay [1]
earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were addressing
me.

Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You describe a
formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources.
Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each sentence
contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences with the
number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the references per
statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at the RPS
ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their associated
Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.

Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio because whole
paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker appears
only once at the end of the paragraph.

But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it should
be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
arguments.

The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and others
that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata sources. If
that is so, you should fix that.



1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <andreeng...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the "it's
> new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a crowd
> exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is behind it,
> as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the community who
> had a negative opinion about the first released version of visual
> editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I had to
> be, because I know you have done many good things.
>
> And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your average
> Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software engineering
> skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if they did,
> they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in short
> term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about that,
> it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably cause
> disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
> etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>
> I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of working
> in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. People
> see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues are so
> large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
> resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
> forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery of the
> issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my opinion is
> instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues into
> resistance against the product as a whole.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
> <magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in this
> thread. I
> > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved, and I do
> well
> > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation, was not quite
> up
> > to the job.
> >
> > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some technical or
> > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless, even
> > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I have seen
> time
> > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
> >
> > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
> >
> > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. And Not Made
> > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt. A couple of
> >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And you're
> >> persisting with your idée fixe.
> >>
> >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, actually. The
> >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. Not
> newbies.
> >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully complete an edit.
> It
> >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
> >>
> >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few editors were
> >> unnecessari

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania: Is it going to be once every two years?

[Anthony Cole]

I've lost track of where that's at.

Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cross-wiki notifications beta feature now available on all wikis

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. etc. ...

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wow! Its really awesome. It was much needed.
>
> Thanks, team.
> --
> Bodhisattwa
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

[Anthony Cole]

Jimmy, your ymail is still going into my gmail spam.

It's time you released that email Sarah reminded you about, above.

I agree with Oliver's characterisation of your tone in that email to Peter
and James. I'm very disappointed to see Erik putting down Pete for exposing
the gargoyle behind the mask, rather than nailing you for the insulting
salvo you launched at James, in secret, where you thought no one would ever
know; and suggesting we all just calm down and leave the resolution to the
chair and a professional mediator. As if.

Per others above and me elsewhere, [1] please vacate the "founder's seat"
now, and run for a community seat at the next community selection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_202#Your_role_as_spokesperson_for_the_Wikimedia_movement

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipe...@zog.org>
wrote:

> ...this is about that mail of yours to James that was going to be
> published, right?
>
> On 10 March 2016 at 11:01, jimmy wales <jimmywa...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal
> > effects of lack of transparency and openness.  Assuming I and other board
> > members who continue to press for full openness about the James situation
> >  are eventually successful this will all become more clear.
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Samsung device
> >
> >  Original message 
> > From: George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com>
> > Date: 2016/03/10  9:49 AM  (GMT+00:00)
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com>
> > wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Those ideas never got traction
> > > and never made it to the board level. ...
> >
> > I don't think you are lying or being deceptive, but it seems apparent in
> > the various half-explanations that it did, to James, who either got
> mangled
> > explanations and assumed worse or heard worse from someone incorrectly.
> > Thence to mistrust.
> >
> > Assuming nobody is evil or insane, we have clear evidence and now open
> > admissions of communications breakdowns at several levels and confused,
> > contradictory explanations about who thought what secrecy was required
> and
> > why.
> >
> > It seems like those fed upon each other into misunderstandings and
> > mistrust.
> >
> > Have you not considered that lack of transparency and openness would have
> > the same internal effect as external?
> >
> >
> > George William Herbert
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Anthony Cole]

Recordings of board meetings will be of value to future historians.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release
> the recordings publicly.
>
> We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a
> massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please,
> start recording the meetings -- if only for the benefit of Trustees and
> their (understandably fallible) memories.
>
> And please revisit the question of whether or not to release some of those
> video recordings publicly -- but not urgently. That part can wait until
> after some more pressing things have been sorted out.
>
> I have yet to hear a good argument why recording meetings (irrespective of
> whether the recordings are made public) would be a bad thing.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:15 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:58 AM, jytdog <jyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > This is my first posting here.  Sorry if I do anything wrong.
> > >
> > > I wanted to note here the following post from James Heilman:
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082816.html
> > >
> > > And I guess this one too
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082763.html
> > >
> > > I fully understand what folks have said about the unworkability of
> > > videotaping meetings, and I also understand and appreciate what Risker
> > > wrote about minutes being legal documents that need to reviewed and
> > > approved by all.
> > >
> > > At the same time, some enduring record seems essential.  Recordings
> that
> > > are not made public, but that can be used to verify when things like
> the
> > > above happen?  So not open, but recorded?
> > >
> > > What is really hard about those two posts, is the irresolvable
> > differences
> > > in statements that were made about those events.  Really hard.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Start recording now, for private use of the board and associated staff
> > to save them time and so at least the internal disputes are about what
> > was meant rather than what was actually said.
> >
> > And push the "open" part part of this topic until further down the
> > road, when there is a little more bandwidth to evaluate it properly.
> >
> > --
> > John Vandenberg
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using this list to tear people down

[Anthony Cole]

Keegan, regarding

"...actively or passive-aggressively seeking to hurt others in the guise of all
of our shared concerns."

Given the nature of the recent crises, some of the things that needed
saying were, simply, going to hurt people. You can't accuse someone of
incompetence or untrustworthiness without hurting them. Apart from some
stuff Jimmy said on his talk page about James, I'm not aware of anyone
saying stuff that could be read as *just* seeking to hurt others.

But you're right, I and several others could have taken more care with our
words to minimise the distress our views must have caused.





Anthony Cole


On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just thought Mr. Kolbe's mother didn't hug him enough as a baby.
> >
> >
> I did not bring this up in response to any one particular person, thread,
> or individual post.
> ​The issues are much broader and run far deeper, namely, the acceptability
> of actively or passive-aggressively seeking to hurt others in the guise of
> all of our shared concerns..
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Anthony Cole]

If a board member mentions staff fear, you might ask if item 2 of the code
of conduct [1] couldn't be rewritten so it's not a soviet-style catch-all
that outlaws discussion about anything that happens within the WMF.

Staff, if a board member mentions staff fear, you might ask if item 2 of
the code of conduct [1] could be rewritten so it's not a soviet-style
catch-all that prohibits discussion about anything that happens within the
WMF.

(Off topic, but: If Jimmy utters the word "accountable" over the next few
days, would one (or all) of you please take the opportunity to ask him to
relinquish his founder seat, abolish the seat, add another
community-selected seat, and run for election as a community-selected
trustee in the next round? (That's the next round, not in three years when
his current term expires.)

If any board member mentions "transparency", ask them if we could please at
least know what topics are discussed at board meetings. I.e., could the
secretary please take down and publish at least the barest minimum by way
of minutes, if that's not too much to ask.

Take notes. If they disallow note-taking in the meeting, sit down
immediately afterwards and summarise what happened, from memory.

1.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Code_of_conduct_policy=toggle_view_desktop

On Tuesday, 1 March 2016, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > So my concern is not that you lost touch with staff. I don't
> > particularly care about any one person. My concern is that the *board*
> > did. My concern is that when staff reached out the Board replied with
> > a letter indicating they had full and unanimous confidence in our
> > leadership. You indicating that you see a problem here and have some
> > sympathy is nice; so is you visiting the office. So is Alice visiting
> > the office. But nice is not sufficient.
> >
> > Guy Kawasaki, I believe, lives in the bay area (correct me if I'm
> > wrong). Denny works a 10 minute walk from the office. Kelly's org is
> > based in Mountain View. There are a whole host of trustees who could
> > be making it into the office, experiencing the culture and the
> > sentiment and the concerns directly. Why are they not coming in? Why
> > are they not listening to people?
> >
>
>
> I must confess that this was my initial response as well.
>
> My initial impression of Jimmy coming to SF was that this was a
> self-selected PR exercise for Jimmy – borne out of a desire to be seen as
> part of the solution of the problem, rather than part of its causes – and
> not so much an effort by the Board to develop a better rapport with staff.
>
> As you say, there are several board members who could comfortably pop in
> for afternoon tea at the WMF office any day of the week.
>
> Still, I hope the discussions with Jimmy and Alice in SF are fruitful.
>
>
>
> > While I appreciate, deeply, both you and Alice coming in, I am unable
> > to shake my concerns that the rest of the board making decisions
> > informed not by their perspectives but by your recollection of your
> > perspectives, is going to be tremendously limiting. We selected these
> > people because we thought they had something to contribute we didn't
> > already have: because their experiences would shape incoming
> > information in new and interesting ways. So let them receive that
> > information, and let them shape it. Let's have an informed board.
> > Because trust isn't great, right now, and this last year should have
> > made us steer *away* from processes with a small bus factor, not
> > towards them.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

[Anthony Cole]

A link to Pharos's (and others') Community Council Compact:

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

Your questions highlight the complexity of creating a new, representative
corporation. It would be a lot simpler to just convert WMF into a
membership organisation with members electing the majority of board
members, and the board appointing expert trustees.

The latter involves the acquiescence of the board, though. Without that,
the former - an new, representative body - is all we're left with if we
want the people who make and run the projects to control the purse strings,
as opposed to the current situation where the techie tail wags the
encyclopaedist dog.



Anthony Cole


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexand...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi fellow Wikimedians,
>
> If we are seriously going to consider an expanded Community Council as an
> alternative to WMF BoT reform, we need to have a real discussion about what
> "devolution" would mean, and what specific responsibilities we think should
> be given up, and distributed to a broader community governance.
>
> For example:
>
> Should the WMF BoT devolve a non-core portion of the budget?  How would the
> core portion be defined, and the non-core aspects?
> Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects of the approval or closing of sister
> sites? (Wiktionary, Wikidata, Wikinews, a potential genealogy project)
> Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects related to Wikimania and related
> regional meetings?
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Emmanuel Engelhart <kel...@kiwix.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 28.02.2016 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > > I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of
> the
> > > last few days:
> > >
> > > Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals
> > (like,
> > > saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of
> movement
> > > leadership or community representation. Not because they think it
> > shouldn't
> > > happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board
> of
> > > Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.
> > >
> > > I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as
> > > members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should
> think
> > > about that and talk about that carefully before rushing into details
> like
> > > board reform.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we should explicitly accept WMF as a "first among equals" org
> > > within the movement, with specific roles like tech development and
> > > fundraising (or other emphases as well) while other orgs concentrate on
> > > different specific issues. Or even just "one among equals" that happens
> > to
> > > have specialized in those roles.
> > >
> > > This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to
> > > coordinate and represent and look forward.
> > >
> > > And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a
> mismatch
> > in
> > > hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in
> > > communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very
> important
> > > we not make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might
> > be
> > > needed.
> >
> > Delighting to read this. That said, the path to achieve this looks
> > pretty challenging. Would the WMF be able to organize such a move and
> > "give-up" parts of its duties/activities to better focus on core
> business?
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > --
> > Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more
> > * Web: http://www.kiwix.org
> > * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline
> > * more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

[Anthony Cole]

Jimmy's response on Sunday 28 February:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082685.html

"...
There are board discussions ongoing about more information being released -
and I hope those are productive. Within a few days time, I'll know whether
it's ok for me to publish this private email - it still touches on matters
that are not public.
..."


Anthony Cole


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:52 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:39 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jimmy, would you please release the 30 December 2015 email you sent Doc
> > James telling him why he had been removed?
> >
> > ​Jimmy, I see you responded to this in another thread, so I apologize for
> the repetition. Thank you for the response.
>
> Sarah​
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Anthony Cole]

If that's the limit of your bespoke work for for-profits, I see no problem.

I'm curious about Andreas's other point. Does the WMF have any formal or
informal agreements with for-profits that aren't yet on the public record?
I realise this is probably a question for the board or chiefs.

On Monday, 29 February 2016, Dan Garry <dga...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On 28 February 2016 at 13:07, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > What originally triggered my curiosity was this: I noticed a couple of
> > weeks ago that the Kindle offered a Wikipedia look-up function. I
> couldn't
> > recall -- and cannot find -- any corresponding WMF announcement. So, how
> > did this happen?
> >
>
> Amazon is using our APIs and/or dumps. There's little to add to Brion's
> explanation of how this works, so I'd suggest you re-read it.
>
>
> > "In side project work, the team spent time on API continuation queries,
> > Android IP editing notices, Amazon Kindle and other non-Google Play
> > distribution, and Google Play reviews (now that the Android launch dust
> has
> > settled, mobile apps product management will be triaging the reviews)."
> >
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/Report/2014/July
>
>
> To the best of my knowledge, that refers to exactly what Brion suggested it
> might, specifically working on the Android app so that it's compatible with
> more platforms. It has nothing to do with the Wikipedia lookup
> functionality on the Kindle.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Anthony Cole]

If a tech task is relatively cheap and will expand the spread of free
knowledge then no one would object to you spending a little bit of donor
mony, I'm sure. But don't you see a point where it becomes sensible to
expect the for-profit/s who are expanding their profits thanks to such work
to pay for such work? Especially when we have a limited budget, and
volunteers' requests for you to help them make and present knowledge are
routinely turned down?

On Monday, 29 February 2016, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> If statements are hard to answer in real life. I don't think this issue is
> as black-and-white as you paint it to be.
>
> The question is about impact for your bucks. If it requires a relatively
> small investment from WMF for Wikimedia content to be spread among more
> people, to reach a wider audience, and if that cost somehow prohibits those
> commercial players to do it in an open way or with other hurdles that
> hinder further distribution - why not!
>
> Why donors give money, is pure speculation. We only know one thing: we can
> only spend it on our mission. So lets do that.
>
> Lets not exclude whole ranges of issues based on some vague qualification
> that may or may not have foundation in reality. If there is a specific
> example that is terrible and you'd like to bring up, then do so.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping
> > large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a
> > side-project for Amazon.
> >
> > Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a
> reasonable
> > place to invest general donation revenue, or should we get the
> for-profits
> > to fund such work if it arises?
> >
> > On Monday, 29 February 2016, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jimmy,
> > > >
> > > > I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and
> > > > transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial
> > re-users,
> > > > and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the
> community.
> > > > There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected
> > and
> > > > available to the public. Major developments should be announced on
> the
> > > > Wikimedia blog.
> > > >
> > > > If some engineering team does work *specifically* for Amazon Kindle,
> > > Amazon
> > > > Echo, Google Play, Siri etc., then in my view the companies concerned
> > > > should pay for that work, or the work should be left to a for-profit
> > > > contractor. It should not be paid for by donors.
> > >
> > >
> > > What non-hypothetical work are you referring to?
> > >
> > > {{cn}}
> > >
> > > -- brion
> > >
> > >
> > > > Donors do not give money to the Foundation so it can flood the
> > knowledge
> > > > market with a free product that a handful of companies then earn
> > billions
> > > > from.
> > > >
> > > > As for API use, if there are *generic* APIs that multiple commercial
> > > > re-users can benefit from, then they should be charged according to
> > their
> > > > usage, with small users operating below a certain threshold being
> > exempt
> > > > from payment.
> > > >
> > > > Lastly, we should not seek world domination. :) It's unhealthy,
> > > especially
> > > > in the world of information and knowledge. Prices should be high
> enough
> > > > that some competition is possible.
> > > >
> > > > Andreas
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@ymail.com
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help
> commercial
> > > > > re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board
> > discussions
> > > > > about this topic.  Despite that he takes every opportunity to
> attack
> > > me,
> > > > > and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Anthony Cole]

gp/help/customer/forums/kindleqna/ref=cs_hc_k_m_oldest?ie=UTF8=Fx1FI6JDSFEQQ7V=Tx27IU7Z5IQJV2J=oldest
> > > > [4]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Transparency_about_donor-funded_work_supporting_commercial_re-users
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Anthony Cole]

Yes, thanks Florence. That's about my understanding too.

There's editing and there's imposing policy. I can see that WMF, obviously,
can't take on an editorial oversight role (and the entailed responsibility)
because it can't possibly vet every edit.

But it seems to me they can impose editorial and other behavioural *policy*
on the projects. Yet, even in the case of BLP, they just urged the projects
to behave responsibly and left it up to the projects to take it or leave
it.

Not that I want them meddling in projects' policies much. I'm just worried
they're unnecessarily constraining themselves. Others have implied this
inaction on project policy is in order to safeguard their protections under
the Communications Decency Act but nothing in that, to my non-expert eye,
stops them from imposing editorial and behavioural policy.

If it's just a position they've adopted for philosophical reasons, that's
fine. But I'd like to know what is at the heart of the WMF's practice here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act









Anthony Cole


On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Florence Devouard <fdevou...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am not a lawyer so would not have the correct legal words to explain
> this. But roughly... the legal responsibility is not the same when you are
> simply "hosting" content published by others, as opposed to "publishing
> with an editorial role".
>
> For example, when you are simply a host provider, you can not be held
> responsible if you host a content which is defaming a person as long as you
> were not aware of it. Once the host is informed of the existence of the
> illegal content, it has an obligation of removing it.
> And to a certain extent, the host has an obligation to make sure that
> steps are taken to avoid illegal content to land on its servers. This is
> one of the reason for the existence of terms of use. Or this can justify
> recommandations made by WMF to the community to be super careful when
> dealing with biographies of living people.
>
> However, when the company is considered to have an editorial role (and
> this is very vague...), it may be considered legally responsible for any
> illegal content being on its servers. It is by default considered aware of
> the illegal content, and even worse... supporting its presence there.
>
> The LAST thing we want is to have the WMF being recognized as having an
> editorial role.
>
> Is that clearer ?
>
> Flo
>
>
> Le 27/02/16 18:50, Anthony Cole a écrit :
>
> Florence, can you explain to me the actual risk the foundation  would be
>> exposed to if ir got involved in editorial decisions, please? Perhaps some
>> hypothetical examples would help.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Florence Devouard <fdevou...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
>>>>> opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing,
>>>>> those
>>>>> opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't
>>>>> need
>>>>> to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't;
>>>>> the
>>>>> WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting
>>>>> involved
>>>>> in paid editing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ​Hi Pete,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in
>>>> this
>>>> thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation
>>>> could help unpaid editors.
>>>>
>>>> To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a
>>>> neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have
>>>> no
>>>> relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be
>>>> chosen
>>>> by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a
>>>> well-written,
>>>> reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best
>>>> sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be
>>>> exactly the opposite.)
>>>>
>>>> It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might
>>>> work,
>>>> but the danger of a private company doi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Anthony Cole]

Florence, can you explain to me the actual risk the foundation  would be
exposed to if ir got involved in editorial decisions, please? Perhaps some
hypothetical examples would help.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Florence Devouard <fdevou...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Le 27/02/16 00:37, SarahSV a écrit :
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
>>> opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
>>> opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't
>>> need
>>> to flow through the WMF. In my opinion, it's much better if it doesn't;
>>> the
>>> WMF has enough political challenges to deal with, without getting
>>> involved
>>> in paid editing.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​Hi Pete,
>>>
>>
>> I didn't intend to start a detailed discussion about paid editing in this
>> thread. I mentioned it only as one of the ways in which the Foundation
>> could help unpaid editors.
>>
>> To address a few issues: the point of suggesting the Foundation as a
>> neutral broker is to remove the paid editor's COI. The editor would have
>> no
>> relationship with the people wanting the article, and would not be chosen
>> by them. The brief from the Foundation would be to produce a well-written,
>> reasonably comprehensive, neutral article about X, based on the best
>> sources available. (Someone referred to this as advertising. It would be
>> exactly the opposite.)
>>
>> It needn't be the Foundation that organizes this. A third party might
>> work,
>> but the danger of a private company doing it is that they would rely on it
>> for profit, and therefore would be sensitive to pressure from companies.
>> The idea of the Foundation as broker is that it would always place the
>> core
>> policies above the desires of the client. Foundation involvement struck me
>> as the only way for an editor to be paid for an article without having a
>> COI.
>>
>> I believe someone else suggested in this thread that it could be run the
>> way the Education Program is, as a related but separate body. That would
>> be
>> something you would be perfectly placed to lead, Pete, given your
>> experience as consultant, editor, and former Foundation employee.
>>
>> Sarah
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
>
> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
> its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
> editorial process, which allows to claim WMF is only hosting the content.
> If WMF is somewhat involved in an editorial process which results in
> paying the authors, then WMF might lose the "host" status.
>
> Flo
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Anthony Cole]

It's not just NDAs that constrain you, staff. The WMF code of conduct
<https://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_policy> (that
applies to staff and trustees) reads,

"People acting on the Foundation’s behalf must respect and maintain the
confidentiality of sensitive information they have gained due to their
association with the Foundation. This may include personal information
about community members or members of the general public, and/or
information about the internal workings of the Foundation or its partners
or suppliers."

"Information about the internal workings of the Foundation" is extremely
broad and vague, and could be used to punish or intimidate staff who talk
openly about anything. Perhaps you could add "some" ("some information
about the internal workings of the Foundation") and leave it to the
individual NDAs to specify what "some" means. Or perhaps you could just be
specific in the code of conduct.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:51 PM, James Alexander <jalexan...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Something that I would like to understand is why so much WMF information
> is
> > cloaked under NDAs. It seems to me that this is philosophically at odds
> > with the values of the community, makes for poor governance, and provides
> > cover for opportunities for mischief. I hope that recent events will
> prompt
> > WMF to rethink its habits and assumptions in the realms of transparency,
> > openness, and values alignment.
> >
> > Pine
> >
>
> While on a base level I agree with you I feel its important to add some
> caveats to that. I think a good portion of this is actually everyone
> needing a better understanding about what 'is' expected to be private (and
> preferably why) from Management on down. I think a lot of what people are
> calling "under the NDA" may not be :).
>
> I also think it's important to consider the categories of private
> data/information too, however, because i fear we (both the staff and the
> community) use "under NDA" as a very broad and note always accurate
> description. The way I see it there is:
>
>
>1. Private WMF Data or information that is most definetly covered by the
>NDA: examples include most donor data, attorney-client privileged
>information, information that is legally protected, information we
> protect
>via official public policy etc.
>2. Information and notes that really don't need to be private: This is
>the stuff we're talking about releasing.
>3. Inter personal/team discussions and similar.
>
> [sorry, this turned out tldr, apologies. TLDR: Careful demanding sharing of
> internal team discussions]
>
> 3. I actually think is really important because it is not what we think of
> when we think of private information (and, honestly, probably isn't under
> the NDA usually) but can be very important to be kept privately even if the
> end result of the discussion should be made public etc.. This is especially
> true to allow open conversations between staff members. Not only do they
> need to feel comfortable bringing up crazy idea A (which some are now and
> could probably be done more with culture change, possible on both the
> community and WMF sides) but they need to feel comfortable saying that
> crazy idea A is crazy and bad for reasons X,Y and Z.
>
> Lodewijk made my main point well in the thread about Lawrence Lessig:
> People get very uncomfortable talking about others in public. If Staff
> member B is breaking apart Staff member A's proposal there is a good chance
> at least one of them is going to be feeling very uncomfortable about it.
> That discomfort often gets much bigger the more people who see what's
> happening either because they feel more shame (to pick just one of the
> emotions you can feel in that type of situation) or because they feel like
> they're doing more shaming then they want to do. That expanded discomfort
> can make them significantly less likely to do any number of things we don't
> want: get more defensive/less willing to change, be less wiling to propose
> those bold ideas that could be really great (or not), be less willing to
> speak out against the bad ideas etc.
>
> The other reason is another one that I imagine we're all familiar with on
> wiki: The more people who pile on in one direction (even if it's only 2-3
> frequently) (and in my experience the more public that discussion) the less
> likely people are going to be to oppose what the direction those initial
> commentators/voters/blah went. Suddenly people feel like they need to
> defend their opinion much more then they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

[Anthony Cole]

Can we see your NDA please, Oliver?

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Something that I would like to understand is why so much WMF information is
> cloaked under NDAs. It seems to me that this is philosophically at odds
> with the values of the community, makes for poor governance, and provides
> cover for opportunities for mischief. I hope that recent events will prompt
> WMF to rethink its habits and assumptions in the realms of transparency,
> openness, and values alignment.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What kind of ED would you like to see?

[Anthony Cole]

Balázs Viczián, regarding "First as interim (as a 'probation period') then
if the staff feedback meets the pre-agreed satisfaction level on agreed key
areas, as permanent."

Well, staff feedback and after independent, critical assessment from each
board member. Earlier in this thread, I think, Pete Forsyth recommends that
the interim ED be clearly and purely an interim, not a probationary ED, and
I'm persuaded by his arguments.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu
> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> reading all the above, my 2 cents would be: Internal promotion (in a
> broader sense: a current or ex-employee or someone 'close and experienced
> enough').
>
> First as interim (as a 'probation period') then if the staff feedback meets
> the pre-agreed satisfaction level on agreed key areas, as permanent.
>
> Balazs
> 2016.02.27. 5:24, "George Herbert" <george.herb...@gmail.com> ezt írta:
>
> > On the Vision thing -
> >
> > There is a leadership vision, and an organizational/movement vision.
> >
> > The leader should articulate theirs.  The organizational one needs to
> come
> > from everyone but would likely be articulated by the ED after that
> process.
> >
> > George William Herbert
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Feb 26, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Greg Grossmeier <g...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >> Greg, agree 100%, but that's not how I understood the question and the
> > >> results of the staff survey. It seemed the staff expected the vision
> > from
> > >> the ED/Management.
> > >
> > > I think you're misinterpreting.
> > >
> > > The agree/disagree statement was:
> > > "Senior leadership at Wikimedia have communicated a vision that
> > > motivates me"  (7% agree)
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-06/News_and_notes#WMF_staff_morale
> > >
> > > See also, this quote in glassdoor, quoted in the Signpost as well:
> > > "The Executive Director unveils a new strategy every three months or
> > > so."
> > >
> > > So, it's not that people wanted the vision solely from the
> > > ED/Management, it's that they wanted a not constantly changing one.
> > >
> > > This is getting off topic, however.
> > >
> > > The point is, a vision does not need to come from one person, which you
> > > agree with. A good vision comes from many people working together
> > > collaboratively. Then sticking with it to see it through. Consistency
> is
> > > needed in an ED.
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > --
> > > | Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
> > > | identi.ca: @gregA18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Anthony Cole]

There will be an AllHands staff discussion about recent events tomorrow,
per Katherine Maher on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/963758547005310/?comment_id=963762980338200_comment_id=963831903664641_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R3%22%7D


Anthony Cole


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2016-02-25 12:19 GMT-08:00 Gayle Karen Young <gayleka...@gmail.com>:
> > I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff, not
> on
> > the staff, and not on Lila.
> > I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there is
> an
> > enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in moving
> > forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point
> > onward.
>
> Well said, Gayle, and best wishes in the journey ahead, both for WMF
> and the movement, and for Lila. I'll go back to lurking for a bit, but
> may chime in on some of the topics that have been raised in some of
> the very constructive side conversations.
>
> Warmly,
>
> Erik
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thank you for our time together.

[Anthony Cole]

Thanks for your support over your time here, Lila. It's been invaluable.
All the best for the future.

Anthony Cole


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Leinonen Teemu <teemu.leino...@aalto.fi>
wrote:

> Thank you Lila for keeping things moving. Continuous development is the
> only way to keep movements, organizations and products relevant. I really
> appreciate your hard work and the results achieved.
>
> Best of luck in all of your future endeavors,
>
> - Teemu
>
> > On 25.2.2016, at 20.45, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > However, I am moved by the
> > accomplishments we have achieved during this time:
>
> --
> Teemu Leinonen
> http://teemuleinonen.fi
> +358 50 351 6796
> Media Lab
> http://mlab.uiah.fi
> Aalto University
> School of Arts, Design and Architecture
> --
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

I think we agree on the important points. There's a huge potential in
Wikidata, and it looks like it's in good hands. Commons could be so much
better than it is.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Nice that you prove my point. My point was that when proper attention would
> be given to Commons, it would stand proud. Important achievements have been
> made, because of Commons and its community we have GLAM (just as an
> example).
>
> When it was possible to find images in Commons, it would no longer be
> dysfunctional. It is a travesty that while we discuss search in the light
> of the recent huha, we have important functionality from Wikidata that
> increases the results substantially for any and all languages and the
> notion that finding material in Commons (aka search) is so bad that I do
> not even consider Commons for illustrations for my blog..
>
> Even on this Wikimedia-l demonstrate how limited their understanding is of
> what it is what we do and where we can easily even cheaply improve,
>
> If you want 100,000 more editors for Wikipedia (any language) there is such
> a glaring opportunity that people do not even see it before them. It would
> not cost much and it will improve their well being in a meaningful way.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 25 February 2016 at 07:37, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I guess Commons is kind of useful - as an adjunct to Wikipedia.
> > Leaving aside its usefulness to Wikipedia, though, would anyone else
> notice
> > if it disappeared tomorrow? If they did, Flickr and Google would fill any
> > gap overnight.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > You are wrong. The English Wikipedia is only brutally big. Wikidata is
> > > slowly but surely becoming one of the most important resources for data
> > on
> > > the Internet. Commons is the biggest dysfunctional repository of freely
> > > licensed material. Wikisource is where for many languages much of the
> > books
> > > end up (for want of new books and for the cost of publishing).
> > >
> > > Really. If projects like Wikidata and Commons received proper attention
> > to
> > > give them the credit they are due, they would improve exponentially
> while
> > > more attention to Wikipedia only improves things marginally.
> > >
> > > People who are one track ponies about Wikipedia are in fact clueless.
> > They
> > > forget about what we stand for; sharing the sum of all knowledge. That
> > sum
> > > of all knowledge is better represented in both Commons and Wikidata.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 25 February 2016 at 07:17, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > True, Gerard. I'm pretty sure the encyclopaedia is the only
> successful
> > > > Wikimedia project though, isn't it? I suppose Wikidata will be a
> > success
> > > > one day but, for the moment, it's the encyclopaedia that the world
> > loves,
> > > > it's the encyclopaedia that raises the income, it's the encyclopaedia
> > > that
> > > > is spreading the knowledge. On those measures - public awareness and
> > > > affection, income-generation, and knowledge-dissemination, all the
> > other
> > > > entities are less than a drop in the ocean compared to Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > The people in these cottage industries that have grown up around this
> > > host
> > > > - chapters, WMF, sister-projects - too often lose sight of the fact
> > that
> > > > all of them have yet to prove they have had any significant
> measurable
> > > > impact on the distribution of knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > So, forgive me if I sometimes forget to include them in my thinking.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is
> > only
> > > > one
> > > > > way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on
> that
> > > > part
> > > > > of w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

True, Gerard. I'm pretty sure the encyclopaedia is the only successful
Wikimedia project though, isn't it? I suppose Wikidata will be a success
one day but, for the moment, it's the encyclopaedia that the world loves,
it's the encyclopaedia that raises the income, it's the encyclopaedia that
is spreading the knowledge. On those measures - public awareness and
affection, income-generation, and knowledge-dissemination, all the other
entities are less than a drop in the ocean compared to Wikipedia.

The people in these cottage industries that have grown up around this host
- chapters, WMF, sister-projects - too often lose sight of the fact that
all of them have yet to prove they have had any significant measurable
impact on the distribution of knowledge.

So, forgive me if I sometimes forget to include them in my thinking.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is only one
> way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on that part
> of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational
> > institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the
> > road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an
> absurdity.
> > The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the
> builders
> > of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
> >
> > Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a
> > membership organisation, and then into something that represents the aims
> > of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a
> > membership organisation de novo, except for two things.
> >
> > 1. I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can swap
> to
> > new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service being
> > provided by the WMF.
> >
> > 2. Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
> > Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary tech
> > contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take most
> > of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors. Hopefully
> we
> > could publicly shame them into handing it over.
> >
> > George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as
> I
> > can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its
> > view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual
> editor.
> > When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
> > that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically
> > just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
> > encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon
> valley
> > entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should
> be
> > the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care.
> But
> > this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role
> > completely
> > > separate from the community. As an organised community, if we become
> > > dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could just
> > sack
> > > them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure
> > > contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the people
> who
> > > actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could set the
> > course
> > > for its development.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own,
> > >> functional representative body that had the community's trust and
> > respect,
> > >> that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us
> and
> > >> the WMF.
> > >>
> > >> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
> > >> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

Risker, regarding "why are all of these proposals so focused on people
who click
the edit button": because people who click the edit button on Wikipedia are
the people who make this thing our readers love, the people responsible for
the rivers of gold flowing into the WMF's bank account.

It's going to be hard enough (but doable) designing an editor membership
structure that is safe from gaming by interest groups. If you can design a
way to include readers in the membership, that is proofed against gaming,
great, put it forward. I can't think of one.

The people who make this thing should be overseeing it, not the people who
keep the servers running.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:46 AM, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> More focused but where I was trying to go.  Thank you.
>
> Perhaps two C level positions, Chief Editor Officer to liase and advocate
> there, and Chief Reader Officer to research and liase and advocate there,
> too.
>
> Q: How can we identify a Reader representative we could put on the Board?
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:34 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why are all of these proposals so focused on people who
> > click the edit button.  The overwhelming percentage of our users (half a
> > billion a month, if I recall correctly) never click that button.  The
> vast
> > majority of our donors never click that button. The massive majority of
> > active and very active editors don't participate in Board selection
> > activities. I won't say that the editing community is unimportant - in
> fact
> > I believe it is extremely important - but every proposal that is coming
> > forward seems exclusively focused on "empowering" a small percentage of
> the
> > editing group over all other stakeholders.  I'd like to see some
> > suggestions that are more balanced.
> >
> >
> > Risker
> >
> > On 24 February 2016 at 22:27, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best
> as
> >> I
> >>> can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege
> its
> >>> view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual
> >> editor.
> >>> When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
> >>> that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has
> historically
> >>> just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
> >>> encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon
> >> valley
> >>> entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really
> should
> >> be
> >>> the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care.
> >> But
> >>> this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
> >>
> >> There are several ways to look at this.  One includes the view that the
> >> Foundation and Board exist to protect and encourage the Movement, not
> just
> >> the loudest editor communities.  And that there are wider issues for the
> >> Movement, including things for users, things keeping users from editing,
> >> and things pushing people out of active editing that the Board and
> >> Foundation rightly should be paying a lot of attention to.
> >>
> >> There are both valid issues the editor community has objected to, and
> >> things the editor community (enwiki at least) is grossly dysfunctional
> >> about that the Board and Foundation must still focus on.  Both
> separation
> >> for perspective and feedback and relationship care are needed.
> >>
> >>
> >> George William Herbert
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscri

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

Hi Keegan.

If the volunteers who make the encyclopaedia shifted their work, en masse,
to servers hosted elsewhere, I would hope the WMF would do the right thing
with the money they have accumulated - let's face it shall we - either
directly via Wikipedia banners or indirectly via the goodwill the
encyclopaedia-makers have generated. If the WMF decides to hold on to all
that moolah, shame on them.

But I assume it won't come to that: neither the parting of the ways nor, if
that does come to pass, the WMF keeping the money.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hopefully we
> > ​ ​
> > could publicly shame them into handing it over.
> >
>
> ​I believe that public shaming as a tool went out of vogue in most civil
> societies quite a bit ago.
>
> I think it should be out of vogue on this list as well.​
>
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

Sorry, the above post is initially addressing Sarah.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational
> institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the
> road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an absurdity.
> The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the builders
> of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
>
> Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a
> membership organisation, and then into something that represents the aims
> of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a
> membership organisation de novo, except for two things.
>
> 1. I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can swap to
> new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service being
> provided by the WMF.
>
> 2. Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
> Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary tech
> contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take most
> of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors. Hopefully we
> could publicly shame them into handing it over.
>
> George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as I
> can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its
> view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual editor.
> When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
> that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically
> just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
> encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon valley
> entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should be
> the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care. But
> this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
>
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role
>> completely separate from the community. As an organised community, if we
>> become dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could
>> just sack them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new
>> infrastructure contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we -
>> the people who actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could
>> set the course for its development.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own,
>>> functional representative body that had the community's trust and respect,
>>> that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and
>>> the WMF.
>>>
>>> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
>>> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
>>> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without
>>> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
>>> from the WMF - good and bad.
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
>>>> dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that
>>>> will
>>>> > be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
>>>> >
>>>> > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation
>>>> - not
>>>> > to the movement.
>>>> >
>>>> > ​Hi Denny,
>>>>
>>>> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
>>>> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit
>>>> directors
>>>> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
>>>>
>>>> ​
>>>>
>>>> ​"... ​
>>>> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the
>>>> organization,
>>>> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the
>>>> organization
>&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational
institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the
road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an absurdity.
The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the builders
of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.

Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a
membership organisation, and then into something that represents the aims
of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a
membership organisation de novo, except for two things.

1. I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can swap to
new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service being
provided by the WMF.

2. Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary tech
contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take most
of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors. Hopefully we
could publicly shame them into handing it over.

George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as I
can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its
view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual editor.
When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically
just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon valley
entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should be
the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care. But
this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.



Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role completely
> separate from the community. As an organised community, if we become
> dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could just sack
> them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure
> contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the people who
> actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could set the course
> for its development.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own,
>> functional representative body that had the community's trust and respect,
>> that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and
>> the WMF.
>>
>> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
>> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
>> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without
>> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
>> from the WMF - good and bad.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
>>> dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that
>>> will
>>> > be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
>>> >
>>> > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation
>>> - not
>>> > to the movement.
>>> >
>>> > ​Hi Denny,
>>>
>>> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
>>> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit
>>> directors
>>> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
>>>
>>> ​
>>>
>>> ​"... ​
>>> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the
>>> organization,
>>> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
>>> accountable.
>>> ​" [1]
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
>>> ​
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role completely
separate from the community. As an organised community, if we become
dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could just sack
them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure
contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the people who
actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could set the course
for its development.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own,
> functional representative body that had the community's trust and respect,
> that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and
> the WMF.
>
> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without
> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
> from the WMF - good and bad.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
>> dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that
>> will
>> > be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
>> >
>> > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation -
>> not
>> > to the movement.
>> >
>> > ​Hi Denny,
>>
>> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
>> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors
>> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
>>
>> ​
>>
>> ​"... ​
>> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization,
>> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
>> accountable.
>> ​" [1]
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
>> ​
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own, functional
representative body that had the community's trust and respect, that would,
to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and the WMF.

Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without
that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
from the WMF - good and bad.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <dvrande...@wikimedia.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will
> > be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
> >
> > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation -
> not
> > to the movement.
> >
> > ​Hi Denny,
>
> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors
> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
>
> ​
>
> ​"... ​
> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization,
> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
> accountable.
> ​" [1]
>
> Sarah
>
> [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
> ​
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Anthony Cole]

Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is about who drives it.
Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines
of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I
wouldn't bother reading their reports.

If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start.

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Anthony,
>
> Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed
> exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads. (And
> some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts
> dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it
> aligns well with what I know.
>
> I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself
> publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like this.
> Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to whoever happens to read it;
> but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of all
> significant stakeholder groups, and will command the attention of those
> doing the work in the future.
>
> What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the
> *collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable, of
> course; but the learning is the key to an organization getting better at
> what it does over time.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Wrong link. It's here.
> >
> >
> http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/
> >
> > On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy
> > > that seems to cover most of the milestones.
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
> > >
> > > On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','petefors...@gmail.com <javascript:;>');>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Brandon and Sarah:
> > >>
> > >> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here,
> > as
> > >> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on
> divisive
> > >> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
> > >>
> > >> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> > >> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and
> > Flow,
> > >> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do
> you
> > >> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the
> > >> organization
> > >> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid
> > >> repeating
> > >> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
> > >>
> > >> -Pete
> > >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <
> petefors...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down,
> but
> > >> > > embraced?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What would need to be different?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation
> > would
> > >> > get
> > >> > > better at asking and exploring.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community,
> which
> > is
> > >> > why
> > >> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta
> talk
> > >> page,
> > >> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find
> > out
> > >> > what editors need.
> > >> >
> > >> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
> > >> There
> > >> > was 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] One Last Ride

[Anthony Cole]

We've had our differences but I respect you, and hope this means we'll be
seeing more of you on en.Wikipedia. All the best in your future endeavours.

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, James Forrester <jforres...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> On 23 February 2016 at 15:35, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > I am leaving the Wikimedia Foundation to take up a job as a Senior
> > Data Scientist at an information security company. My last day will be
> > on 18 March.
>
>
> ​Oliver,
>
> It's been a while
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/London_11> since
> we first met in person. I even followed you across the world to work in San
> Francisco! Don't think you can get away from our friendship that easily!
> ;-)
>
> Take care, and go in peace and with my respect. My very best wishes.
>
> Yours,
> --
> James D. Forrester
> Lead Product Manager, Editing
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> jforres...@wikimedia.org <javascript:;> | @jdforrester
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Anthony Cole]

Wrong link. It's here.
http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy
> that seems to cover most of the milestones.
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
>
> On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','petefors...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Brandon and Sarah:
>>
>> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, as
>> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive
>> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
>>
>> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
>> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow,
>> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you
>> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the
>> organization
>> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid
>> repeating
>> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
>> > > embraced?
>> > >
>> > > What would need to be different?
>> > >
>> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
>> > get
>> > > better at asking and exploring.
>> > >
>> > > ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
>> > why
>> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk
>> page,
>> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out
>> > what editors need.
>> >
>> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
>> There
>> > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find
>> > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
>> > amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to
>> join
>> > the discussion."
>> >
>> > So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the
>> community
>> > as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
>> > collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People
>> who
>> > had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
>> > thing by the Foundation.
>> >
>> > We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
>> > would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search
>> was a
>> > better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
>> > explain that people like white space. And so on.
>> >
>> > Sarah
>> >
>> > ​
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Anthony Cole
>
>
>

-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Anthony Cole]

This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on Wikipediocracy that
seems to cover most of the milestones.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html

On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brandon and Sarah:
>
> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow here, as
> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on divisive
> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
>
> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow,
> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you
> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the organization
> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid repeating
> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each other?
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
> > > embraced?
> > >
> > > What would need to be different?
> > >
> > > These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would
> > get
> > > better at asking and exploring.
> > >
> > > ​Lila is good at asking the right questions of the community, which is
> > why
> > (so far as I can tell) editors like her. If you look at her meta talk
> page,
> > you can see her asking good questions about Flow and trying to find out
> > what editors need.
> >
> > That was literally the first time we felt we were being listened to.
> There
> > was one point when Flow was introduced – and I have been trying to find
> > this diff but can't – where there was something on the talk page that
> > amounted to "if you agree with us that x and y, then you're welcome to
> join
> > the discussion."
> >
> > So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community
> > as people who might know something about what tools are needed to
> > collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who
> > had been doing something for years were not regarded as experts in that
> > thing by the Foundation.
> >
> > We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We
> > would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was
> a
> > better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and they would
> > explain that people like white space. And so on.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > ​
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Shared list

[Anthony Cole]

Theo wrote: "PS Anthony, you shouldn't have sent a private email to the
list."

Yep. It won't happen again. It was an over-reaction to exactly what you're
calling out in your post: people having the temerity to tell others to shut
up, based mainly on their discomfort with the view being put. I despise it
on Wikipedia - where it happens a very great deal, and I'm disappointed to
see it happening here - especially in secret emails. When I pressed "send"
I was thinking billinghurst didn't deserve the courtesy of that convention,
if that's how he uses it. I was wrong.

(Sorry about calling the board names in my last post. Habit. I'll reign it
in, a bit.)

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Theo10011 <de10...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am totally with Benjamin on this.
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "sorely under-represented perspective" or not, that kind of attitude
> > is of course going to piss people off. And it may be that denying the
> > value of peoples' experiences or dismissing their misery is not, in
> > fact, what you mean to be communicating. But it is how it's coming
> > out. For me, at least, that's why I find your emails frustrating.
> >
>
> That is an odd way to dismiss any counter-argument - it is going to piss
> you or others off? You are the only staff member so far objecting to any
> dissenting view, existentially. I'm sure you would prefer no dissent should
> exist at all because you are having a miserable time, just 100 people
> piling on one?
>
> I see the conversation heavily leaning in one direction - against Lila. She
> is overwhelmingly being blamed, accused and rebutted by just about every
> member on this list - in unofficial and official channels. This includes
> the staff, community members and even past board members. Anything short of
> calling her literally the worst or comparison her to lady hitler will not
> be moving things any further than they are.
>
> A few staff members like Brion, expressed dissent to Lila's assertion, but
> wonderfully well. They offered counter-arguments, and provided context we
> all needed. Dissent is necessary, it moves the conversation along. You are
> in essence doing what your senior management was accused of, silencing
> criticism internally because you are having a rough time. I'm sure it
> doesn't feel nice.
>
> Regards
> Theo
>
> PS Anthony, you shouldn't have sent a private email to the list.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Shared list

[Anthony Cole]

I'm listening to this, and thank you all. I'll try to be less ... whatever
that is I'm being. I do know what you mean, and I'll tone it down. Oliver,
I had/have no intention of minimising the hurt felt by those involved. I
apologise if I gave that impression. But some of those hurt people have
been dishing out - en masse - a world of pain, themselves. I understand the
dynamic at play here.

In my defence - though I know it's no justification - I'm deeply affronted
by what's been happening here and, especially, on WW. I see its provenance
- the almost inevitability of it, given a hands-off (read that as slow,
ineffectual, irresponsible, mostly stupid and arrogant) board. But still,
this has been just awful to watch, and the behaviour of some here and
elsewhere has been truly, truly trashy.

I shall try to improve my game.

PS:

That's the first time I've ever made public a private email. Literally.
Ever. I assume it will be the last. That kind of thing, bullying people
into silence, quietly, off-list, is IMNSHO, poor behaviour, billinghurst.

Anthony Cole


On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Benjamin Lees <emufarm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone complained to you off-list about the amount you're posting to
> the list.  You immediately forwarded his email to the list.  Is this
> the best approach?
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I thought I was bringing a sorely under-represented perspective to the ED
> > discussion on this list and wasn't aware I'd said or done anything
> > inappropriate here.
>
> Well, Oliver Keyes said, 3 days ago:
>
> > Speaking as both a volunteer and staff, Anthony, I have found your
> > attitude in this conversation and others on the subject to be deeply
> > unproductive. It would be good if you spent more time asking questions
> > and less time dismissing people's concerns.
>
>
> For my part, I think it's inappropriate to, for example, take
> someone's statement: "I restrained from expressing publicly any issues
> I might have with your own performance; I would love you to not spread
> covert allegations on my performace and professional attitude" and
> proceed to "it is used as proof she's "literally Hitler"."  My
> guidance would be to think carefully about the way you're responding
> to others and whether you would like to be responded to in that way.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

[Anthony Cole]

Danny, four months ago the board decided to give her time. The vocal staff
have responded by rejecting that. The board needs to reconsider, in light
of that response, and either confirm their commitment to the ED or come to
a different resolution. Soon, preferably.
On 23 Feb 2016 12:09 am, "Danny Horn"  wrote:

> > Does anyone know when the board is meeting (has it met) to resolve this?
> I
> > don't want them to rush a poorly thought-through decision but, after a
> > while, inaction in a human crisis like this becomes negligent abuse.
> >
>
>
> Yeah, that happened four months ago. It's going great so far.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

[Anthony Cole]

I found this response interesting. It highlights the imbalance we, on the
outside, are having to deal with. It is OK for anyone to criticize the ED
on this list and elsewhere but if she says something that implies
shortcomings on the part of one or more of her staff or former staff - and
if WMF had problems when she arrived at least some of them were staff
problems -  it is used as proof she's "literally Hitler".

None of us on the outside knows who's Hitler here. And I guess we never
will. Sorry, but the volunteers who actually write and run Wikipedia can't
just believe either of you.

Does anyone know when the board is meeting (has it met) to resolve this? I
don't want them to rush a poorly thought-through decision but, after a
while, inaction in a human crisis like this becomes negligent abuse.
On 22 Feb 2016 10:53 pm, "Giuseppe Lavagetto" 
wrote:

> Dear Lila,
>
> I woke up this morning and as usual I went for my WMF email with my coffee.
>
> I woke up to read my ED implying that the employee discontent[1] was due
> to, amongst other things:
>
> > We’ve asked for adjustment in attitude towards work, our
> responsibilities and professional relationships.
> > We prioritised impact and performance so that we can provide more value
> to our communities and the world.
>
> Now, one easy way to read this, the most obvious one, is that the
> attitude towards work of the WMF employees was somewhat not right or
> unprofessional, and that we were lazy and not goal-driven.
>
> I would find this inappropriate in an internal email, but you went to
> state that in public, and I have to admit I find this is deeply
> offending on a personal and professional level.
>
> I restrained from expressing publicly any issues I might have
> with your own performance; I would love you to not
> spread covert allegations on my performace and professional attitude
> (not specifically, but well, I'm part of the staff here right?).
>
> For the first time in the two years since I joined the WMF I felt a
> sour taste in my mouth for just sitting down to work.
>
> Deeply sad,
>
> Giuseppe
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-06/News_and_notes
> "WMF Staff morale"
> --
> Giuseppe Lavagetto
> Senior Technical Operations Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Anthony Cole]

I hope to see some rigorous, independent analysis of the current crisis,
once the dust has settled. It'd be nice for that to be initiated and funded
outside the WMF but with their full cooperation. Is there a charitable
foundation whose mission would cover this?

Anthony Cole


On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ​Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be
> > helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I
> > talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service.
> >
> > But leaving that aside, for the Foundation and community a period of
> honest
> > exchange and understanding could be very healing.
>
>
> Thanks Sarah, I agree. As I stated in the earlier discussion, I think it's
> especially valuable, for a significant issue, when someone in senior
> leadership initiates the process, and takes a sustained interest in it
> going well. The need for post-mortems presents, I would think, a good
> opportunity for Lila (or any Board member) to begin taking a path forward.
>
> Perhaps some reflection (either privately or publicly) on the impact of the
> Belfer Center document would be a good starting point. (I don't suggest
> that process was entirely perfect, but I do think it was effective.) Since
> it predates Lila's hire, it might not carry as much baggage as other
> topics.
>
> One small quibble -- I don't think "truth and reconciliation" is the best
> framing, though in the current context I can see the relevance. But I would
> suggest that in general, publicly documenting successful and unsuccessful
> efforts is a fantastic way for organizations of all kinds to encourage
> healthy communication and ongoing learning. It doesn't need to be a big
> dramatic thing, and it doesn't need to be very time-consuming, to be
> effective.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[Anthony Cole]

Ah, Brandon. Thanks for writing me off as "the folks at Wikipediocracy."
I'm also the folks at en.Wikipedia and the folks on the board of
WikiProject Med Foundation. And I give a shit about Wikipedia.

This push for the removal of the ED is coming from staff. And failed staff.
If you want support from the wider editor community, you'll need to bring
us with you. I'm making it clear to you that presently you haven't done
that yet. Maybe you don't need to.



On Sunday, 21 February 2016, Brandon Harris <bhar...@gaijin.com> wrote:

>
> Danny, don't kid yourself!  The folks at Wikipediocracy know
> everything about everything that's happened at the Foundation and about
> everything that will EVER happen.  They've never been wrong, ever!
>
> I don't understand why we're still talking about this!
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Danny Horn <dh...@wikimedia.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > You know, it's possible that the people who work for the Foundation might
> > understand the situation in a more nuanced way than you do. I know it
> > doesn't seem likely, but dare to dream.
>
> ---
> Brandon Harris :: bhar...@gaijin.com <javascript:;> :: made of steel wool
> and whiskey
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[Anthony Cole]

Thanks James.

I'm not on staff, nor am I part of the inner circle of volunteers in
constant touch with staff or the board. From the perspective of the wider
community, though, this all looks very dodgy. Lila's arrival marked for us
a revolution in the relationship. There is probably nothing either of us
can do to change our conflicting views.

Most disturbing to me is the reappearance of some former C-level staff, who
I (among many others) was delighted to see the back of, on this list and
Wikipedia Weekly, positioning themselves for the new dawn. It's very
unseemly seeing the people responsible for the shambles Lila inherited now
lighting up the torches.

On Sunday, 21 February 2016, James Alexander <jameso...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is probably best for me not to get into a long count/counterpoint here
> but I couldn't avoid not responding at all.
>
> As Ori hinted at I hope that everyone can reflect on the idea of causation
> vs correlation
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation>. The
> fact that good things have happened is not necessarily because of, but
> despite of, current leadership. There is no doubt that there have been a
> lot of good things to occur in the past while but those are, very
> frequently, because people have been freed up some to do what they want. A
> lack of direction or clear strategy can, in fact, have good side effects if
> you have amazing people on board because they're able to make decisions
> they've wanted to make for a while. However at the same time it can drive
> them insane as they strive to keep it on that track and to avoid the taking
> crazy routes or stop leadership from making decisions they feel would
> disrupt the projects and the movement too much or go against our morals.
>
> We have a lot of great new hires but much of that was driven by the good
> people who already existed since it's the older ones who got into more
> management type roles either officially or unofficially). Even at the
> executive level it's telling that the 3 most long standing and solid
> C-levels we have are all pre-lila appointees: Katherine (just before Lila
> but still before), Lisa and Geoff. Our cycle of c-level replacements since
> then have been both hires and departures (with, unfortunately, less hires
> then departures still) including multiple short term hires (in roles that
> are traditionally very long term).
>
> I am not going to pretend I agreed with Sue at all times, or that every
> decision she made was right however I at least felt like I knew what they
> were (In fact I strongly disliked her strategy believing it bad for the org
> and the movement, but again, I felt I knew what it was/understood it).
> However I am also not going to accept the idea that Lila has made this
> place so much better. As someone who saw them happen internally I don't
> think her finger prints are really on any of the things you mention, they
> were all 'despite' not 'because' of her and so much more could have been
> done and wanted to be done. Slight exception possibly for the FDC bit but
> that happened after all of this started exploding internally in the past
> couple months and so she knew that she had  no trust left internally and
> all of the staff close to it basically said "we can not defend you on this
> if you don't go the FDC" so I still don't really see it as a proactive
> choice on her front.
>
> James
> [[User:Jamesofur]]/[[User:Jalexander-WMF]]
>
> Personal capacity, as signaled by my email address, but since some complain
> I don't make it clear my role in WMF when I send this type of email: I am
> also the Manager of Trust & Safety
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > I know.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > * The Community Resources Team is in place - it surveyed the
> community
> > > and
> > > > discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their
> Idea
> > > Lab
> > > > Campaign accordingly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > FYI, the head of that team is one of those who resigned last week:
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081809.html
> > >
> > > -- brion
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://met

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[Anthony Cole]

I know.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * The Community Resources Team is in place - it surveyed the community
> and
> > discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their Idea
> Lab
> > Campaign accordingly.
> >
>
> FYI, the head of that team is one of those who resigned last week:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081809.html
>
> -- brion
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[Anthony Cole]

James, regarding "Long term strategy should not be determined by the ED and
a couple of board members", why do you say, "a couple of board members"?
There are ten board members. Are you saying a couple of them have
inordinate influence?

Yes, the board and ED should heed input from the volunteers and the
readership, but the final decision needs to be in the board's and ED's
hands. Which is fine if you have a board and ED who do listen to those
stakeholders.

A few other thoughts:

Until Lila arrived we had a board that was stratospherically out of touch
with, at least, the Wikipedia community, and an ED almost exclusively
focussed on fundraising and being liked by everybody - especially her
employees.

We still have a board, with the exception of Jimmy and Dariusz, who might
as well be on the other side of the moon. Jimmy makes himself available on
his Wikipedia talk page but, sadly, his incompetence for this job is clear.

Lila should have taken the community along with her as the Knowledge Engine
project was evolving. I don't know what was behind her reticence. I presume
an element was unwillingness to announce a thing while the thing was
shifting and changing from one day to the next. She hasn't engaged any more
with the wider volunteer community than Sue did, and that should change -
though it's hard to know how.

But since her arrival, the WMF has undergone significant change in its
orientation toward the readership and the wider volunteer community:

* The Community Strategy Consultation effectively highlighted the needs and
wants of our readers, as well as those of the wider volunteer community,
and this has informed the ongoing strategy design process - a process that
has deep community input. That strategy, in turn, informs funding decisions.

* The Community Resources Team is in place - it surveyed the community and
discussed with them their technical priorities, and tailored their Idea Lab
Campaign accordingly.

* The WMF have accepted the FDC's proposal that the WMF submit to the same
reporting standard they expect of their chapters.

* There has been a 180 degree shift in the level of respect shown by the
WMF staff to the wider volunteer community. Volunteers who actually write
content and run Wikipedia all remember the contempt they were shown
regularly by all levels of the WMF just two years ago.

The latter is superficial but very important to us volunteers.

The former three points evince profound structural and philosophical change
and speak of genuine respect for the stakeholders that matter most. As a
Wikipedia volunteer, I'm deeply grateful for all these changes that have
happened during Lila's tenure.

I realise the staff must be missing the good old days when Sue was at the
helm and the idea of key performance indicators was a distant rumour, and
they effectively had a job for life. It must be hard to see popular but
incompetent colleagues getting sacked or encouraged to leave, to have
accountability forced on you, to have to be respectful to the volunteers,
to have a comfortable, plodding 5-year plan taken away from you.

If Sue had done her job, Lila wouldn't have to be doing most of these
unpleasant things.

The board needs to stand by its ED, and the ED needs to engage better with
her crew. Those who have been demonstrating gross disrespect for the ED
over the last few days need to leave.










Anthony Cole


On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:02 AM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree having all board members engage with the community in their own
> voice is likely the best way forwards. All of us will take your statements
> as representing whatever fraction of the board you are unless you state
> otherwise. There is nothing wrong with a board that disagrees with each
> other, all I request is that you do not pretend their is "consensus" were
> their isn't one. We as a community disagree all the time. We however are
> still able to work together transparently and get a lot done.
>
> One of the roles of the board is to determine "WMF's long term strategy"
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Effective_Board_oversight
> I tried to get a discussion going on our internal board wiki. I also hoped
> to bring the wider community and staff into that discussion so that we
> could have some shared decision making around where we want to go. This is
> how one gets buy in and is key in a volunteer movement. We have some
> amazingly smart people both as staff and as community members. Long term
> strategy should not be determined by the ED and a couple of board members.
>
> Would be good to see the board leading a collaborative discussion of
> strategy.
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Engagement office hour

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you, James.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:33 AM, James Alexander <jalexan...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When one's available, would someone please post a link to the transcript?
> >
> > Anthony Cole
>
>
> Sure, Karen posted it on meta shortly after:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2016-02-12
>
>
> James Alexander
> Manager
> Trust & Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or expecting
some kind of response or engagement - probably
approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I
think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they can
initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
course.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of
> $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to
> accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
> resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being informed
> that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation
> for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if they
> don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
> only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?
>
> I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
> before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't know
> how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anne, regarding:
> >
> > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> > sought is higher than that amount."
> >
> > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
> > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
> > *advised
> > *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> > prepared.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would
> like
> > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> > > staff doing lots of things.
> > >
> > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
> > with
> > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
> > its
> > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
> organization.
> > >
> > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I
> > would
> > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> > > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve
> acceptance
> > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
> > should
> > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
> applications
> > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> > believe
> > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> > notification,
> > > though.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to
> be
> > a
> > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
> were
> > > not
> > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
> > like
> > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

Anne, regarding:

"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
sought is higher than that amount."

I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be *advised
*of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
prepared.

Anthony Cole


On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
> to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> staff doing lots of things.
>
> I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely with
> so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of its
> leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
>
> With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I would
> also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
> of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should
> be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
> where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't believe
> the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification,
> though.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
> not
> > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> official
> > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
> >
> > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipe...@zog.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > >
> > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> > >
> > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> > and
> > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
> look!
> > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> > >
> > > Michel
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> > are
> > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
> When
> > > are
> > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > > forward.
> > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
> achieve?
> > > >
> > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> > have
> > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was
> to
> > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not
> like
> > > it
> > > > and that is ok.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 12

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Engagement office hour

[Anthony Cole]

When one's available, would someone please post a link to the transcript?

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Karen Brown <kbr...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Community Engagement department will be hosting an IRC office hour this
> Friday, the 12th of February, at 1900 UTC. The topic of this office hour
> will be the department's recent reorganization and personnel changes,
> including discussion of what characteristics we should be seeking out in a
> new department head. As usual, the office hour will be taking place in the
> #wikimedia-office channel on the Freenode IRC network.
>
> For more information on office hours, as well as a listing of upcoming
> office hours and links to convert from UTC time to your local time, please
> see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours).
>
> Best,
> Karen
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

It was obviously evolving as the project moved from initial
conceptualisation to the establishment of the Discovery team but,
nevertheless, a clear, meaningful statement of the vision for the project
(as it was imagined at the time) would have been appropriate when the team
was put together. I think Lila has recently acknowledged this.

The present focus seems to be on improving search within Wikimedia, but the
language used by both WMF and Knight leaves them open to later extending
Wikipedia's search options to include free knowledge outside our projects.
I fully support both improving internal search and later offering the
reader the option of including reliable outside sources in their search.

And I support the ED's right - obligation really - to initiate and
adequately fund projects like this.

On Friday, 12 February 2016, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
> > If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should
> > focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers
> care
> > about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and
> we,
> > the community, were right (when I recall the first deployment of the VE I
> > grit my teeth). But ultimately we need to be really able to move on, to
> be
> > able to move forward.
> >
> > dj
> >
> >
> Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the
> Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search function, which is
> really very poor. But this seems to be a proposal to create an entirely new
> search engine to complement Google, which will cost many millions.
>
> Sarah
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Future IdeaLab Campaigns results

[Anthony Cole]

Congratulations, Jethro. Nice work.

Anthony Cole


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Chris Schilling <cschill...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> (Cross-posted to a number of mailing lists)
>
> Last December, I sent out an invitation to
> [[m:Grants:IdeaLab/Future_IdeaLab_Campaigns|help determine future ideaLab
> campaigns]] by submitting and voting on different possible topics.  I'm
> happy to announce the results of your participation (<
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Future_IdeaLab_Campaigns/Results
> >)
> and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those
> campaigns this year.  Thank you to everyone who volunteered their time to
> participate, submit, and comment on campaign topics.
>
> With great thanks,
>
> Jethro
>
> --
> Chris "Jethro" Schilling
> I JethroBT (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:I_JethroBT_(WMF)>
> Community Organizer, Wikimedia Foundation
> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposed board resolution on reliability

[Anthony Cole]

Hi Gerard. I've addressed your question in my answer to MZ at the board
board. Let me know if you need anything more.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard=15300703=15300238

On Monday, 1 February 2016, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Money would be spend for what ? When reliability is the big issue, the only
> issue, we would be Nupedia and not Wikipedia.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 31 January 2016 at 14:53, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > In the medicine, genetics and bioinformatics areas, there are a number of
> > initiatives under way, mostly efforts to get experts engaged in editing
> and
> > reviewing Wikimedia content, aimed at improving reliability. Would the
> > board of trustees please consider formally recognising reliability as a
> > serious problem on Wikimedia projects, and mandating the funds
> > dissemination committee and the WMF to support realistic initiatives
> > addressing reliability?
> >
> > Input would be appreciated from board members and others interested at
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Reliability
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anthony Cole
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Proposed board resolution on reliability

[Anthony Cole]

In the medicine, genetics and bioinformatics areas, there are a number of
initiatives under way, mostly efforts to get experts engaged in editing and
reviewing Wikimedia content, aimed at improving reliability. Would the
board of trustees please consider formally recognising reliability as a
serious problem on Wikimedia projects, and mandating the funds
dissemination committee and the WMF to support realistic initiatives
addressing reliability?

Input would be appreciated from board members and others interested at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Reliability



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advisory board

[Anthony Cole]

Excellent. Bearing in mind Kat's points, you might consider appointing
experts for the duration of specific projects or until predetermined goals
have been achieved, or for fixed periods with the clear prior understanding
that renewall is unlikely. (You can always offer renewal at the end of a
term if you want.)
On 29 Jan 2016 9:53 pm, "Dariusz Jemielniak"  wrote:

> hi,
>
> restructuring the Advisory Board has been on my mind for a while - I've
> actually put  it to the list
> of initial priorities I set for myself as a Board member. I hope we'll be
> able to zero in on this issue once the higher priority stuff stops
> overflowing. I plan to discuss it within the BGC, and also with WMF, to
> establish the needs, as well as possibilities.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Kat.  That was very informative, and of course, my sharing my
> > frustrating experience was merely an attempt to use this chance to draw
> > attention to that issue (not the person, but what you described as type
> 4),
> > not an attempt to provide the full context you just did. :)
> >
> > (and your e-mail reminded me of Ms. Hagemann's being (er, having been) on
> > our AB, and gives me a chance to amend my earlier statement; she is an
> > example of a fantastically valuable ally whom I, too, had a chance to
> > benefit from, in several impromptu conversations, most recently a few
> > months ago, in Delhi.)
> >
> >A.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Kat Walsh 
> wrote:
> >
> > > The advisory board basically never gets used as a group (and IMO it
> > > wouldn't really make sense to). In my experience, people named to the
> > > list fill one of a few functions:
> > >
> > > 1. Big Names who don't have the time to commit to being on the board
> > > or are otherwise unsuited to being one of the main decision-makers,
> > > but whose formal association with the project makes sense and is
> > > beneficial. (I think of Clay Shirky as one of these: he is busy with
> > > his existing work, but he is a great champion of the projects; he's
> > > given presentations and press mentions that were helpful, consults on
> > > some issues, and has offered his university's resources.)
> > >
> > > 2. People who are prominent in some area relevant to the projects and
> > > whose work touches on it, who offer their expertise in their
> > > particular domain and may be all but invisible to others. (Melissa
> > > Hagemann is an example--she is prominent in open access and the people
> > > working in that domain have worked with her, but people outside of it
> > > may not see her work.)
> > >
> > > 3. People who have held high-level formal roles within WMF and whose
> > > continued connection is recognized through being named an advisor. In
> > > an organization with Senior Fellows, this is probably what we would be
> > > called; it basically recognizes that although these people no longer
> > > hold their roles, they continue to be supporters and advisors and
> > > would like to continue to be available to offer their input and
> > > expertise. I fall into this role, for example, and the structure of
> > > having the formal connection makes it easier for current board and
> > > staff to call on me. (FWIW, I was named to the advisory board by a
> > > resolution after my term ended, though I see the page is poorly-enough
> > > maintained that I'm not listed.)
> > >
> > > 4. People we hoped would fall into one of these roles, but who have
> > > not actually kept up the relationship or whose guidance turned out not
> > > to meet our needs.
> > >
> > > It is useful to have a formal structure to call on people for their
> > > help; most of the help the AB members provided in my experience was
> > > through 1-on-1 consultation (more by Sue than by myself). But I think
> > > there are more people in category 4 than there ought to be. The
> > > renewal mechanism was intended to make it easier to graceully remove
> > > people who fell into that category without making it feel like they
> > > were "fired", but as it turns out if you renew some but not others,
> > > people will feel that way no matter how gracefully you try to do it,
> > > and probably not wrongly--and since they are all people who were
> > > originally named because of a desire to strengthen the relationship,
> > > souring it by ending their terms is a very difficult thing to do,
> > > especially when it is easy to keep them.
> > >
> > > Yes, the advisory board is invited to Wikimania with travel expenses
> > > covered, though of the few members who come, some pay their own way
> > > anyhow; the financial cost is relatively small. (I would say I made a
> > > principled stand to pay my own way last year, but really I just
> > > waffled over it for a while until it was late enough that I'd have
> > > been embarrassed to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advisory board

[Anthony Cole]

Andreas, yes. We have a limited number of voting trustees. The affiliates
and the community throw up well-respected voting trustees with a lot of
chapter and project experience, but we're not getting the diversity or
range of experience we need from them. When it comes to selecting voting
members - who will decide the vision and long-term goals of the
organisation - the board needs to choose people with deep expertise in
education, knowledge, volunteer-led nonprofit governance and third world
knowledge-distribution issues.

A smaller, highly-engaged and highly-valued advisory board, peopled by IT,
finance, HR and other technical experts who can keep an eye on those
aspects of the WMF, would leave room for the board to appoint trustees who
bring novel (or just informed) philosophical and educational insights from
outside our movement, and outside the global north to help better chart and
monitor our course to our shared vision.


Anthony Cole


On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've never understood why corporate appointees like Guy Kawasaki or the
> just-departed Arnnon Geshuri are voting board members, instead of being on
> the Advisory Board.
>
> The board structure needs to be revised, and brought in line with basic
> democratic principles.
>
> Andreas
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

[Anthony Cole]

Welcome back Maria. Recent events have shed a much-needed bright light on
the board, and it would have been good to hold a community election in that
light. We do have a limited volunteer capacity to manage elections, though,
and I can understand the desire not to impose too much on volunteer
goodwill. A shame, though. We all might have learned something from the
process.

On Saturday, 30 January 2016, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, why not make the best of both worlds?
>
> If you need another Trustee immediately, well...I don't really think that,
> you have a quorum without it. And an appointed trustee who lost a community
> election is not a community elected trustee. It is insulting to say that
> they are. James Heilman was the community trustee, and we still have been
> given absolutely no specifics about his removal, just vague handwaves at
> "lack of trust". Why, specifically, did he lose your trust? What,
> specifically, did he supposedly do wrong?
>
> But if the seat absolutely must be filled, make this an interim appointment
> until a new election is complete, and hold such an election as soon as
> possible. A new election is necessary, and not having one is unacceptable.
> A lot has changed since the last one, and the individual you appointed did
> not pass the previous election.
>
> Or in other words: This is still not acceptable.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Adam Wight <adam.m.wi...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM Tomasz W. Kozlowski <
> > tom...@twkozlowski.com <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Considering the results of the 2015 May Board elections, I think it
> fair
> > > to say that María’s appointment to the Board lacks any community
> > legitimacy
> > > whatsoever.
> >
> >
> > I have to disagree with this statement.  Please see my analysis of the
> > election, where I show that Sefidari would have been the top-ranked
> > candidate if we had counted votes equally.[1]  The "oppose" votes you
> refer
> > to are not serving the purpose you imagine they are, of weeding out
> > controversial candidates.
> >
> > Yet another hugely surprising decision from the Board, I’m sorry to say.
> > >
> >
> > That's another story... It would be nice to read the minutes of this
> Board
> > discussion, to see what alternatives were raised and how they were
> > evaluated.  It would be even nicer if the broader community had been
> > directly involved in deciding how to backfill their hatcheted
> > representative's seat.
> >
> > -Adam
> > [[mw:User:Adamw]]
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamw/Draft/Board_Election_analysis
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On boards and good governance: The Bottom Line

[Anthony Cole]

That was enlightening. Thank you Andy.

Anthony Cole


On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:

> Given recent issues, I found last night's episode of 'The Bottom Line':
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bottom_Line_%28radio_programme%29
>
> a BBC Radio 4 discussion & BBC World Service programme, most interesting.
>
> Although its topic was the role of boards of directors of commercial
> companies, much of what it had to say about the selection and training
> of appropriate board members, and issues such as diversity,
> skill-matching, and group psychology, was more generally applicable.
>
> The episode, titled 'Managing the Boardroom', is available on BBC iPlayer:
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06yfm8d
>
> and as a podcast:
>
>
> http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/redir/version/2.0/mediaset/audio-nondrm-download/proto/http/vpid/p03gqtgh.mp3
>
> One of the panellists, Margaret Heffernan:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Heffernan
>
> has written on similar issues.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

Thank you Lila. That's very clear, and I think it's a worthwhile project,
exactly in line with our shared vision.

Anthony Cole


On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Thank you, Sarah for an excellent question.  Sometimes I compare Wikimedia
> with an iceberg, only a small portion is visible.
>
> When we started investigating this problem we found out that nearly 30% of
> searches on Wikipedia return no results at all. That motivated us to dig
> deeper.
>
> Since then we've made our first improvements (by about  1 million  searches
> a day) , but we have a very long way to go...especially searching across
> sites. Commons for example is a very tough one that we will need to help
> one day.
>
> I encourage you to read through,  I tried to explain our thinking the best
> I could,  but I can always use help :)
>
> Lila
>
> sent from mobile. please excuse typos.
> On Jan 29, 2016 3:50 PM, "SarahSV" <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I
> only
> > have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as
> an
> > editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
> > search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself,
> are
> > regularly not returned. Sometimes for reasons I can't fathom; sometimes
> > because I've mistyped something.
> >
> > It's the same with Siri on iPhone. I ask it something that I know is on
> > Wikipedia and it can't seem to find it. Or it will return a link to
> > articles in which certain terms appear. But people don't want to have to
> > look at whole articles.
> >
> > We have this enormous and wonderful amount of knowledge to some extent
> > trapped inside Wikipedia. How do we unlock it? How do we teach computers
> > how to find and deliver it? In future, could Wikipedia reply to questions
> > on people's phones, instead of Siri?
> >
> > This kind of research sounds very exciting, and the Foundation is
> > well-placed to do it.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Anthony,
> > >
> > > I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as
> much
> > > as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as
> well
> > as
> > > to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize
> many
> > > people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the
> > > statement of work cut and pasted there.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser_talk%3ALilaTretikov_%28WMF%29%23Knowledge_Engine_grant=D=1=AFQjCNHbv_CPFd5d3dh7WKET5YlNSZvHdA
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hope this answers some of your questions,
> > > Lila
> > >
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advisory board

[Anthony Cole]

OK. I see "Advisory Board members will be appointed for a term commencing
on the day of appointment until the conclusion of the first in-person Board
meeting in the following year, unless otherwise declined, revoked or
renewed." [1] and no advisory board appointments were made in 2015. [2] So,
there is no advisory board. Would someone with rights please update the
relevant WMF site page? [3]

1.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Amending_the_Term_of_Advisory_Board_Members
2. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
3. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board

On Friday, 29 January 2016, Tanvir Rahman <wikitan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As far as I heard, the WMF employees and Board use the advisory board
> according to their need. Sometimes they are share their thoughts as a team,
> sometimes individually, according to their expertise.
>
> I have mentioned to an adviser once that it would be better to have a group
> submission from the Wikimedia advisory board in the Wikimania to fill-in
> the community about their work and need. How do they work/collaborate and
> so on. It does not need to share anything confidential or something, but it
> helps the community a lot how this mechanism functions.
>
> T.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>